| |
Main
Date: 03 Nov 2007 00:56:01
From: Mike Kruger
Subject: Fat people? Less gas!
|
According to a study by Charles Courtemanche, an additional $1 per gallon in
real gasoline prices would reduce U.S. obesity by 15 percent after five
years.
http://improbable.com/2007/10/30/fat-people-have-less-gas/
--
Mike Kruger
Go ahead, threaten me like you have the American people for so long! You're
part of a dying breed, Hapsburg, like people who can name all fifty states!
The truth hurts, doesn't it, Hapsburg? Oh sure, maybe not as much as landing
on a bicycle with the seat missing, but it hurts! [Naked Gun 2-1/2]
|
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 09:09:01
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Lee Ayrton wrote:
>
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>
> > Richard Evans wrote:
> >>
> >> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> I wouldn't buy such a vehicle in any case. Even at that, when I do buy
> >>>> my next car, the cost of gas won't enter into it unless I can find one
> >>>> that meets my needs in all other respects. My "car" is actually a
> >>>> compact pickup truck. I've been driving pickups since 1973 and don't
> >>>> ever plan to buy anything else. When they come out with a small pickup
> >>>> that does what I want AND gets 30mpg, then we'll talk.
> >>>>
> >>> Why not have a pickup for taking stuff to the landfill, and a small high
> >>> mileage vehicle for the daily commute? Why not "right fit" driving?
> >>
> >> Because I'm semi-retired and don't commute. Even if I did, you're
> >> asking me to spend even more than I outlined in the equation I posted
> >> earlier. Now you want me to have *two* cars to pay for and maintain
> >> just to save a few bucks on gas.
> >>
> > Because the costs of two cars might not be that much more than one. One
> > change that is needed is in the insurance costs which today are higher
> > for two cars even though you can obviously only drive one at a time.
>
> Not to suggest that two vehicles "right-sized" for different purposes is
> or isn't a good idea, but in my neck of the woods vehicles registered for
> over the road use are subject to property tax. It adds up.
>
What I'm saying is that people should be encouraged to "right size"
their vehicles for the particular job by making it as innocuous as
possible, reducing extra costs as much as possible. So you shouldn't
have to pay more for your insurance, or not much more, you shouldn't
have to pay "property tax" on your second vehicle. If starting all this
out just with EVs is needed, fine.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 17:25:29
From: Jerry Bauer
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 09:09:01 -0800, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote
(in article <473342AD.CF44CFB3@yahoo.co.uk >):
>
>
> Lee Ayrton wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>
>>> Richard Evans wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I wouldn't buy such a vehicle in any case. Even at that, when I do buy
>>>>>> my next car, the cost of gas won't enter into it unless I can find one
>>>>>> that meets my needs in all other respects. My "car" is actually a
>>>>>> compact pickup truck. I've been driving pickups since 1973 and don't
>>>>>> ever plan to buy anything else. When they come out with a small pickup
>>>>>> that does what I want AND gets 30mpg, then we'll talk.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Why not have a pickup for taking stuff to the landfill, and a small high
>>>>> mileage vehicle for the daily commute? Why not "right fit" driving?
>>>>
>>>> Because I'm semi-retired and don't commute. Even if I did, you're
>>>> asking me to spend even more than I outlined in the equation I posted
>>>> earlier. Now you want me to have *two* cars to pay for and maintain
>>>> just to save a few bucks on gas.
>>>>
>>> Because the costs of two cars might not be that much more than one. One
>>> change that is needed is in the insurance costs which today are higher
>>> for two cars even though you can obviously only drive one at a time.
>>
>> Not to suggest that two vehicles "right-sized" for different purposes is
>> or isn't a good idea, but in my neck of the woods vehicles registered for
>> over the road use are subject to property tax. It adds up.
>>
> What I'm saying is that people should be encouraged to "right size"
> their vehicles for the particular job by making it as innocuous as
> possible, reducing extra costs as much as possible. So you shouldn't
> have to pay more for your insurance, or not much more, you shouldn't
> have to pay "property tax" on your second vehicle. If starting all this
> out just with EVs is needed, fine.
What I'm saying (for the first time in this thread) is that people
*do* "right size" their vehicles, for the desired purposes. However,
those purposes are not always strictly, objectively, utilitarian.
What's more, the shared costs borne by the larger community are not
necessarily efficiently nor equitable shared. This allows owners of
some kinds of vehicle to externalize more of their costs than others.
This is probably not a major component of the costs of vehicle
ownership.
For example, 'way back in the seventies, when Mercedes (and later,
Volkswagen) introduced consumer diesel passenger cars, the price of
diesel fuel was such that it was more economical than gasoline for
the same effect. Now, diesel and gasoline are competitive at
cost/mile for passenger vehicles. What changed?
For another example, when I first bought a pickup truck in
California, 'way back in the seventies, it was by default licensed as
a commercial vehicle, even though I never intended to use it a such.
Because it was so licensed, it was legal to park it in a marked
loading zone; this was not the case for a passenger car.
--
Jerry Randal Bauer
|
| | | |
Date: 10 Nov 2007 22:39:51
From: Greg Goss
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Jerry Bauer <usenet@bauerstar.com > wrote:
>For another example, when I first bought a pickup truck in
>California, 'way back in the seventies, it was by default licensed as
>a commercial vehicle, even though I never intended to use it a such.
>Because it was so licensed, it was legal to park it in a marked
>loading zone; this was not the case for a passenger car.
Interesting. In Vancouver, Canada, you had to buy a plate from the
city to be a "commercial" vehicle. A friend had commercial plates on
his $300 beater station wagon so he could park in alleys on his
janitorial business rounds. The provincial registration didn't
change, I don't think.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 17:59:09
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Jerry Bauer wrote:
>
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 09:09:01 -0800, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote
> (in article <473342AD.CF44CFB3@yahoo.co.uk>):
>
> >
> >
> > Lee Ayrton wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >>
> >>> Richard Evans wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> I wouldn't buy such a vehicle in any case. Even at that, when I do buy
> >>>>>> my next car, the cost of gas won't enter into it unless I can find one
> >>>>>> that meets my needs in all other respects. My "car" is actually a
> >>>>>> compact pickup truck. I've been driving pickups since 1973 and don't
> >>>>>> ever plan to buy anything else. When they come out with a small pickup
> >>>>>> that does what I want AND gets 30mpg, then we'll talk.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Why not have a pickup for taking stuff to the landfill, and a small high
> >>>>> mileage vehicle for the daily commute? Why not "right fit" driving?
> >>>>
> >>>> Because I'm semi-retired and don't commute. Even if I did, you're
> >>>> asking me to spend even more than I outlined in the equation I posted
> >>>> earlier. Now you want me to have *two* cars to pay for and maintain
> >>>> just to save a few bucks on gas.
> >>>>
> >>> Because the costs of two cars might not be that much more than one. One
> >>> change that is needed is in the insurance costs which today are higher
> >>> for two cars even though you can obviously only drive one at a time.
> >>
> >> Not to suggest that two vehicles "right-sized" for different purposes is
> >> or isn't a good idea, but in my neck of the woods vehicles registered for
> >> over the road use are subject to property tax. It adds up.
> >>
> > What I'm saying is that people should be encouraged to "right size"
> > their vehicles for the particular job by making it as innocuous as
> > possible, reducing extra costs as much as possible. So you shouldn't
> > have to pay more for your insurance, or not much more, you shouldn't
> > have to pay "property tax" on your second vehicle. If starting all this
> > out just with EVs is needed, fine.
>
> What I'm saying (for the first time in this thread) is that people
> *do* "right size" their vehicles, for the desired purposes. However,
> those purposes are not always strictly, objectively, utilitarian.
>
I'm using "right size" to mean having more than one vehicle and choosing
the right one for the specific use.
> What's more, the shared costs borne by the larger community are not
> necessarily efficiently nor equitable shared. This allows owners of
> some kinds of vehicle to externalize more of their costs than others.
> This is probably not a major component of the costs of vehicle
> ownership.
>
> For example, 'way back in the seventies, when Mercedes (and later,
> Volkswagen) introduced consumer diesel passenger cars, the price of
> diesel fuel was such that it was more economical than gasoline for
> the same effect. Now, diesel and gasoline are competitive at
> cost/mile for passenger vehicles. What changed?
>
There was more demand for diesel as the importance of mileage mattered
more.
> For another example, when I first bought a pickup truck in
> California, 'way back in the seventies, it was by default licensed as
> a commercial vehicle, even though I never intended to use it a such.
> Because it was so licensed, it was legal to park it in a marked
> loading zone; this was not the case for a passenger car.
>
You mean a loading and unloading zone, Central Scrutinizer?
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 21:43:17
From: Richard Evans
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk > wrote:
>>
>> What I'm saying (for the first time in this thread) is that people
>> *do* "right size" their vehicles, for the desired purposes. However,
>> those purposes are not always strictly, objectively, utilitarian.
>>
>I'm using "right size" to mean having more than one vehicle and choosing
>the right one for the specific use.
I think we understand that. We just reject it as impractical.
|
| |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 19:08:42
From: Lee Ayrton
Subject: Re: In the eye of the keyholder WAS: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:
> Lee Ayrton wrote:
>> On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> Would a 15 year old Toyota, Honda or Nissan sedan be considered exotic? I
>>> think not.
>>
>> Not "exotic" no, but in my neighborhood any of the above would be
>> considered "desirable" by those with a fondness for megaphone exhaust
>> pipes, spinning wheel covers, giant window decals and kilowatt sound
>> systems.
>
> I suspect "those" are in the 16-25 year old age range?
Of course. Who else?
--
"We began to realize, as we plowed on with the destruction of New Jersey,
that the extent of our American lunatic fringe had been underestimated."
Orson Wells on the reaction to the _War Of The Worlds_ broadcast.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 23:46:48
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: In the eye of the keyholder WAS: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Lee Ayrton wrote:
>
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Lee Ayrton wrote:
>>> On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:
>
>>>> Would a 15 year old Toyota, Honda or Nissan sedan be considered
>>>> exotic? I think not.
>>>
>>> Not "exotic" no, but in my neighborhood any of the above would be
>>> considered "desirable" by those with a fondness for megaphone exhaust
>>> pipes, spinning wheel covers, giant window decals and kilowatt sound
>>> systems.
>>
>> I suspect "those" are in the 16-25 year old age range?
>
> Of course. Who else?
I saw I ratty Corolla FX this morning - some dents, rust, damage bumper
covers and body panels painted in primer. The car had a huge translucent
Toyota sticker that covered the entire rear window and a bright chrome
oversize exhaust.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| |
Date: 06 Nov 2007 10:09:39
From: Lee Ayrton
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> Claire Petersky wrote:
>>
>> <artyw2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1194207455.898515.239350@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> Yeah, but they'd have to walk to the bus stop, and then, they'd have to walk
>> from the bus stop to wherever they were going, and that'd be more walking
>> then they'd do now, and they'd weigh less.
>>
> Now they just have to walk all around the Walmart, "Hey, where the hell
> did I park my damned car!?" At least the bus is in the same place every
> time.
That's the great conundrum about Merican drivers: They won't park in the
city because they might have to walk 1,000 feet to where they're going,
but they will park in an ocean-sized shopping mall lot and walk 1,500 to
get to where they're going.
Lee "Eeeeew. It's too faaaar..." Ayrton
--
"We began to realize, as we plowed on with the destruction of New Jersey,
that the extent of our American lunatic fringe had been underestimated."
Orson Wells on the reaction to the _War Of The Worlds_ broadcast.
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 11:23:21
From: Brian Huntley
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Nov 4, 9:36 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com >
wrote:
> Brian Huntley wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 5:31 pm, Zoot Katz <zootk...@operamail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Vancouver was used as an example of a walkable city and it has the
> >> lowest obesity rates among Canadian cities.
>
> > Vancouver also has a high ratio of people who work early in the day,
> > and knock off early. Not only does that leave more time for
> > recreation, but it seems to be a healthier lifestyle....
>
> In the US, going to work early, still means getting off late.
Same thing in Toronto, sadly.
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 10:41:58
From:
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Nov 3, 6:57 pm, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com > wrote:
> Hactar wrote:
> > In article <Xns99DCD8398AB83s...@192.160.13.20>,
> > sally <sa...@sally.com> wrote:
> >> What is the average adult weight in countries with much higher gasoline
> >> prices than the USA? Last time I visited England and Germany, I did not see
> >> huge numbers of skinny people.
>
> > These countries also have people with different physiognomies, and
> > mostly speak other languages. Should all of these factors have equal
> > weight? Why or why not? Discuss.
>
> I have read in one print magazine that the cause of obesity in most
> first-world countries is not usually lack of exercise, but an imbalanced
> diet. Many of the persons studied could afford a healthier diet, they
> just made poor choices for their food intake.
> ~
They should have had more salad in their "All you can eat" buffet?
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 11:20:21
From: Lee Ayrton
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Charles Bishop wrote:
> In article <472F65E2.872859B@yahoo.co.uk>, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
>> Charles Bishop wrote:
>>> In article <472E1271.815395F9@yahoo.co.uk>, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
>>>> Charles Bishop wrote:
>>>>> In article <Pine.NEB.4.64.0711031716110.3960@panix1.panix.com>, Lee Ayrton
>>>>
>>>>>> I'd like to think so and, if history is any guide, some will drive
>>>>>> smaller, more sensible vehicles. A second effect could be a tidal change
>>>>>> away from long commutes, with people living closer to their workplace.
>>>>>> But some Murricans will demand and get higher wages to cover their higher
>>>>>> commute cost, which will inevitably lead to inflation and an eventual
>>>>>> return to something approaching current costs in constant dollars.
>>>>>
>>>>> How does having a higher commute cost translate into higher wages? If they
>>>>> can demand (and get) higher wages just for having a more costly commute,
>>>>> why can't they demand (and get) higher wages just because? If a company
>>>>> wants to keep a valued employee because they have a more expensive
>>>>> commute, they would want to keep her if she lived closer and the salary
>>>>> would reflect this, so just having a longer commute won't mean higher
>>>>> wages.
>>>>>
>>>> Except that the worker is more likely to decide not to work at that
>>>> place unless they are paid more because of their higher costs.
>>>
>>> Sure, but that doesn't mean they automatically get it. Also if they're
>>> worth the salary + commuting costs if they live far away, they are worth
>>> that if they walk to work.
>>>
>> You are right. But sometimes you have to pay people more to take a job
>> that lacks some benefits or something that they'd get somewhere else.
>> This is just competition.
>
> Sure, for individuals. If I want Bill Bonde to work for me and he says, I
> like where I live and don't want to move, can I have an additional
> $10,000/year to offset travel time and costs, I'll say yes. However,
> uppost, Lee is saying that this is a general case - if anyone has travel
> costs, then they will get paid more than someone who doesn't. This isn't
> true. The company will evaluate whether each case is worth it, but
> everyone won't get the money.
You've misunderstood my comment. Faced with higher transportation costs
workers /will/ be hungry higher income. This is not individual workers
who march into the manager's office and scream "I drive 50 miles each way
in a Behemoth that gets 10 MPG so pay me more money, sucker." This is
more general, companies finding that they can no longer attract or retain
employees at the current wage offered.
There are ways to demand without pounding on a desk.
>> I'm pretty sure that unions, in the auto industry say, in the 70s,
>> generated wage inflation with their endlessly escalating demands for
>> mo'.
>
> If we're limiting inflation to one patricular sector, then maybe. It would
> depend on how large the percentage of union workers was. However with a
> fixed amount of money rising costs in wages, say will have to be offset by
> reductions in something else, so there is no general rise in prices.
Neither of you have mentioned increased retail pricing as a means of
increasing executive compensation and company profit -- labor is not the
only agent affecting cost, even if it is the easiest to cut and the most
fun to bash. I believe the throbbing red example is the circa 1980s
increase by the record industry of LP pricing, not because of increased
cost but simply because they _could_.
--
"We began to realize, as we plowed on with the destruction of New Jersey,
that the extent of our American lunatic fringe had been underestimated."
Orson Wells on the reaction to the _War Of The Worlds_ broadcast.
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 15:20:05
From:
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Nov 5, 3:05 am, r15...@aol.com wrote:
> On Nov 4, 2:30 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> > BTW, in my younger days, I drove many thousands of miles in a
> > Volkswagon van. That's the vehicle Road & Track magazine pitted
> > against the Goodyear Blimp in a comparison test.
>
> > I don't recall which accelerated more quickly, but it must have been
> > close. And still, I always did fine merging onto freeways.
>
> > - Frank Krygowski
>
> Those things don't last two weeks in the mountains.
Oh, I'm not saying they were good vehicles! Only that a person can
live just fine with lousy acceleration.
Although a friend and I did a trip around the US in one, including
many miles in the Rockies. And my young family and I used ours for
many, many trips in the Appalachians. Its problems didn't seem to
come from mountains. Rather, from swallowing an exhaust valve one
time, and a bit of its carburetor another time. :-(
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 15:13:58
From:
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Nov 5, 2:00 am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me > wrote:
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>
> > Tom Sherman wrote:
> >> Well, I have never wanted to be a business manager, since it mostly
> >> involves attempting to pay others less than fair value for their
> >> products or services. Capitalism generally rewards the worst behaved.
> > What sort of system would you suggest?
>
> Whiners Whin. LOL
>
> Bill "don't hold your breath" S.
Another typical post by our Paris Hilton emulator! Brainless
statement, failed attempt at cuteness.
But even Paris does it better, Bill.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 10:06:50
From: Lee Ayrton
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:
>> I pay retail. Seriously, I don't do cars.
>
> I have found paying others to fix old cars to be a losing proposition. You
> put a lot of money in, and still do not have something good afterwards.
I have found that paying others to fix my car is a desirable situation.
I put a reasonable amount of money in and still have skin on my knuckles
afterwards. In the past year or so I've paid to replace brakes,
suspension parts, a water pump, a radiator, an AC compressor -- I don't
have the tools for some of these tasks, a desire to lay on my back working
on something that will drip in my eye for others or, in the case of the
water pump, an urgent longing to remove everything in front of the part
just to get to it.
Vehicle: 1996 Jeep Cherokee, 180K.
--
"We began to realize, as we plowed on with the destruction of New Jersey,
that the extent of our American lunatic fringe had been underestimated."
Orson Wells on the reaction to the _War Of The Worlds_ broadcast.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 05:28:02
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Lee Ayrton wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:
>
>>> I pay retail. Seriously, I don't do cars.
>>
>> I have found paying others to fix old cars to be a losing proposition.
>> You put a lot of money in, and still do not have something good
>> afterwards.
>
> I have found that paying others to fix my car is a desirable situation.
> I put a reasonable amount of money in and still have skin on my knuckles
> afterwards. In the past year or so I've paid to replace brakes,
> suspension parts, a water pump, a radiator, an AC compressor -- I don't
> have the tools for some of these tasks, a desire to lay on my back
> working on something that will drip in my eye for others or, in the case
> of the water pump, an urgent longing to remove everything in front of
> the part just to get to it.
>
> Vehicle: 1996 Jeep Cherokee, 180K.
More repairs than I would want to deal with. This appears to be a normal
amount of repair considering vehicle age and mileage. How many days was
the vehicle out of commision for repairs, and did you get a loaner vehicle?
Note that none of these repairs increased the book value of the vehicle.
If a drunk smashed it up, the amount paid by insurance would be the same
as if all these items had not been fixed and the vehicle was limping
along. (Been there, done that - having the vehicle smashed by a drunk.)
I agree about having others do the work, since I have neither the space,
specialize tools and specialize knowledge to repair a modern vehicle. In
the past I have done enough repairs in an unheated garage to last for
one lifetime.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 15:01:32
From:
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Nov 5, 12:34 am, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com >
wrote:
> Every used vehicle I have owned has required frequent and expensive
> repairs. I refuse to gamble by going down that road again.
>
> I don't have time to screw around waiting for tow trucks, renting cars
> while mine is fixed, waiting by the side of the road in West Grain
> Elevator Iowa, taking calls from people wanting to know why the hell I
> did not show up on time, etc.
Sounds to me like you need to stop buying used Yugos and start buying
used Hondas!
Seriously, whatever your general preference in cars, I think it makes
good sense to check out the reliability ratings in Consumer Reports'
annual "car issue." Your library will have it.
I don't take CR's word as gospel. There are many things I've seen
them get wrong, IMO and IME. But the car reliability ratings come
directly from surveys of their subscribers, and the cars my family has
bought, based on those ratings, have always been very good - at least,
until they got to be ten years old or so.
As an example, there are two 1990 vehicles in the family: my Honda and
my daughter's Nissan truck. She did finally start having fairly
costly problems with the Nissan, but even so, the repairs were less
than new car payments. The Honda's most expensive problems to date
have been replacing an alternator and replacing the stereo. And I did
both those jobs myself, installing junk yard parts.
Admittedly, the Honda's 'low mileage' - only 97,000 or so.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 05:17:34
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
frkrygow@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Nov 5, 12:34 am, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Every used vehicle I have owned has required frequent and expensive
>> repairs. I refuse to gamble by going down that road again.
>>
>> I don't have time to screw around waiting for tow trucks, renting cars
>> while mine is fixed, waiting by the side of the road in West Grain
>> Elevator Iowa, taking calls from people wanting to know why the hell I
>> did not show up on time, etc.
>
> Sounds to me like you need to stop buying used Yugos and start buying
> used Hondas!
Never owned a Yugo. I do not count the MG Midget I used to own, since it
is well known that British Leyland was incapable of making a reliable
vehicle. However, the used VW's I have had were disappointing in their
durability and reliability.
> Seriously, whatever your general preference in cars, I think it makes
> good sense to check out the reliability ratings in Consumer Reports'
> annual "car issue." Your library will have it.
>
> I don't take CR's word as gospel. There are many things I've seen
> them get wrong, IMO and IME. But the car reliability ratings come
> directly from surveys of their subscribers, and the cars my family has
> bought, based on those ratings, have always been very good - at least,
> until they got to be ten years old or so.
>
> As an example, there are two 1990 vehicles in the family: my Honda and
> my daughter's Nissan truck. She did finally start having fairly
> costly problems with the Nissan, but even so, the repairs were less
> than new car payments. The Honda's most expensive problems to date
> have been replacing an alternator and replacing the stereo. And I did
> both those jobs myself, installing junk yard parts.
>
> Admittedly, the Honda's 'low mileage' - only 97,000 or so.
My last Honda was reliable until I left it parked for almost a year
outdoors (by necessity, not choice), after which I had corrosion
problems with the rear brakes. However, starting at about 100,000 miles
and extending to 160,000 miles, I had to replace the exhaust (twice),
shift linkage and tailgate hinges due to corrosion. The water pump and
timing belt were expensive manufacturer recommended replacements at
100,000 miles. I had an expensive air conditioner hose replacement and
system recharge. The rear wiper and electrical speedometer stopped
working after 150,000 miles. All the brake rotors needed to be replaced
due to wear during that period also.
In retrospect, I should have traded the car in at 90,000 miles, while it
still looked good (like most 1990s Honda's, it rusted at the top of the
rear wheel wells).
When I looked at used Honda's a couple of years ago, they were only a
couple of thousand dollars less than a new car due to low depreciation.
I actually ended up paying less for a new 2005 Civic due to
manufacturers incentives, since the redesigned 2006 Civic had just come out.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 09:53:56
From: Lee Ayrton
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:
> Bob Ward wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 20:33:58 -0600, Tom Sherman
>> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Where does one find insurance for more than market value?
>>>
>>> Putting away money does not solve the problem that if one has an older,
>>> well maintained, but not collectible car, one will NOT get fair value if
>>> it is wrecked, since book value is based on "average" condition for its
>>> age.
>>
>> It's called "Agreed value Insurance" in the collector car industry,
>> and it ids often employed for rare or customized vehicles for which
>> there is no established market price. It's not a case of insuring for
>> more than it's worth,. it's all about agreeing in advance what it IS
>> worth.
>
> Can I get this at a reasonable rate for something that was made in the
> hundreds of thousands?
It depends on the age for mass-produced vehicles, so far as I can see the
usual starting point is 25 years and older. Too, my agreed-value insurer
requires that I have a primary vehicle with regular commerical insurance.
The only other real restrictions for me are locked storage and absolutely
no racing.
--
"We began to realize, as we plowed on with the destruction of New Jersey,
that the extent of our American lunatic fringe had been underestimated."
Orson Wells on the reaction to the _War Of The Worlds_ broadcast.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 05:31:16
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Lee Ayrton wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:
>
>> Bob Ward wrote:
>>> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 20:33:58 -0600, Tom Sherman
>>> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Where does one find insurance for more than market value?
>>>>
>>>> Putting away money does not solve the problem that if one has an
>>>> older, well maintained, but not collectible car, one will NOT get
>>>> fair value if it is wrecked, since book value is based on "average"
>>>> condition for its age.
>>>
>>> It's called "Agreed value Insurance" in the collector car industry,
>>> and it ids often employed for rare or customized vehicles for which
>>> there is no established market price. It's not a case of insuring for
>>> more than it's worth,. it's all about agreeing in advance what it IS
>>> worth.
>>
>> Can I get this at a reasonable rate for something that was made in the
>> hundreds of thousands?
>
> It depends on the age for mass-produced vehicles, so far as I can see
> the usual starting point is 25 years and older. Too, my agreed-value
> insurer requires that I have a primary vehicle with regular commerical
> insurance.
> The only other real restrictions for me are locked storage and
> absolutely no racing.
For me, individual locked storage would be a deal breaker, as it would
raise my housing costs by $400-500 per month, which is more than my
combined car payments, maintenance and fuel costs.
Anything more than 25 years old is either going to be junk, or a
collectible vehicle that should not be driven in winter salt slush.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 09:50:33
From: Lee Ayrton
Subject: In the eye of the keyholder WAS: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:
> Bob Ward wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 19:35:35 -0600, Tom Sherman
>> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Not the way it works. Insurance policies do not pay more than book value
>>> to replace a car, especially the policies of others who damage your car.
>>
>> That depends on the insurance policy you buy - just like jewelry and
>> artwork, it's not uncommon for exotic cars to be insured for far more
>> than "book" value, which is, after all, based on the average car in
>> average condition.
>>
> Would a 15 year old Toyota, Honda or Nissan sedan be considered exotic? I
> think not.
Not "exotic" no, but in my neighborhood any of the above would be
considered "desirable" by those with a fondness for megaphone exhaust
pipes, spinning wheel covers, giant window decals and kilowatt sound
systems.
--
"We began to realize, as we plowed on with the destruction of New Jersey,
that the extent of our American lunatic fringe had been underestimated."
Orson Wells on the reaction to the _War Of The Worlds_ broadcast.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 05:40:43
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: In the eye of the keyholder WAS: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Lee Ayrton wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:
>
>> Bob Ward wrote:
>>> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 19:35:35 -0600, Tom Sherman
>>> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not the way it works. Insurance policies do not pay more than book
>>>> value to replace a car, especially the policies of others who damage
>>>> your car.
>>>
>>> That depends on the insurance policy you buy - just like jewelry and
>>> artwork, it's not uncommon for exotic cars to be insured for far more
>>> than "book" value, which is, after all, based on the average car in
>>> average condition.
>>>
>> Would a 15 year old Toyota, Honda or Nissan sedan be considered
>> exotic? I think not.
>
> Not "exotic" no, but in my neighborhood any of the above would be
> considered "desirable" by those with a fondness for megaphone exhaust
> pipes, spinning wheel covers, giant window decals and kilowatt sound
> systems.
I suspect "those" are in the 16-25 year old age range?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 08:05:41
From:
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Nov 4, 2:30 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 4, 2:54 pm, Richard Evans <info...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > Opus the Penguin <opusthepenguin+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> I said that gas economy is low on my list and I wouldn't even
> > >> consider it unless the vehicle met my other needs. One of those
> > >> needs is decent highway acceleration, which I wouldn't get out of
> > >> a 2L.
>
> > >Why do you consider that a "need"? How much more are you willing to
> > >pay to have this need met?
>
> > I've already answered that multiple times. Move on.
>
> I must have missed the "multiple times." The only answer I recall was
> that you didn't want to talk about maximum acceleration - but that you
> needed enough acceleration to safely merge onto a freeway.
>
> Care to try again?
>
> BTW, in my younger days, I drove many thousands of miles in a
> Volkswagon van. That's the vehicle Road & Track magazine pitted
> against the Goodyear Blimp in a comparison test.
>
> I don't recall which accelerated more quickly, but it must have been
> close. And still, I always did fine merging onto freeways.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
Those things don't last two weeks in the mountains.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 03:42:12
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
r15757@aol.com wrote:
> On Nov 4, 2:30 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Nov 4, 2:54 pm, Richard Evans <info...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Opus the Penguin <opusthepenguin+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> I said that gas economy is low on my list and I wouldn't even
>>>>> consider it unless the vehicle met my other needs. One of those
>>>>> needs is decent highway acceleration, which I wouldn't get out of
>>>>> a 2L.
>>>> Why do you consider that a "need"? How much more are you willing to
>>>> pay to have this need met?
>>> I've already answered that multiple times. Move on.
>> I must have missed the "multiple times." The only answer I recall was
>> that you didn't want to talk about maximum acceleration - but that you
>> needed enough acceleration to safely merge onto a freeway.
>>
>> Care to try again?
>>
>> BTW, in my younger days, I drove many thousands of miles in a
>> Volkswagon van. That's the vehicle Road & Track magazine pitted
>> against the Goodyear Blimp in a comparison test.
>>
>> I don't recall which accelerated more quickly, but it must have been
>> close. And still, I always did fine merging onto freeways.
>>
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
> Those things don't last two weeks in the mountains.
>
At the speed a loaded VW Type II climbs at, it would take more than 2
weeks to cross the mountains! (Only moderate exaggeration.)
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 05:07:21
From: Veronique
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Nov 4, 9:03 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com >
wrote:
> Bob Ward wrote:
> > On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 19:35:35 -0600, Tom Sherman
> > <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Not the way it works. Insurance policies do not pay more than book value
> >> to replace a car, especially the policies of others who damage your car.
>
> > That depends on the insurance policy you buy - just like jewelry and
> > artwork, it's not uncommon for exotic cars to be insured for far more
> > than "book" value, which is, after all, based on the average car in
> > average condition.
>
> Would a 15 year old Toyota, Honda or Nissan sedan be considered exotic?
> I think not.
>
See, the trouble is, you're not driving an old-enough car.
V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep
|
| | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 23:10:12
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Veronique wrote:
> On Nov 4, 9:03 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> Bob Ward wrote:
>>> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 19:35:35 -0600, Tom Sherman
>>> <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Not the way it works. Insurance policies do not pay more than book value
>>>> to replace a car, especially the policies of others who damage your car.
>>> That depends on the insurance policy you buy - just like jewelry and
>>> artwork, it's not uncommon for exotic cars to be insured for far more
>>> than "book" value, which is, after all, based on the average car in
>>> average condition.
>> Would a 15 year old Toyota, Honda or Nissan sedan be considered exotic?
>> I think not.
>>
>
>
> See, the trouble is, you're not driving an old-enough car.
Get much older and all the rubber parts start to go.
Late 1980s to early 1990s cars are to be avoided at all costs, due to
those stupid motorized seatbelts.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 22:39:12
From: Bob Ward
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 23:10:12 -0600, Tom Sherman
<sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com > wrote:
>Veronique wrote:
>> On Nov 4, 9:03 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Bob Ward wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 19:35:35 -0600, Tom Sherman
>>>> <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Not the way it works. Insurance policies do not pay more than book value
>>>>> to replace a car, especially the policies of others who damage your car.
>>>> That depends on the insurance policy you buy - just like jewelry and
>>>> artwork, it's not uncommon for exotic cars to be insured for far more
>>>> than "book" value, which is, after all, based on the average car in
>>>> average condition.
>>> Would a 15 year old Toyota, Honda or Nissan sedan be considered exotic?
>>> I think not.
>>>
>>
>>
>> See, the trouble is, you're not driving an old-enough car.
>
>Get much older and all the rubber parts start to go.
>
>Late 1980s to early 1990s cars are to be avoided at all costs, due to
>those stupid motorized seatbelts.
Again - it all comes down to proper maintenance and repair. I have a
friend who owns and drives a 1955 Chevy. He's owned the car for over
forty years. I suspect it is in considerably better shape than the
current disposable car you seem to be so proud of will be in five
years.
Since there is no "book value" on a 1955 Chevy, he has an agreed value
policy that places its value at $45,000, and can provide independent
appraisals and comparables to support it.
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 11:38:24
From: Richard Evans
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Bob Ward <bobward@email.com > wrote:
>
>
>Again - it all comes down to proper maintenance and repair. I have a
>friend who owns and drives a 1955 Chevy. He's owned the car for over
>forty years. I suspect it is in considerably better shape than the
>current disposable car you seem to be so proud of will be in five
>years.
But how much maintenance is there on a '55 car? Not a hell of a lot.
The engine is a bare bones chunk of cast iron, nothing like the maze
of wires, hoses, and other pollution equipment on modern cars.
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 03:37:40
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Bob Ward wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 23:10:12 -0600, Tom Sherman
> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Veronique wrote:
>>> On Nov 4, 9:03 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Bob Ward wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 19:35:35 -0600, Tom Sherman
>>>>> <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Not the way it works. Insurance policies do not pay more than book value
>>>>>> to replace a car, especially the policies of others who damage your car.
>>>>> That depends on the insurance policy you buy - just like jewelry and
>>>>> artwork, it's not uncommon for exotic cars to be insured for far more
>>>>> than "book" value, which is, after all, based on the average car in
>>>>> average condition.
>>>> Would a 15 year old Toyota, Honda or Nissan sedan be considered exotic?
>>>> I think not.
>>>>
>>>
>>> See, the trouble is, you're not driving an old-enough car.
>> Get much older and all the rubber parts start to go.
>>
>> Late 1980s to early 1990s cars are to be avoided at all costs, due to
>> those stupid motorized seatbelts.
>
>
> Again - it all comes down to proper maintenance and repair. I have a
> friend who owns and drives a 1955 Chevy. He's owned the car for over
> forty years. I suspect it is in considerably better shape than the
> current disposable car you seem to be so proud of will be in five
> years.
Suspect whatever you like - this is Usenet after all. Do not feel like
too much of an ass if you are wrong.
How many original rubber parts are on that 1955 Chevy? How many things
have been replaced or rebuilt? Does it get driven in winter salt four
months a year? Does it get driven 20,000+ miles a year, every year? Has
it been in constant use as a commuter for those 40 years?
After all is said and done, it has all the faults in ergonomics, braking
and handling that were typical of 1950s "Big Three" sedans.
> Since there is no "book value" on a 1955 Chevy, he has an agreed value
> policy that places its value at $45,000, and can provide independent
> appraisals and comparables to support it.
>
Is this collectible car used for every day transportation? I doubt it
would survive 40 years of commuting in the upper Midwest without
spending a lot on corrosion related repairs. Not to mention, a 1950s
engine will not go 800,000 miles (40 years worth of my use) without
several rebuilds, no matter how well treated.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 05:06:36
From: Veronique
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Nov 4, 9:00 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com >
wrote:
> Veronique wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 7:53 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Veronique wrote:
> >>> On Nov 4, 7:21 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Veronique wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 4, 6:33 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> huey.calli...@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
> >>>>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> huey.calli...@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Some of us NEED reliable transportation to stay employed, and can
> >>>>>>>>>> not afford to have frequent breakdowns on the road. This requires a
> >>>>>>>>>> fairly new vehicle. Furthermore, the maintenance costs on a older
> >>>>>>>>>> vehicle can outweigh the payments on a newer one.
> >>>>>>>>> A four-year note on a new base model Ford Focus is $336.45 payments.
> >>>>>>>>> You're gonna need to have a major repair (cracked head, transmission
> >>>>>>>>> rebuild) to add up to just a couple of those car payments. It's
> >>>>>>>>> almost always cheaper to keep a beater-car running than it is to buy
> >>>>>>>>> even a really inexpensive new car.
> >>>>>>>> I am paying less than that for a top of line (EX) Honda Civic.
> >>>>>>> That implies one or more of: a) a trade-in, b) a down payment, c) longer
> >>>>>>> than a four-year note, or d) lower than prevailing interest rates.
> >>>>>> I happened to get one of the very last Civics of that model year, so yes
> >>>>>> I am paying below market rates.
> >>>>>>>> I do not know where you area getting your repair prices, but a
> >>>>>>>> transmission rebuild is going to $2000+, a clutch replacement $800+, a
> >>>>>>>> water pump $400+, an engine rebuild $5000+.
> >>>>>>> All of those depend on the car, but if you're keeping an older
> >>>>>>> beater-car running, you're not paying $5000 for an engine rebuild,
> >>>>>>> you're paying $1000 to put a junkyard motor in it. The last trans I had
> >>>>>>> rebuilt was an TH440, and I paid $1500. A water pump is generally a $100
> >>>>>>> part that takes me about an hour to put on, depending on the number of
> >>>>>>> friends standing around and the amount of beer I drink. The clutch
> >>>>>>> job is the only number I'm not going to argue with, $800 sounds about
> >>>>>>> right.
> >>>>>> Will an older beater car with parts from a junkyard be reliable?
> >>>>> In a word, yes. I drive a thousand-dollar car I bought in 1987; I've
> >>>>> put in a couple of clutches over the last twenty years, one rebuilt-
> >>>>> engine and a new header. Brakes here and there, once costing me over
> >>>>> $700 (for which I got a $250 refund and an apology.) I get it tuned
> >>>>> up regularly, put gas and oil in it. While I've driven it across the
> >>>>> US twice, I now rent cars for when I need to get further away than
> >>>>> about 80 miles at a stretch, but even so, I am certain I haven't spent
> >>>>> what you spend monthly on your car payment.
> >>>> Is your time fixing the car worth nothing?
> >>> I pay retail. Seriously, I don't do cars.
> >> I have found paying others to fix old cars to be a losing proposition.
> >> You put a lot of money in, and still do not have something good afterwards.
>
> > Point missed. _I'm_ not paying a heckuva lot of money (certainly less
> > than a car payment over the lifetime of the car; in the last two years
> > I've put a little over $1500 in repairs and servicing into it, add
> > another $800 for a repair back in January of 2005...I'm NOT putting
> > thousands into the car. And the car runs fine. Fabulously, even.)
>
> > What I don't have with my old car is a lot of fancy-pants gadgetry and
> > electronics or (as Huey pointed out) any collision insurance (because
> > I'd be paying at least the book value of the vehicle in premiums every
> > year, and the book value wouldn't replace it.) There are reasons to
> > have a shiny new car, but to save money isn't one of them.
>
> Maybe you are just more lucky than normal to avoid frequent repairs and
> breakdowns.
I take it in regularly to be tuned up, and I take it in when I have a
suspicion something is going wrong. I'll admit it's kind of the anti-
lemon, but I'm not the only person I know with an older car that
drives the heck out of it. Reliably.
V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 04:56:21
From:
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Nov 4, 4:51 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com >
wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> > ...
> > BTW, in my younger days, I drove many thousands of miles in a
> > Volkswagon van.
>
> You have my deepest sympathy, if by van you mean Type II.
>
> > That's the vehicle Road & Track magazine pitted
> > against the Goodyear Blimp in a comparison test.
>
> The blimp was likely quieter with a better interior heater.
:-) You're right about the noise level. Don't know about the heater
for sure, though. I had one ride in a Goodyear blimp (a VERY nifty
experience!), but it was summertime. Still, it's hard to imagine the
blimp's heater could be worse.
>
> > I don't recall which accelerated more quickly, but it must have been
> > close. And still, I always did fine merging onto freeways.
>
> Rides in a Type IV in winter always seemed slow, because it was so damn
> cold.
Yes indeed, even in Georgia!
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 23:07:42
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
frkrygow@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Nov 4, 4:51 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> frkry...@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>> BTW, in my younger days, I drove many thousands of miles in a
>>> Volkswagon van.
>> You have my deepest sympathy, if by van you mean Type II.
>>
>>> That's the vehicle Road & Track magazine pitted
>>> against the Goodyear Blimp in a comparison test.
>> The blimp was likely quieter with a better interior heater.
>
> :-) You're right about the noise level. Don't know about the heater
> for sure, though. I had one ride in a Goodyear blimp (a VERY nifty
> experience!), but it was summertime. Still, it's hard to imagine the
> blimp's heater could be worse.
>
>>> I don't recall which accelerated more quickly, but it must have been
>>> close. And still, I always did fine merging onto freeways.
>> Rides in a Type IV in winter always seemed slow, because it was so damn
>> cold.
>
> Yes indeed, even in Georgia!
Try an air-cooled VW in Canada back in the 1970s when there were real
winters.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 04:05:40
From: Veronique
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Nov 4, 7:53 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com >
wrote:
> Veronique wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 7:21 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Veronique wrote:
> >>> On Nov 4, 6:33 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> huey.calli...@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
> >>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> huey.calli...@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
> >>>>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Some of us NEED reliable transportation to stay employed, and can
> >>>>>>>> not afford to have frequent breakdowns on the road. This requires a
> >>>>>>>> fairly new vehicle. Furthermore, the maintenance costs on a older
> >>>>>>>> vehicle can outweigh the payments on a newer one.
> >>>>>>> A four-year note on a new base model Ford Focus is $336.45 payments.
> >>>>>>> You're gonna need to have a major repair (cracked head, transmission
> >>>>>>> rebuild) to add up to just a couple of those car payments. It's
> >>>>>>> almost always cheaper to keep a beater-car running than it is to buy
> >>>>>>> even a really inexpensive new car.
> >>>>>> I am paying less than that for a top of line (EX) Honda Civic.
> >>>>> That implies one or more of: a) a trade-in, b) a down payment, c) longer
> >>>>> than a four-year note, or d) lower than prevailing interest rates.
> >>>> I happened to get one of the very last Civics of that model year, so yes
> >>>> I am paying below market rates.
> >>>>>> I do not know where you area getting your repair prices, but a
> >>>>>> transmission rebuild is going to $2000+, a clutch replacement $800+, a
> >>>>>> water pump $400+, an engine rebuild $5000+.
> >>>>> All of those depend on the car, but if you're keeping an older
> >>>>> beater-car running, you're not paying $5000 for an engine rebuild,
> >>>>> you're paying $1000 to put a junkyard motor in it. The last trans I had
> >>>>> rebuilt was an TH440, and I paid $1500. A water pump is generally a $100
> >>>>> part that takes me about an hour to put on, depending on the number of
> >>>>> friends standing around and the amount of beer I drink. The clutch
> >>>>> job is the only number I'm not going to argue with, $800 sounds about
> >>>>> right.
> >>>> Will an older beater car with parts from a junkyard be reliable?
> >>> In a word, yes. I drive a thousand-dollar car I bought in 1987; I've
> >>> put in a couple of clutches over the last twenty years, one rebuilt-
> >>> engine and a new header. Brakes here and there, once costing me over
> >>> $700 (for which I got a $250 refund and an apology.) I get it tuned
> >>> up regularly, put gas and oil in it. While I've driven it across the
> >>> US twice, I now rent cars for when I need to get further away than
> >>> about 80 miles at a stretch, but even so, I am certain I haven't spent
> >>> what you spend monthly on your car payment.
> >> Is your time fixing the car worth nothing?
>
> > I pay retail. Seriously, I don't do cars.
>
> I have found paying others to fix old cars to be a losing proposition.
> You put a lot of money in, and still do not have something good afterwards.
Point missed. _I'm_ not paying a heckuva lot of money (certainly less
than a car payment over the lifetime of the car; in the last two years
I've put a little over $1500 in repairs and servicing into it, add
another $800 for a repair back in January of 2005...I'm NOT putting
thousands into the car. And the car runs fine. Fabulously, even.)
What I don't have with my old car is a lot of fancy-pants gadgetry and
electronics or (as Huey pointed out) any collision insurance (because
I'd be paying at least the book value of the vehicle in premiums every
year, and the book value wouldn't replace it.) There are reasons to
have a shiny new car, but to save money isn't one of them.
V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep
|
| | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 23:00:51
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Veronique wrote:
> On Nov 4, 7:53 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> Veronique wrote:
>>> On Nov 4, 7:21 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Veronique wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 4, 6:33 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> huey.calli...@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> huey.calli...@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Some of us NEED reliable transportation to stay employed, and can
>>>>>>>>>> not afford to have frequent breakdowns on the road. This requires a
>>>>>>>>>> fairly new vehicle. Furthermore, the maintenance costs on a older
>>>>>>>>>> vehicle can outweigh the payments on a newer one.
>>>>>>>>> A four-year note on a new base model Ford Focus is $336.45 payments.
>>>>>>>>> You're gonna need to have a major repair (cracked head, transmission
>>>>>>>>> rebuild) to add up to just a couple of those car payments. It's
>>>>>>>>> almost always cheaper to keep a beater-car running than it is to buy
>>>>>>>>> even a really inexpensive new car.
>>>>>>>> I am paying less than that for a top of line (EX) Honda Civic.
>>>>>>> That implies one or more of: a) a trade-in, b) a down payment, c) longer
>>>>>>> than a four-year note, or d) lower than prevailing interest rates.
>>>>>> I happened to get one of the very last Civics of that model year, so yes
>>>>>> I am paying below market rates.
>>>>>>>> I do not know where you area getting your repair prices, but a
>>>>>>>> transmission rebuild is going to $2000+, a clutch replacement $800+, a
>>>>>>>> water pump $400+, an engine rebuild $5000+.
>>>>>>> All of those depend on the car, but if you're keeping an older
>>>>>>> beater-car running, you're not paying $5000 for an engine rebuild,
>>>>>>> you're paying $1000 to put a junkyard motor in it. The last trans I had
>>>>>>> rebuilt was an TH440, and I paid $1500. A water pump is generally a $100
>>>>>>> part that takes me about an hour to put on, depending on the number of
>>>>>>> friends standing around and the amount of beer I drink. The clutch
>>>>>>> job is the only number I'm not going to argue with, $800 sounds about
>>>>>>> right.
>>>>>> Will an older beater car with parts from a junkyard be reliable?
>>>>> In a word, yes. I drive a thousand-dollar car I bought in 1987; I've
>>>>> put in a couple of clutches over the last twenty years, one rebuilt-
>>>>> engine and a new header. Brakes here and there, once costing me over
>>>>> $700 (for which I got a $250 refund and an apology.) I get it tuned
>>>>> up regularly, put gas and oil in it. While I've driven it across the
>>>>> US twice, I now rent cars for when I need to get further away than
>>>>> about 80 miles at a stretch, but even so, I am certain I haven't spent
>>>>> what you spend monthly on your car payment.
>>>> Is your time fixing the car worth nothing?
>>> I pay retail. Seriously, I don't do cars.
>> I have found paying others to fix old cars to be a losing proposition.
>> You put a lot of money in, and still do not have something good afterwards.
>
>
> Point missed. _I'm_ not paying a heckuva lot of money (certainly less
> than a car payment over the lifetime of the car; in the last two years
> I've put a little over $1500 in repairs and servicing into it, add
> another $800 for a repair back in January of 2005...I'm NOT putting
> thousands into the car. And the car runs fine. Fabulously, even.)
>
>
> What I don't have with my old car is a lot of fancy-pants gadgetry and
> electronics or (as Huey pointed out) any collision insurance (because
> I'd be paying at least the book value of the vehicle in premiums every
> year, and the book value wouldn't replace it.) There are reasons to
> have a shiny new car, but to save money isn't one of them.
Maybe you are just more lucky than normal to avoid frequent repairs and
breakdowns.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 22:25:18
From: Bob Ward
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 23:00:51 -0600, Tom Sherman
<sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com > wrote:
>>
>> What I don't have with my old car is a lot of fancy-pants gadgetry and
>> electronics or (as Huey pointed out) any collision insurance (because
>> I'd be paying at least the book value of the vehicle in premiums every
>> year, and the book value wouldn't replace it.) There are reasons to
>> have a shiny new car, but to save money isn't one of them.
>
>Maybe you are just more lucky than normal to avoid frequent repairs and
>breakdowns.
It's amazing how lucky you can get if you change the oil regularly,
maintain tire pressure, check all fluids, and don't abuse your car in
general.
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 03:25:52
From: Veronique
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Nov 4, 7:21 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com >
wrote:
> Veronique wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 6:33 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >> huey.calli...@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
>
> >>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> huey.calli...@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
> >>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Some of us NEED reliable transportation to stay employed, and can
> >>>>>> not afford to have frequent breakdowns on the road. This requires a
> >>>>>> fairly new vehicle. Furthermore, the maintenance costs on a older
> >>>>>> vehicle can outweigh the payments on a newer one.
> >>>>> A four-year note on a new base model Ford Focus is $336.45 payments.
> >>>>> You're gonna need to have a major repair (cracked head, transmission
> >>>>> rebuild) to add up to just a couple of those car payments. It's
> >>>>> almost always cheaper to keep a beater-car running than it is to buy
> >>>>> even a really inexpensive new car.
> >>>> I am paying less than that for a top of line (EX) Honda Civic.
> >>> That implies one or more of: a) a trade-in, b) a down payment, c) longer
> >>> than a four-year note, or d) lower than prevailing interest rates.
> >> I happened to get one of the very last Civics of that model year, so yes
> >> I am paying below market rates.
>
> >>>> I do not know where you area getting your repair prices, but a
> >>>> transmission rebuild is going to $2000+, a clutch replacement $800+, a
> >>>> water pump $400+, an engine rebuild $5000+.
> >>> All of those depend on the car, but if you're keeping an older
> >>> beater-car running, you're not paying $5000 for an engine rebuild,
> >>> you're paying $1000 to put a junkyard motor in it. The last trans I had
> >>> rebuilt was an TH440, and I paid $1500. A water pump is generally a $100
> >>> part that takes me about an hour to put on, depending on the number of
> >>> friends standing around and the amount of beer I drink. The clutch
> >>> job is the only number I'm not going to argue with, $800 sounds about
> >>> right.
> >> Will an older beater car with parts from a junkyard be reliable?
>
> > In a word, yes. I drive a thousand-dollar car I bought in 1987; I've
> > put in a couple of clutches over the last twenty years, one rebuilt-
> > engine and a new header. Brakes here and there, once costing me over
> > $700 (for which I got a $250 refund and an apology.) I get it tuned
> > up regularly, put gas and oil in it. While I've driven it across the
> > US twice, I now rent cars for when I need to get further away than
> > about 80 miles at a stretch, but even so, I am certain I haven't spent
> > what you spend monthly on your car payment.
>
> Is your time fixing the car worth nothing?
I pay retail. Seriously, I don't do cars.
>
> I often have to get more than 100 miles away several days a week, often
> on less than an hours notice before starting time. An old beater will
> not cut it.
>
> Of course, I get compensated for mileage at about twice my actual cost.
> :) And I do not have to drive an old car of questionable safety, comfort
> and reliability. There have been great advances in ergonomics and
> handling over the last 20 years.
I question that every time I drive a rental car.
V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep
|
| | |
Date: 12 Nov 2007 16:20:32
From:
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Nov 11, 7:14 pm, Bob Ward <bobw...@email.com > wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 00:06:55 -0000, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> >Again, I've found Consumer Reports survey data to be pretty
> >accurate.
>
> >- Frank Krygowski
>
> ... or not... Suzuki Samurai was a hatchet job.
You misread. I said their _survey_ data, not their editorializing.
Over the years, I've found many problems with their editorial
judgments. But the annual car issue reports the results of subscriber
surveys, with hundreds of thousands of people saying what's gone wrong
with their cars in the previous year. I find the data from those
surveys to be good information. It matched my experience, down to
specifying the parts of the car that would have trouble.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 04:36:49
From: Mary
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Veronique wrote:
> On Nov 4, 7:21 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Of course, I get compensated for mileage at about twice my actual cost.
>> :) And I do not have to drive an old car of questionable safety, comfort
>> and reliability. There have been great advances in ergonomics and
>> handling over the last 20 years.
>
>
> I question that every time I drive a rental car.
That's coz rental cars aren't Volkswagens, V.
Mary
|
| | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 21:53:08
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Veronique wrote:
> On Nov 4, 7:21 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> Veronique wrote:
>>> On Nov 4, 6:33 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> huey.calli...@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> huey.calli...@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Some of us NEED reliable transportation to stay employed, and can
>>>>>>>> not afford to have frequent breakdowns on the road. This requires a
>>>>>>>> fairly new vehicle. Furthermore, the maintenance costs on a older
>>>>>>>> vehicle can outweigh the payments on a newer one.
>>>>>>> A four-year note on a new base model Ford Focus is $336.45 payments.
>>>>>>> You're gonna need to have a major repair (cracked head, transmission
>>>>>>> rebuild) to add up to just a couple of those car payments. It's
>>>>>>> almost always cheaper to keep a beater-car running than it is to buy
>>>>>>> even a really inexpensive new car.
>>>>>> I am paying less than that for a top of line (EX) Honda Civic.
>>>>> That implies one or more of: a) a trade-in, b) a down payment, c) longer
>>>>> than a four-year note, or d) lower than prevailing interest rates.
>>>> I happened to get one of the very last Civics of that model year, so yes
>>>> I am paying below market rates.
>>>>>> I do not know where you area getting your repair prices, but a
>>>>>> transmission rebuild is going to $2000+, a clutch replacement $800+, a
>>>>>> water pump $400+, an engine rebuild $5000+.
>>>>> All of those depend on the car, but if you're keeping an older
>>>>> beater-car running, you're not paying $5000 for an engine rebuild,
>>>>> you're paying $1000 to put a junkyard motor in it. The last trans I had
>>>>> rebuilt was an TH440, and I paid $1500. A water pump is generally a $100
>>>>> part that takes me about an hour to put on, depending on the number of
>>>>> friends standing around and the amount of beer I drink. The clutch
>>>>> job is the only number I'm not going to argue with, $800 sounds about
>>>>> right.
>>>> Will an older beater car with parts from a junkyard be reliable?
>>> In a word, yes. I drive a thousand-dollar car I bought in 1987; I've
>>> put in a couple of clutches over the last twenty years, one rebuilt-
>>> engine and a new header. Brakes here and there, once costing me over
>>> $700 (for which I got a $250 refund and an apology.) I get it tuned
>>> up regularly, put gas and oil in it. While I've driven it across the
>>> US twice, I now rent cars for when I need to get further away than
>>> about 80 miles at a stretch, but even so, I am certain I haven't spent
>>> what you spend monthly on your car payment.
>> Is your time fixing the car worth nothing?
>
>
> I pay retail. Seriously, I don't do cars.
I have found paying others to fix old cars to be a losing proposition.
You put a lot of money in, and still do not have something good afterwards.
>> I often have to get more than 100 miles away several days a week, often
>> on less than an hours notice before starting time. An old beater will
>> not cut it.
>>
>> Of course, I get compensated for mileage at about twice my actual cost.
>> :) And I do not have to drive an old car of questionable safety, comfort
>> and reliability. There have been great advances in ergonomics and
>> handling over the last 20 years.
>
>
> I question that every time I drive a rental car.
With rental cars you typically get the bottom of the line of everything.
I would not buy your typical GM/Ford/Chrysler rental car, even at the
low price.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 22:53:37
From:
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
In alt.fan.cecil-adams Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@removethisyahoo.com > wrote:
> I have found paying others to fix old cars to be a losing proposition.
> You put a lot of money in, and still do not have something good
> afterwards.
Then you're doing it wrong. I put money in, and I get a fixed car.
--
Huey
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 22:59:58
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
huey.callison@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
> In alt.fan.cecil-adams Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
>> I have found paying others to fix old cars to be a losing proposition.
>> You put a lot of money in, and still do not have something good
>> afterwards.
>
> Then you're doing it wrong. I put money in, and I get a fixed car.
>
Fix one thing, something else goes wrong.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 22:26:52
From: Bob Ward
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 22:59:58 -0600, Tom Sherman
<sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com > wrote:
>huey.callison@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
>> In alt.fan.cecil-adams Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
>>> I have found paying others to fix old cars to be a losing proposition.
>>> You put a lot of money in, and still do not have something good
>>> afterwards.
>>
>> Then you're doing it wrong. I put money in, and I get a fixed car.
>>
>Fix one thing, something else goes wrong.
So all of us who drive older cars and find them to be reliable are
lying or delusional?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 03:28:38
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Bob Ward wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 22:59:58 -0600, Tom Sherman
> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> huey.callison@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
>>> In alt.fan.cecil-adams Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> I have found paying others to fix old cars to be a losing proposition.
>>>> You put a lot of money in, and still do not have something good
>>>> afterwards.
>>> Then you're doing it wrong. I put money in, and I get a fixed car.
>>>
>> Fix one thing, something else goes wrong.
>
> So all of us who drive older cars and find them to be reliable are
> lying or delusional?
>
Maybe, maybe not. Maybe you are just lucky.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 17:22:04
From: Bob Ward
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 03:28:38 -0600, Tom Sherman
<sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com > wrote:
>Bob Ward wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 22:59:58 -0600, Tom Sherman
>> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> huey.callison@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
>>>> In alt.fan.cecil-adams Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> I have found paying others to fix old cars to be a losing proposition.
>>>>> You put a lot of money in, and still do not have something good
>>>>> afterwards.
>>>> Then you're doing it wrong. I put money in, and I get a fixed car.
>>>>
>>> Fix one thing, something else goes wrong.
>>
>> So all of us who drive older cars and find them to be reliable are
>> lying or delusional?
>>
>Maybe, maybe not. Maybe you are just lucky.
I covered that already - it's amazing how lucky you get with used cars
when you take care of them properly.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 05:21:41
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Bob Ward wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 03:28:38 -0600, Tom Sherman
> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Bob Ward wrote:
>>> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 22:59:58 -0600, Tom Sherman
>>> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> huey.callison@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
>>>>> In alt.fan.cecil-adams Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I have found paying others to fix old cars to be a losing proposition.
>>>>>> You put a lot of money in, and still do not have something good
>>>>>> afterwards.
>>>>> Then you're doing it wrong. I put money in, and I get a fixed car.
>>>>>
>>>> Fix one thing, something else goes wrong.
>>> So all of us who drive older cars and find them to be reliable are
>>> lying or delusional?
>>>
>> Maybe, maybe not. Maybe you are just lucky.
>
> I covered that already - it's amazing how lucky you get with used cars
> when you take care of them properly.
>
Do you live in an area where road salt is excessive? In the upper
Midwest, salt corrosion eventually causes problems with any vehicle that
is driven year around, and this extends beyond cosmetic body rust to
brakes, shift linkages, wheels, wheel bearings, suspension parts,
exhaust systems, etc.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 04:50:18
From: Jerry Bauer
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 03:21:41 -0800, Tom Sherman wrote
(in article <fgs70g$v8o$1@registered.motzarella.org >):
> Do you live in an area where road salt is excessive? In the upper
> Midwest, salt corrosion eventually causes problems with any vehicle that
> is driven year around, and this extends beyond cosmetic body rust to
> brakes, shift linkages, wheels, wheel bearings, suspension parts,
> exhaust systems, etc.
Well, there's your problem. You live in the wrong place!
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 21:53:24
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Jerry Bauer wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 03:21:41 -0800, Tom Sherman wrote
> (in article <fgs70g$v8o$1@registered.motzarella.org>):
>
>
>> Do you live in an area where road salt is excessive? In the upper
>> Midwest, salt corrosion eventually causes problems with any vehicle that
>> is driven year around, and this extends beyond cosmetic body rust to
>> brakes, shift linkages, wheels, wheel bearings, suspension parts,
>> exhaust systems, etc.
>
> Well, there's your problem. You live in the wrong place!
Well, we do not have earthquakes, forest fires, landslides, hurricanes
or a water shortage here by the Great Lakes. :)
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 11:35:10
From: Richard Evans
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com > wrote:
>Bob Ward wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 22:59:58 -0600, Tom Sherman
>> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> huey.callison@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
>>>> In alt.fan.cecil-adams Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> I have found paying others to fix old cars to be a losing proposition.
>>>>> You put a lot of money in, and still do not have something good
>>>>> afterwards.
>>>> Then you're doing it wrong. I put money in, and I get a fixed car.
>>>>
>>> Fix one thing, something else goes wrong.
>>
>> So all of us who drive older cars and find them to be reliable are
>> lying or delusional?
>>
>Maybe, maybe not. Maybe you are just lucky.
Or maybe you just have a higher threshhold of pain? I know a guy who
is like that old story of the Apache and the horse. A white man rides
the horse until it drops. The Apache comes along, gets the horse up,
rides another fifty miles, and when the horse dies, eats it.
He can take any old clunker and keep it running almost indefinitely,
but at the cost of constant attention, and, what I would consider,
frustration. He once broke down in Death Valley and damn near died. If
you asked him, he'd say it hadn't been a problem.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 03:09:31
From: Opus the Penguin
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Richard Evans (infodex@mindspring.com) wrote:
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Bob Ward wrote:
>>> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 22:59:58 -0600, Tom Sherman
>>> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> huey.callison@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
>>>>> In alt.fan.cecil-adams Tom Sherman
>>>>> <sunsetss0003@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I have found paying others to fix old cars to be a losing
>>>>>> proposition. You put a lot of money in, and still do not have
>>>>>> something good afterwards.
>>>>> Then you're doing it wrong. I put money in, and I get a fixed
>>>>> car.
>>>>>
>>>> Fix one thing, something else goes wrong.
>>>
>>> So all of us who drive older cars and find them to be reliable
>>> are lying or delusional?
>>>
>>Maybe, maybe not. Maybe you are just lucky.
>
> Or maybe you just have a higher threshhold of pain? I know a guy
> who is like that old story of the Apache and the horse. A white
> man rides the horse until it drops. The Apache comes along, gets
> the horse up, rides another fifty miles, and when the horse dies,
> eats it.
>
> He can take any old clunker and keep it running almost
> indefinitely, but at the cost of constant attention, and, what I
> would consider, frustration. He once broke down in Death Valley
> and damn near died. If you asked him, he'd say it hadn't been a
> problem.
>
In my case I don't drive clunkers. But I don't buy a car until it's
got at least 60k miles on it. I generally don't have problems with my
cars. They don't break down or stop working. I have them in the shop
for routine maintenance. A while back the Corolla (now gone) had
persistent problems with the cooling system. The mechanics never
figured out what was up with that. But it didn't mean I couldn't get
in the car and drive it for 120 miles. I just needed to make sure it
was filled with water.
--
Opus the Penguin
I am a theoretical physicist; I can construct an explanation which
sounds more or less reasonable for whatever your experimental
apparatus does. - Maurice Barnhill
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 23:34:02
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Opus the Penguin wrote:
> Richard Evans (infodex@mindspring.com) wrote:
>
>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Bob Ward wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 22:59:58 -0600, Tom Sherman
>>>> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> huey.callison@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
>>>>>> In alt.fan.cecil-adams Tom Sherman
>>>>>> <sunsetss0003@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> I have found paying others to fix old cars to be a losing
>>>>>>> proposition. You put a lot of money in, and still do not have
>>>>>>> something good afterwards.
>>>>>> Then you're doing it wrong. I put money in, and I get a fixed
>>>>>> car.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Fix one thing, something else goes wrong.
>>>> So all of us who drive older cars and find them to be reliable
>>>> are lying or delusional?
>>>>
>>> Maybe, maybe not. Maybe you are just lucky.
>> Or maybe you just have a higher threshhold of pain? I know a guy
>> who is like that old story of the Apache and the horse. A white
>> man rides the horse until it drops. The Apache comes along, gets
>> the horse up, rides another fifty miles, and when the horse dies,
>> eats it.
>>
>> He can take any old clunker and keep it running almost
>> indefinitely, but at the cost of constant attention, and, what I
>> would consider, frustration. He once broke down in Death Valley
>> and damn near died. If you asked him, he'd say it hadn't been a
>> problem.
>>
>
> In my case I don't drive clunkers. But I don't buy a car until it's
> got at least 60k miles on it. I generally don't have problems with my
> cars. They don't break down or stop working. I have them in the shop
> for routine maintenance. A while back the Corolla (now gone) had
> persistent problems with the cooling system. The mechanics never
> figured out what was up with that. But it didn't mean I couldn't get
> in the car and drive it for 120 miles. I just needed to make sure it
> was filled with water.
>
That would annoy me to no end.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 04:49:11
From: Jerry Bauer
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 21:34:02 -0800, Tom Sherman wrote
(in article <fgu70t$hjq$13@registered.motzarella.org >):
> Opus the Penguin wrote:
>> A while back the Corolla (now gone) had
>> persistent problems with the cooling system. The mechanics never
>> figured out what was up with that. But it didn't mean I couldn't get
>> in the car and drive it for 120 miles. I just needed to make sure it
>> was filled with water.
>>
> That would annoy me to no end.
Plus, you'd get all wet.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 21:51:58
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Jerry Bauer wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 21:34:02 -0800, Tom Sherman wrote
> (in article <fgu70t$hjq$13@registered.motzarella.org>):
>
>> Opus the Penguin wrote:
>>> A while back the Corolla (now gone) had
>>> persistent problems with the cooling system. The mechanics never
>>> figured out what was up with that. But it didn't mean I couldn't get
>>> in the car and drive it for 120 miles. I just needed to make sure it
>>> was filled with water.
>>>
>> That would annoy me to no end.
>
> Plus, you'd get all wet.
If I need to carry water, I will take the 1-ton with the 400 gallon tank
in the bed, not a Corolla full of water. ;)
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 23:33:53
From: Bill Turlock
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Bob Ward wrote:
>
> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 22:59:58 -0600, Tom Sherman
> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >huey.callison@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
> >> In alt.fan.cecil-adams Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> I have found paying others to fix old cars to be a losing proposition.
> >>> You put a lot of money in, and still do not have something good
> >>> afterwards.
> >>
> >> Then you're doing it wrong. I put money in, and I get a fixed car.
> >>
> >Fix one thing, something else goes wrong.
>
> So all of us who drive older cars and find them to be reliable are
> lying or delusional?
I think we've found the shabilrav of r.b.m.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 23:22:51
From:
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@removethisyahoo.com > wrote:
> huey.callison@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
> > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
> >> I have found paying others to fix old cars to be a losing proposition.
> >> You put a lot of money in, and still do not have something good
> >> afterwards.
> > Then you're doing it wrong. I put money in, and I get a fixed car.
> Fix one thing, something else goes wrong.
Of course it does. If the same thing went wrong, then you didn't fix it.
You seem a little unclear on the span of time between the first thing
and the second thing, though.
I drive an eight-year-old truck with 150,000 miles on it. It has failed
to start one time - fuel pump went bad. $300 part and a couple hours of
swearing later, and I'm still waiting for that next thing to go wrong.
It's been six months. Other than that: two sets of tires, a brake job, a
couple wiper blades, a light bulb or two, and regular oil changes - and
those are all things you'd also have to do to a new car. So - explain to
me how a new car helps me any more than what I have now?
--
Huey
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 23:34:04
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
huey.callison@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
>> huey.callison@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> I have found paying others to fix old cars to be a losing proposition.
>>>> You put a lot of money in, and still do not have something good
>>>> afterwards.
>>> Then you're doing it wrong. I put money in, and I get a fixed car.
>> Fix one thing, something else goes wrong.
>
> Of course it does. If the same thing went wrong, then you didn't fix it.
> You seem a little unclear on the span of time between the first thing
> and the second thing, though.
>
> I drive an eight-year-old truck with 150,000 miles on it. It has failed
> to start one time - fuel pump went bad. $300 part and a couple hours of
> swearing later, and I'm still waiting for that next thing to go wrong.
> It's been six months. Other than that: two sets of tires, a brake job, a
> couple wiper blades, a light bulb or two, and regular oil changes - and
> those are all things you'd also have to do to a new car. So - explain to
> me how a new car helps me any more than what I have now?
>
Every used vehicle I have owned has required frequent and expensive
repairs. I refuse to gamble by going down that road again.
I don't have time to screw around waiting for tow trucks, renting cars
while mine is fixed, waiting by the side of the road in West Grain
Elevator Iowa, taking calls from people wanting to know why the hell I
did not show up on time, etc.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2007 01:10:48
From: Greg Goss
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com > wrote:
>huey.callison@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
>>
>> I drive an eight-year-old truck with 150,000 miles on it. It has failed
>> to start one time - fuel pump went bad. $300 part and a couple hours of
>> swearing later, and I'm still waiting for that next thing to go wrong.
>> It's been six months. Other than that: two sets of tires, a brake job, a
>> couple wiper blades, a light bulb or two, and regular oil changes - and
>> those are all things you'd also have to do to a new car. So - explain to
>> me how a new car helps me any more than what I have now?
>>
>Every used vehicle I have owned has required frequent and expensive
>repairs. I refuse to gamble by going down that road again.
>
>I don't have time to screw around waiting for tow trucks, renting cars
>while mine is fixed, waiting by the side of the road in West Grain
>Elevator Iowa, taking calls from people wanting to know why the hell I
>did not show up on time, etc.
In 2000 I paid $3300 for a seven-year old car. In 2001 I paid $33,000
for a new SUV. Other than the repairs required from dragging the
Metro down the highway, the SUV cost us more in repairs than the Metro
did. Much more.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2007 02:23:43
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Greg Goss wrote:
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> huey.callison@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
>
>>> I drive an eight-year-old truck with 150,000 miles on it. It has failed
>>> to start one time - fuel pump went bad. $300 part and a couple hours of
>>> swearing later, and I'm still waiting for that next thing to go wrong.
>>> It's been six months. Other than that: two sets of tires, a brake job, a
>>> couple wiper blades, a light bulb or two, and regular oil changes - and
>>> those are all things you'd also have to do to a new car. So - explain to
>>> me how a new car helps me any more than what I have now?
>>>
>> Every used vehicle I have owned has required frequent and expensive
>> repairs. I refuse to gamble by going down that road again.
>>
>> I don't have time to screw around waiting for tow trucks, renting cars
>> while mine is fixed, waiting by the side of the road in West Grain
>> Elevator Iowa, taking calls from people wanting to know why the hell I
>> did not show up on time, etc.
>
> In 2000 I paid $3300 for a seven-year old car. In 2001 I paid $33,000
> for a new SUV. Other than the repairs required from dragging the
> Metro down the highway, the SUV cost us more in repairs than the Metro
> did. Much more.
Lesson - do not buy from manufacturers that make unreliable vehicles?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2007 09:11:47
From: Greg Goss
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com > wrote:
>Greg Goss wrote:
>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> huey.callison@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
>>
>>>> I drive an eight-year-old truck with 150,000 miles on it. It has failed
>>>> to start one time - fuel pump went bad. $300 part and a couple hours of
>>>> swearing later, and I'm still waiting for that next thing to go wrong.
>>>> It's been six months. Other than that: two sets of tires, a brake job, a
>>>> couple wiper blades, a light bulb or two, and regular oil changes - and
>>>> those are all things you'd also have to do to a new car. So - explain to
>>>> me how a new car helps me any more than what I have now?
>>>>
>>> Every used vehicle I have owned has required frequent and expensive
>>> repairs. I refuse to gamble by going down that road again.
>>>
>>> I don't have time to screw around waiting for tow trucks, renting cars
>>> while mine is fixed, waiting by the side of the road in West Grain
>>> Elevator Iowa, taking calls from people wanting to know why the hell I
>>> did not show up on time, etc.
>>
>> In 2000 I paid $3300 for a seven-year old car. In 2001 I paid $33,000
>> for a new SUV. Other than the repairs required from dragging the
>> Metro down the highway, the SUV cost us more in repairs than the Metro
>> did. Much more.
>
>Lesson - do not buy from manufacturers that make unreliable vehicles?
The Metro has the initials "GM" and a Chev logo buried in the Geo
planet logo. Wouldn't that advice chase me away from a GM?
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2007 11:09:40
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Greg Goss wrote:
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Greg Goss wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> huey.callison@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
>>>>> I drive an eight-year-old truck with 150,000 miles on it. It has failed
>>>>> to start one time - fuel pump went bad. $300 part and a couple hours of
>>>>> swearing later, and I'm still waiting for that next thing to go wrong.
>>>>> It's been six months. Other than that: two sets of tires, a brake job, a
>>>>> couple wiper blades, a light bulb or two, and regular oil changes - and
>>>>> those are all things you'd also have to do to a new car. So - explain to
>>>>> me how a new car helps me any more than what I have now?
>>>>>
>>>> Every used vehicle I have owned has required frequent and expensive
>>>> repairs. I refuse to gamble by going down that road again.
>>>>
>>>> I don't have time to screw around waiting for tow trucks, renting cars
>>>> while mine is fixed, waiting by the side of the road in West Grain
>>>> Elevator Iowa, taking calls from people wanting to know why the hell I
>>>> did not show up on time, etc.
>>> In 2000 I paid $3300 for a seven-year old car. In 2001 I paid $33,000
>>> for a new SUV. Other than the repairs required from dragging the
>>> Metro down the highway, the SUV cost us more in repairs than the Metro
>>> did. Much more.
>> Lesson - do not buy from manufacturers that make unreliable vehicles?
>
> The Metro has the initials "GM" and a Chev logo buried in the Geo
> planet logo. Wouldn't that advice chase me away from a GM?
The Geo Metro is a re-badged Suzuki.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2007 11:55:30
From: Greg Goss
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com > wrote:
>Greg Goss wrote:
>>> Lesson - do not buy from manufacturers that make unreliable vehicles?
>>
>> The Metro has the initials "GM" and a Chev logo buried in the Geo
>> planet logo. Wouldn't that advice chase me away from a GM?
>
>The Geo Metro is a re-badged Suzuki.
Which is why I bought it in the first place. It's a bit more complex
than merely "rebadged". Su designed the car and the factory for them,
but I think it was managed as a routine GM factory in Ontario in
operation. And, according to a local Su dealer, Suzuki never used the
1 litre engine that most of these were built with. Obviously, since
GM cannot build a reliable small engine to save their company, the 1
litre engine must be a Suzuki design, but if it was never used in the
Swift or the Forsa, it's not quite right to call it a "rebadged
Suzuki".
But the manufacturer was still GM, once Suzuki had built the factory
for them.
You're from the other side of this two-newsgroup discussion. AFCA is
proud of its nitpicking.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Nov 2007 10:20:40
From: Opus the Penguin
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Greg Goss (gossg@gossg.org) wrote:
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Greg Goss wrote:
>>>> Lesson - do not buy from manufacturers that make unreliable
>>>> vehicles?
>>>
>>> The Metro has the initials "GM" and a Chev logo buried in the
>>> Geo planet logo. Wouldn't that advice chase me away from a GM?
>>
>>The Geo Metro is a re-badged Suzuki.
>
> Which is why I bought it in the first place. It's a bit more
> complex than merely "rebadged". Su designed the car and the
> factory for them, but I think it was managed as a routine GM
> factory in Ontario in operation. And, according to a local Su
> dealer, Suzuki never used the 1 litre engine that most of these
> were built with. Obviously, since GM cannot build a reliable
> small engine to save their company, the 1 litre engine must be a
> Suzuki design, but if it was never used in the Swift or the Forsa,
> it's not quite right to call it a "rebadged Suzuki".
>
> But the manufacturer was still GM, once Suzuki had built the
> factory for them.
>
> You're from the other side of this two-newsgroup discussion. AFCA
> is proud of its nitpicking.
I wouldn't say we're "proud" exactly. But we are competitive. Other
than that, you've made a fine post. Well, maybe not fine, but....
--
Opus the Penguin
I have to say, the combination of firearms, homemade booze, and Billy
Ray playing the bagpipes spells "fun" to me - Richard R. Hershberger
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2007 10:51:59
From: Boron Elgar
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 02:23:43 -0600, Tom Sherman
<sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com > wrote:
>Lesson - do not buy from manufacturers that make unreliable vehicles?
Lesson - you can get a good car or lemon from any manufacturer and in
any model line.
The most unreliable cars ever owned in this household are a Toyota
Camry, followed by a Honda Accord.
Most reliable have been a Mercury Grand Marquis, two Ford Expeditions,
A Chevy Silverado and a Nissan Murano.
Gee, go figure.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Nov 2007 10:16:54
From: Opus the Penguin
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Boron Elgar (boron_elgar@hotmail.com) wrote:
> Lesson - you can get a good car or lemon from any manufacturer and
> in any model line.
>
> The most unreliable cars ever owned in this household are a Toyota
> Camry, followed by a Honda Accord.
>
> Most reliable have been a Mercury Grand Marquis, two Ford
> Expeditions, A Chevy Silverado and a Nissan Murano.
>
> Gee, go figure.
That does seem to run counter to many people's experience--at least
on the Toyota and Honda being unreliable.
Our most unreliable car was my '79 Honda Accord. I should've check
Consumer Reports. They would've warned me about the brakes and the
possibility of blowing a head gasket.
Second most unreliable was an '87 Toyota Corolla, but it wasn't
particularly unreliable. It just had that problem with the cooling
system where the mechanics could never locate the leak. So we
replaced the thermostat, the radiator, hoses, you name it. It was one
of those infuriating single problems that we seemed to keep having
the car into the shop for.
The '86 Chevy Sprint was middling reliable. So was the '89 Ford
Escort. (Hand-me-down from Grandma. I wouldn't have bought it.)
The '86 Toyota Tercel was very reliable. The only time it ever
stranded anyone was when the timing belt broke at 100+k miles. (I
ended up doing something ethically questionable about that and I will
herewith confess. I picked up the stranded Mrs. Penguin and drove us
straight to AAA. I did not clarify with the agent whether the policy
covered pre-existing conditions. I suspect I would have been told
yes, but I decided to play it sneaky and not ask. I just drove to a
pay phone near our broken down car and called AAA for a tow truck. So
now my conscience nags me every so often when the weather changes.)
The '99 Altima has been quite reliable for the year and half we've
had it (from 125k to 145k miles).
The '94 Honda Civic has been super reliable for the three years we've
had it (from 65k to 120k miles). Not a problem to speak of except
what arose from hitting the deer, and you can hardly blame a car for
that.
Anecdotal though this all is, our experience has been basically what
Consumer Reports readers predicted. Except for the '87 Corolla and
the nagging unfixable problem.
--
Opus the Penguin
I'm not a lurker, but if I were, I would support you in email. -
Hactar
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2007 13:13:05
From: Richard Evans
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Boron Elgar <boron_elgar@hotmail.com > wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 02:23:43 -0600, Tom Sherman
><sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Lesson - do not buy from manufacturers that make unreliable vehicles?
>
>
>Lesson - you can get a good car or lemon from any manufacturer and in
>any model line.
Amen. From 1973 to 1998, I owned five Chevy pickups. The first was a
used CST, full size, 350-V8 with a four barrel. Most reliable vehicle
I ever owned. Sold me on Chevy's. Bought it with 60k on it, sold it
six years later with 120k, to a farmer who was still using it at 150k,
the last I heard.
I thereafter bought new: '79 Silverado, ' 81 LUV, '83 S-10, 86 S-10.
The '86 was, unfortunately, totaled a month before it was paid for, or
I'd probably still be driving it.
I took the insurance money and bought a new '89 Dakota convertible
pickup. Fun to drive but I had problems and traded for a new '92 Mazda
2300. That too was ultimately totaled, and I bought a used '94 Dakota.
That had more problems than my first Dakota. Traded it at 35k needing
a new timing chain, for a used '96 Dodge Ram (7k miles on it). More
problems (electrical and front end), so a year later I went back to
Chevy. I bought a new '98 S-10. It was such a lemon I traded it four
months later for a new '98 Ranger. Loved the ranger, fun to drive,
reliable. The Ranger was followed by my current '00 Mazda B-4000,
bought new in 2001. Mazda and Ranger share everything but the sheet
metal, but the Mazda has proven nowhere near as reliable as the
Ranger: Replace front disks and turn rotors at 35k, replace headlight
switch for $150, replace oil sender unit for another $150, and the
killer: replace BALL JOINTS at 45k. But, I'm closing in on retirement
and don't want a new car payment, so I keep it.
And those are just a handful of the hundred or so cars I've owned.
I've had new lemons, old lemons, sweet older rides, and limes that
aren't quite bitter enough to justify getting rid of.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 22:29:01
From: Bob Ward
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 23:34:04 -0600, Tom Sherman
<sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com > wrote:
>Every used vehicle I have owned has required frequent and expensive
>repairs. I refuse to gamble by going down that road again.
>
>I don't have time to screw around waiting for tow trucks, renting cars
>while mine is fixed, waiting by the side of the road in West Grain
>Elevator Iowa, taking calls from people wanting to know why the hell I
>did not show up on time, etc.
Sounds like you like to cheap out on regular maintenance, or you are
just clinging to a bad argument that can't be supported as a universal
truth.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 03:28:01
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Bob Ward wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 23:34:04 -0600, Tom Sherman
> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Every used vehicle I have owned has required frequent and expensive
>> repairs. I refuse to gamble by going down that road again.
>>
>> I don't have time to screw around waiting for tow trucks, renting cars
>> while mine is fixed, waiting by the side of the road in West Grain
>> Elevator Iowa, taking calls from people wanting to know why the hell I
>> did not show up on time, etc.
>
> Sounds like you like to cheap out on regular maintenance, or you are
> just clinging to a bad argument that can't be supported as a universal
> truth.
>
It sounds like you are making baseless assumptions.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 07:49:40
From: Paul Ciszek
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
In article <ludti39d5gl33omjak4udnd7hhcaq13054@4ax.com >,
Bob Ward <bobward@email.com > wrote:
>On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 23:34:04 -0600, Tom Sherman
><sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Every used vehicle I have owned has required frequent and expensive
>>repairs. I refuse to gamble by going down that road again.
>>
>>I don't have time to screw around waiting for tow trucks, renting cars
>>while mine is fixed, waiting by the side of the road in West Grain
>>Elevator Iowa, taking calls from people wanting to know why the hell I
>>did not show up on time, etc.
>
>Sounds like you like to cheap out on regular maintenance, or you are
>just clinging to a bad argument that can't be supported as a universal
>truth.
Isn't every car a used car once you've bought it and driven it around for
a while?
--
Please reply to:
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 23:48:58
From:
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
In alt.fan.cecil-adams Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@removethisyahoo.com > wrote:
> huey.callison@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
> > I drive an eight-year-old truck with 150,000 miles on it. It has
> > failed to start one time - fuel pump went bad. $300 part and a
> > couple hours of swearing later, and I'm still waiting for that next
> > thing to go wrong. It's been six months. Other than that: two sets
> > of tires, a brake job, a couple wiper blades, a light bulb or two,
> > and regular oil changes - and those are all things you'd also have
> > to do to a new car. So - explain to me how a new car helps me any
> > more than what I have now?
> Every used vehicle I have owned has required frequent and expensive
> repairs. I refuse to gamble by going down that road again.
> I don't have time to screw around waiting for tow trucks, renting cars
> while mine is fixed, waiting by the side of the road in West Grain
> Elevator Iowa, taking calls from people wanting to know why the hell I
> did not show up on time, etc.
That doesn't answer my question. If anything, it suggests that you
aren't terribly good at buying used cars.
--
Huey
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2007 11:40:55
From: Lee Ayrton
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:
> huey.callison@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Bob Ward wrote:
>>>> Why should I feel compelled to convince you of anything?
>>> You are arguing with me on Usenet, no?
>> This does not magically imbue you with intelligence.
> Tell that to the Weschler people.
Usenet might magically disimbue you with intelligence:
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=320790
Constant IM and email use results in a (temporary) 10 point drop in IQ.
Perhaps this explains the endemic abuse of the apostrophe.
But! Vegetarians start out with a 5 point head start:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180753.stm
Lee "getting more stupid even as I post" Ayrton
--
"We began to realize, as we plowed on with the destruction of New Jersey,
that the extent of our American lunatic fringe had been underestimated."
Orson Wells on the reaction to the _War Of The Worlds_ broadcast.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2007 21:30:35
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Lee Ayrton wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:
>
>> huey.callison@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Bob Ward wrote:
>
>>>>> Why should I feel compelled to convince you of anything?
>>>> You are arguing with me on Usenet, no?
>>> This does not magically imbue you with intelligence.
>> Tell that to the Weschler people.
>
> Usenet might magically disimbue you with intelligence:
>
> http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=320790
>
> Constant IM and email use results in a (temporary) 10 point drop in IQ.
> Perhaps this explains the endemic abuse of the apostrophe....
How does reading the Journal-Sentinel affect one's intelligence?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 23:58:27
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
huey.callison@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
> In alt.fan.cecil-adams Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
>> huey.callison@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
>>> I drive an eight-year-old truck with 150,000 miles on it. It has
>>> failed to start one time - fuel pump went bad. $300 part and a
>>> couple hours of swearing later, and I'm still waiting for that next
>>> thing to go wrong. It's been six months. Other than that: two sets
>>> of tires, a brake job, a couple wiper blades, a light bulb or two,
>>> and regular oil changes - and those are all things you'd also have
>>> to do to a new car. So - explain to me how a new car helps me any
>>> more than what I have now?
>> Every used vehicle I have owned has required frequent and expensive
>> repairs. I refuse to gamble by going down that road again.
>> I don't have time to screw around waiting for tow trucks, renting cars
>> while mine is fixed, waiting by the side of the road in West Grain
>> Elevator Iowa, taking calls from people wanting to know why the hell I
>> did not show up on time, etc.
>
> That doesn't answer my question. If anything, it suggests that you
> aren't terribly good at buying used cars.
>
There are very few good used cars when your budget is $1500. Now that I
can afford not to drive trash, there is no way in hell that I will put
up with questionable reliability and things that do not work.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 14:59:49
From: Opus the Penguin
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Tom Sherman (sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com) wrote:
> huey.callison@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
>> In alt.fan.cecil-adams Tom Sherman
>> <sunsetss0003@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
>>> huey.callison@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
>>>> I drive an eight-year-old truck with 150,000 miles on it. It
>>>> has failed to start one time - fuel pump went bad. $300 part
>>>> and a couple hours of swearing later, and I'm still waiting for
>>>> that next thing to go wrong. It's been six months. Other than
>>>> that: two sets of tires, a brake job, a couple wiper blades, a
>>>> light bulb or two, and regular oil changes - and those are all
>>>> things you'd also have to do to a new car. So - explain to me
>>>> how a new car helps me any more than what I have now?
>>> Every used vehicle I have owned has required frequent and
>>> expensive repairs. I refuse to gamble by going down that road
>>> again. I don't have time to screw around waiting for tow trucks,
>>> renting cars while mine is fixed, waiting by the side of the
>>> road in West Grain Elevator Iowa, taking calls from people
>>> wanting to know why the hell I did not show up on time, etc.
>>
>> That doesn't answer my question. If anything, it suggests that
>> you aren't terribly good at buying used cars.
>>
> There are very few good used cars when your budget is $1500.
So up the budget a little. $5,000 will get you a quite reliable car.
We have a 1994 Honda Civic purchased for $5,500 with only 64k miles.
It hasn't needed any major repairs or ever failed to start. Later we
bought a 1999 Altima with 125k miles for just under $5,000. Also a
quite reliable car.
As a bonus, I hit a deer in the Civic [insert obligatory question
here] a year and a half ago. Crumpled the front driver-side panel a
bit. The insurance company totalled it and gave me $3,500. The car
still works fine and gets driven every day. I haven't felt any need
to repair the damage. So the car has averaged me about $55 per month
for the past 3 years. But we can't all be so lucky as to hit a deer.
--
Opus the Penguin
Science questions containing the word "only" are just begging for
quibbles. - Maurice Barnhill
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 23:38:49
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Opus the Penguin wrote:
> Tom Sherman (sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com) wrote:
>
>> huey.callison@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
>>> In alt.fan.cecil-adams Tom Sherman
>>> <sunsetss0003@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> huey.callison@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
>>>>> I drive an eight-year-old truck with 150,000 miles on it. It
>>>>> has failed to start one time - fuel pump went bad. $300 part
>>>>> and a couple hours of swearing later, and I'm still waiting for
>>>>> that next thing to go wrong. It's been six months. Other than
>>>>> that: two sets of tires, a brake job, a couple wiper blades, a
>>>>> light bulb or two, and regular oil changes - and those are all
>>>>> things you'd also have to do to a new car. So - explain to me
>>>>> how a new car helps me any more than what I have now?
>>>> Every used vehicle I have owned has required frequent and
>>>> expensive repairs. I refuse to gamble by going down that road
>>>> again. I don't have time to screw around waiting for tow trucks,
>>>> renting cars while mine is fixed, waiting by the side of the
>>>> road in West Grain Elevator Iowa, taking calls from people
>>>> wanting to know why the hell I did not show up on time, etc.
>>> That doesn't answer my question. If anything, it suggests that
>>> you aren't terribly good at buying used cars.
>>>
>> There are very few good used cars when your budget is $1500.
>
> So up the budget a little. $5,000 will get you a quite reliable car.
> We have a 1994 Honda Civic purchased for $5,500 with only 64k miles.
> It hasn't needed any major repairs or ever failed to start. Later we
> bought a 1999 Altima with 125k miles for just under $5,000. Also a
> quite reliable car.
My 1994 Civic Si started have problems from corrosion after 10 years of
driving through Midwestern winters. Things started to wear out at about
140,000 miles.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 22:30:06
From: Bob Ward
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 23:58:27 -0600, Tom Sherman
<sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com > wrote:
>huey.callison@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
>> In alt.fan.cecil-adams Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
>>> huey.callison@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
>>>> I drive an eight-year-old truck with 150,000 miles on it. It has
>>>> failed to start one time - fuel pump went bad. $300 part and a
>>>> couple hours of swearing later, and I'm still waiting for that next
>>>> thing to go wrong. It's been six months. Other than that: two sets
>>>> of tires, a brake job, a couple wiper blades, a light bulb or two,
>>>> and regular oil changes - and those are all things you'd also have
>>>> to do to a new car. So - explain to me how a new car helps me any
>>>> more than what I have now?
>>> Every used vehicle I have owned has required frequent and expensive
>>> repairs. I refuse to gamble by going down that road again.
>>> I don't have time to screw around waiting for tow trucks, renting cars
>>> while mine is fixed, waiting by the side of the road in West Grain
>>> Elevator Iowa, taking calls from people wanting to know why the hell I
>>> did not show up on time, etc.
>>
>> That doesn't answer my question. If anything, it suggests that you
>> aren't terribly good at buying used cars.
>>
>There are very few good used cars when your budget is $1500. Now that I
>can afford not to drive trash, there is no way in hell that I will put
>up with questionable reliability and things that do not work.
If you don't maintain them, you just end up with later model trash.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 03:25:35
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Bob Ward wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 23:58:27 -0600, Tom Sherman
> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> huey.callison@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
>>> In alt.fan.cecil-adams Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> huey.callison@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
>>>>> I drive an eight-year-old truck with 150,000 miles on it. It has
>>>>> failed to start one time - fuel pump went bad. $300 part and a
>>>>> couple hours of swearing later, and I'm still waiting for that next
>>>>> thing to go wrong. It's been six months. Other than that: two sets
>>>>> of tires, a brake job, a couple wiper blades, a light bulb or two,
>>>>> and regular oil changes - and those are all things you'd also have
>>>>> to do to a new car. So - explain to me how a new car helps me any
>>>>> more than what I have now?
>>>> Every used vehicle I have owned has required frequent and expensive
>>>> repairs. I refuse to gamble by going down that road again.
>>>> I don't have time to screw around waiting for tow trucks, renting cars
>>>> while mine is fixed, waiting by the side of the road in West Grain
>>>> Elevator Iowa, taking calls from people wanting to know why the hell I
>>>> did not show up on time, etc.
>>> That doesn't answer my question. If anything, it suggests that you
>>> aren't terribly good at buying used cars.
>>>
>> There are very few good used cars when your budget is $1500. Now that I
>> can afford not to drive trash, there is no way in hell that I will put
>> up with questionable reliability and things that do not work.
>
> If you don't maintain them, you just end up with later model trash.
>
Why do you presume lack of maintenance? Besides, many parts still wear
out from use and corrosion.
With a used car, who knows what happened to it earlier?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 22:25:56
From: Charles Bishop
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
In article <fgmbe4$mps$1@registered.motzarella.org >, Tom Sherman
<sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com > wrote:
>huey.callison@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
>> In alt.fan.cecil-adams Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
>>> huey.callison@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
>>>> I drive an eight-year-old truck with 150,000 miles on it. It has
>>>> failed to start one time - fuel pump went bad. $300 part and a
>>>> couple hours of swearing later, and I'm still waiting for that next
>>>> thing to go wrong. It's been six months. Other than that: two sets
>>>> of tires, a brake job, a couple wiper blades, a light bulb or two,
>>>> and regular oil changes - and those are all things you'd also have
>>>> to do to a new car. So - explain to me how a new car helps me any
>>>> more than what I have now?
>>> Every used vehicle I have owned has required frequent and expensive
>>> repairs. I refuse to gamble by going down that road again.
>>> I don't have time to screw around waiting for tow trucks, renting cars
>>> while mine is fixed, waiting by the side of the road in West Grain
>>> Elevator Iowa, taking calls from people wanting to know why the hell I
>>> did not show up on time, etc.
>>
>> That doesn't answer my question. If anything, it suggests that you
>> aren't terribly good at buying used cars.
>>
>There are very few good used cars when your budget is $1500. Now that I
>can afford not to drive trash, there is no way in hell that I will put
>up with questionable reliability and things that do not work.
What if your budget is more than $1500 but less than what a new car costs?
Do you think reliable transportation could be found? You're making
decisions based on your past experience (putting a limit of $1500 on a car
purchase fer instance) which limits choices. The discussion is general and
others have posted that a used vehicle is cheaper for them.
Old old is your vehicle before you buy a new one?
--
chalres
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 03:23:27
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Charles Bishop wrote:
> In article <fgmbe4$mps$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Tom Sherman
> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> huey.callison@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
>>> In alt.fan.cecil-adams Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> huey.callison@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
>>>>> I drive an eight-year-old truck with 150,000 miles on it. It has
>>>>> failed to start one time - fuel pump went bad. $300 part and a
>>>>> couple hours of swearing later, and I'm still waiting for that next
>>>>> thing to go wrong. It's been six months. Other than that: two sets
>>>>> of tires, a brake job, a couple wiper blades, a light bulb or two,
>>>>> and regular oil changes - and those are all things you'd also have
>>>>> to do to a new car. So - explain to me how a new car helps me any
>>>>> more than what I have now?
>>>> Every used vehicle I have owned has required frequent and expensive
>>>> repairs. I refuse to gamble by going down that road again.
>>>> I don't have time to screw around waiting for tow trucks, renting cars
>>>> while mine is fixed, waiting by the side of the road in West Grain
>>>> Elevator Iowa, taking calls from people wanting to know why the hell I
>>>> did not show up on time, etc.
>>> That doesn't answer my question. If anything, it suggests that you
>>> aren't terribly good at buying used cars.
>>>
>> There are very few good used cars when your budget is $1500. Now that I
>> can afford not to drive trash, there is no way in hell that I will put
>> up with questionable reliability and things that do not work.
>
> What if your budget is more than $1500 but less than what a new car costs?
> Do you think reliable transportation could be found? You're making
> decisions based on your past experience (putting a limit of $1500 on a car
> purchase fer instance) which limits choices. The discussion is general and
> others have posted that a used vehicle is cheaper for them.
>
> Old old is your vehicle before you buy a new one?
>
I will probably replace my current car at around 6 years/120,000 miles,
unless I get in a position where I can commute by bicycle and the car is
less critical. After that age/mileage, expensive things like clutches,
CV joints, wheel bearings, water pumps, etc. start to go.
Of course, if I lived in a place where everything under the car was not
subjected to a salt bath several months of the years, so things would
last better. At a certain point, corrosion affects safety critical items
in the suspension/steering (two related accidents so far and I do not
care to chance a third).
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 04:38:14
From: Mary
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
> Veronique wrote:
>> On Nov 4, 7:21 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Of course, I get compensated for mileage at about twice my actual cost.
>>> :) And I do not have to drive an old car of questionable safety, comfort
>>> and reliability. There have been great advances in ergonomics and
>>> handling over the last 20 years.
>>
>>
>> I question that every time I drive a rental car.
>
> With rental cars you typically get the bottom of the line of everything.
> I would not buy your typical GM/Ford/Chrysler rental car, even at the
> low price.
>
There are lots of different rental cars. I've had vans and little
econoboxes and midsize cars, and once on a business trip, a Mustang
convertible. And boy were they surprised when we insured that for
driving in Mexico.
Mary
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 03:16:48
From: Veronique
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Nov 4, 7:13 pm, Veronique <veroniqueuni...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Nov 4, 6:33 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > huey.calli...@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
>
> > > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> huey.calli...@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
> > >>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>>> Some of us NEED reliable transportation to stay employed, and can
> > >>>> not afford to have frequent breakdowns on the road. This requires a
> > >>>> fairly new vehicle. Furthermore, the maintenance costs on a older
> > >>>> vehicle can outweigh the payments on a newer one.
> > >>> A four-year note on a new base model Ford Focus is $336.45 payments.
> > >>> You're gonna need to have a major repair (cracked head, transmission
> > >>> rebuild) to add up to just a couple of those car payments. It's
> > >>> almost always cheaper to keep a beater-car running than it is to buy
> > >>> even a really inexpensive new car.
> > >> I am paying less than that for a top of line (EX) Honda Civic.
>
> > > That implies one or more of: a) a trade-in, b) a down payment, c) longer
> > > than a four-year note, or d) lower than prevailing interest rates.
>
> > I happened to get one of the very last Civics of that model year, so yes
> > I am paying below market rates.
>
> > >> I do not know where you area getting your repair prices, but a
> > >> transmission rebuild is going to $2000+, a clutch replacement $800+, a
> > >> water pump $400+, an engine rebuild $5000+.
>
> > > All of those depend on the car, but if you're keeping an older
> > > beater-car running, you're not paying $5000 for an engine rebuild,
> > > you're paying $1000 to put a junkyard motor in it. The last trans I had
> > > rebuilt was an TH440, and I paid $1500. A water pump is generally a $100
> > > part that takes me about an hour to put on, depending on the number of
> > > friends standing around and the amount of beer I drink. The clutch
> > > job is the only number I'm not going to argue with, $800 sounds about
> > > right.
>
> > Will an older beater car with parts from a junkyard be reliable?
>
> In a word, yes. I drive a thousand-dollar car I bought in 1987; I've
> put in a couple of clutches over the last twenty years, one rebuilt-
> engine and a new header. Brakes here and there, once costing me over
> $700 (for which I got a $250 refund and an apology.) I get it tuned
> up regularly, put gas and oil in it. While I've driven it across the
> US twice, I now rent cars for when I need to get further away than
> about 80 miles at a stretch, but even so, I am certain I haven't spent
> what you spend monthly on your car payment.
>
Wait, I lied; it's gone four times across the country on roadtrips.
V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep
|
| |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 03:13:10
From: Veronique
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Nov 4, 6:33 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com >
wrote:
> huey.calli...@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
>
>
>
> > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
> >> huey.calli...@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> Some of us NEED reliable transportation to stay employed, and can
> >>>> not afford to have frequent breakdowns on the road. This requires a
> >>>> fairly new vehicle. Furthermore, the maintenance costs on a older
> >>>> vehicle can outweigh the payments on a newer one.
> >>> A four-year note on a new base model Ford Focus is $336.45 payments.
> >>> You're gonna need to have a major repair (cracked head, transmission
> >>> rebuild) to add up to just a couple of those car payments. It's
> >>> almost always cheaper to keep a beater-car running than it is to buy
> >>> even a really inexpensive new car.
> >> I am paying less than that for a top of line (EX) Honda Civic.
>
> > That implies one or more of: a) a trade-in, b) a down payment, c) longer
> > than a four-year note, or d) lower than prevailing interest rates.
>
> I happened to get one of the very last Civics of that model year, so yes
> I am paying below market rates.
>
> >> I do not know where you area getting your repair prices, but a
> >> transmission rebuild is going to $2000+, a clutch replacement $800+, a
> >> water pump $400+, an engine rebuild $5000+.
>
> > All of those depend on the car, but if you're keeping an older
> > beater-car running, you're not paying $5000 for an engine rebuild,
> > you're paying $1000 to put a junkyard motor in it. The last trans I had
> > rebuilt was an TH440, and I paid $1500. A water pump is generally a $100
> > part that takes me about an hour to put on, depending on the number of
> > friends standing around and the amount of beer I drink. The clutch
> > job is the only number I'm not going to argue with, $800 sounds about
> > right.
>
> Will an older beater car with parts from a junkyard be reliable?
In a word, yes. I drive a thousand-dollar car I bought in 1987; I've
put in a couple of clutches over the last twenty years, one rebuilt-
engine and a new header. Brakes here and there, once costing me over
$700 (for which I got a $250 refund and an apology.) I get it tuned
up regularly, put gas and oil in it. While I've driven it across the
US twice, I now rent cars for when I need to get further away than
about 80 miles at a stretch, but even so, I am certain I haven't spent
what you spend monthly on your car payment.
V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep
|
| | |
Date: 12 Nov 2007 00:06:55
From:
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Nov 11, 10:51 am, Boron Elgar <boron_el...@hotmail.com > wrote:
>
> Lesson - you can get a good car or lemon from any manufacturer and in
> any model line.
>
> The most unreliable cars ever owned in this household are a Toyota
> Camry, followed by a Honda Accord.
>
> Most reliable have been a Mercury Grand Marquis, two Ford Expeditions,
> A Chevy Silverado and a Nissan Murano.
But it does not follow that you should choose your car model at
random, without regard to reliability records. That would be like
saying "some people have fallen great heights and lived, so I'm going
skydiving without a parachute." It's smart to pay attention to
reliability data.
Again, I've found Consumer Reports survey data to be pretty
accurate.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2007 16:14:04
From: Bob Ward
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 00:06:55 -0000, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>On Nov 11, 10:51 am, Boron Elgar <boron_el...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Lesson - you can get a good car or lemon from any manufacturer and in
>> any model line.
>>
>> The most unreliable cars ever owned in this household are a Toyota
>> Camry, followed by a Honda Accord.
>>
>> Most reliable have been a Mercury Grand Marquis, two Ford Expeditions,
>> A Chevy Silverado and a Nissan Murano.
>
>But it does not follow that you should choose your car model at
>random, without regard to reliability records. That would be like
>saying "some people have fallen great heights and lived, so I'm going
>skydiving without a parachute." It's smart to pay attention to
>reliability data.
>
>Again, I've found Consumer Reports survey data to be pretty
>accurate.
>
>- Frank Krygowski
>
... or not... Suzuki Samurai was a hatchet job.
|
| | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 21:21:08
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Veronique wrote:
> On Nov 4, 6:33 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> huey.calli...@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> huey.calli...@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Some of us NEED reliable transportation to stay employed, and can
>>>>>> not afford to have frequent breakdowns on the road. This requires a
>>>>>> fairly new vehicle. Furthermore, the maintenance costs on a older
>>>>>> vehicle can outweigh the payments on a newer one.
>>>>> A four-year note on a new base model Ford Focus is $336.45 payments.
>>>>> You're gonna need to have a major repair (cracked head, transmission
>>>>> rebuild) to add up to just a couple of those car payments. It's
>>>>> almost always cheaper to keep a beater-car running than it is to buy
>>>>> even a really inexpensive new car.
>>>> I am paying less than that for a top of line (EX) Honda Civic.
>>> That implies one or more of: a) a trade-in, b) a down payment, c) longer
>>> than a four-year note, or d) lower than prevailing interest rates.
>> I happened to get one of the very last Civics of that model year, so yes
>> I am paying below market rates.
>>
>>>> I do not know where you area getting your repair prices, but a
>>>> transmission rebuild is going to $2000+, a clutch replacement $800+, a
>>>> water pump $400+, an engine rebuild $5000+.
>>> All of those depend on the car, but if you're keeping an older
>>> beater-car running, you're not paying $5000 for an engine rebuild,
>>> you're paying $1000 to put a junkyard motor in it. The last trans I had
>>> rebuilt was an TH440, and I paid $1500. A water pump is generally a $100
>>> part that takes me about an hour to put on, depending on the number of
>>> friends standing around and the amount of beer I drink. The clutch
>>> job is the only number I'm not going to argue with, $800 sounds about
>>> right.
>> Will an older beater car with parts from a junkyard be reliable?
>
>
>
> In a word, yes. I drive a thousand-dollar car I bought in 1987; I've
> put in a couple of clutches over the last twenty years, one rebuilt-
> engine and a new header. Brakes here and there, once costing me over
> $700 (for which I got a $250 refund and an apology.) I get it tuned
> up regularly, put gas and oil in it. While I've driven it across the
> US twice, I now rent cars for when I need to get further away than
> about 80 miles at a stretch, but even so, I am certain I haven't spent
> what you spend monthly on your car payment.
Is your time fixing the car worth nothing?
I often have to get more than 100 miles away several days a week, often
on less than an hours notice before starting time. An old beater will
not cut it.
Of course, I get compensated for mileage at about twice my actual cost.
:) And I do not have to drive an old car of questionable safety, comfort
and reliability. There have been great advances in ergonomics and
handling over the last 20 years.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 19:05:13
From: Brian Huntley
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Nov 4, 4:23 pm, Lee Ayrton <layr...@panix.com > wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 1:46 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> > <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> Why not have a pickup for taking stuff to the landfill, and a small high
> >> mileage vehicle for the daily commute? Why not "right fit" driving?
>
> > I think my solution's even better: a small, high gas mileage vehicle
> > with a trailer hitch, and a small utility trailer for the rare events
> > when I need a pickup truck's capacity.
>
> There are advantages to both approaches, but both of them require
> sufficient real estate to park two vehicles and in some places (ie
> Boston) there isn't room for even one.
The last two times I rented vans (by the hour), they both looked like
they'd done dump runs before I got them, but they still worked well.
Normally, I use my 4-wheel trailer (with my bike) but it doesn't take
12' lumber very well. It *can* handle 4x8' drywall over short
distances, if I plan my route carefully and use the closest supplier,
but there's delivery, too, and that's handy.
The right vehicle for the job isn't always one you own, or even drive
or ride.
|
| |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 18:28:08
From: Brian Huntley
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Nov 3, 5:31 pm, Zoot Katz <zootk...@operamail.com > wrote:
> Vancouver was used as an example of a walkable city and it has the
> lowest obesity rates among Canadian cities.
Vancouver also has a high ratio of people who work early in the day,
and knock off early. Not only does that leave more time for
recreation, but it seems to be a healthier lifestyle.
(This observation is based on the fact I telecommuted from Toronto to
Vancouver for several years, and visited several times a year. When
working online, I found I didn't have to shift my day as far as I
expected (3 hrs) but only an hour or two.)
|
| | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 20:36:45
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Brian Huntley wrote:
> On Nov 3, 5:31 pm, Zoot Katz <zootk...@operamail.com> wrote:
>
>> Vancouver was used as an example of a walkable city and it has the
>> lowest obesity rates among Canadian cities.
>
> Vancouver also has a high ratio of people who work early in the day,
> and knock off early. Not only does that leave more time for
> recreation, but it seems to be a healthier lifestyle....
In the US, going to work early, still means getting off late.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 16:42:01
From: Lee Ayrton
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:
> Lee Ayrton wrote:
>> On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> Lee Ayrton wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more
>>>>> sensible vehicles.
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to think so and, if history is any guide, some will drive
>>>> smaller, more sensible vehicles. A second effect could be a tidal change
>>>> away from long commutes, with people living closer to their workplace.
>>>> But some Murricans will demand and get higher wages to cover their higher
>>>> commute cost, which will inevitably lead to inflation and an eventual
>>>> return to something approaching current costs in constant dollars.
[biggish snip]
>>> Real wages for everyone else have been dropping for 3+ decades, and will
>>> continue to do so.
>>
>> Focusing only on the case at hand, the cost of gasoline, the
>> inflation-adjusted cost at the 1980 peak was $3.06 in 2007 dollars.
>> Contention: Inflation has, historically, erased the constant-dollar rise in
>> fuel costs.
>>
>> Discuss.
>>
>>
>> Reference material:
>> http://www.fintrend.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Gasoline_Inflation.asp
>> http://www.randomuseless.info/gasprice/gasprice.html
>
> That is a whole 'nother kettle of axes.
No, I believe that I had that kettle when I came in.
--
"We began to realize, as we plowed on with the destruction of New Jersey,
that the extent of our American lunatic fringe had been underestimated."
Orson Wells on the reaction to the _War Of The Worlds_ broadcast.
|
| | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 15:55:21
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Lee Ayrton wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:
>
>> Lee Ayrton wrote:
>>> On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> Lee Ayrton wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:
>
>>>>>> But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more
>>>>>> sensible vehicles.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to think so and, if history is any guide, some will drive
>>>>> smaller, more sensible vehicles. A second effect could be a tidal
>>>>> change away from long commutes, with people living closer to their
>>>>> workplace. But some Murricans will demand and get higher wages to
>>>>> cover their higher commute cost, which will inevitably lead to
>>>>> inflation and an eventual return to something approaching current
>>>>> costs in constant dollars.
>
> [biggish snip]
>
>>>> Real wages for everyone else have been dropping for 3+ decades, and
>>>> will continue to do so.
>>>
>>> Focusing only on the case at hand, the cost of gasoline, the
>>> inflation-adjusted cost at the 1980 peak was $3.06 in 2007 dollars.
>>> Contention: Inflation has, historically, erased the constant-dollar
>>> rise in fuel costs.
>>>
>>> Discuss.
>>>
>>>
>>> Reference material:
>>> http://www.fintrend.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Gasoline_Inflation.asp
>>> http://www.randomuseless.info/gasprice/gasprice.html
>>
>> That is a whole 'nother kettle of axes.
>
> No, I believe that I had that kettle when I came in.
No disagreement that fuel prices have remained relatively constant in
real dollars over the last several decades in the US (which explains in
part why so many unnecessarily large vehicles are sold), but has little
bearing on what would happen if gasoline were $10/gallon.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 16:45:30
From: Lee Ayrton
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> Richard Evans wrote:
>>
>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> I wouldn't buy such a vehicle in any case. Even at that, when I do buy
>>>> my next car, the cost of gas won't enter into it unless I can find one
>>>> that meets my needs in all other respects. My "car" is actually a
>>>> compact pickup truck. I've been driving pickups since 1973 and don't
>>>> ever plan to buy anything else. When they come out with a small pickup
>>>> that does what I want AND gets 30mpg, then we'll talk.
>>>>
>>> Why not have a pickup for taking stuff to the landfill, and a small high
>>> mileage vehicle for the daily commute? Why not "right fit" driving?
>>
>> Because I'm semi-retired and don't commute. Even if I did, you're
>> asking me to spend even more than I outlined in the equation I posted
>> earlier. Now you want me to have *two* cars to pay for and maintain
>> just to save a few bucks on gas.
>>
> Because the costs of two cars might not be that much more than one. One
> change that is needed is in the insurance costs which today are higher
> for two cars even though you can obviously only drive one at a time.
Not to suggest that two vehicles "right-sized" for different purposes is
or isn't a good idea, but in my neck of the woods vehicles registered for
over the road use are subject to property tax. It adds up.
Of course, TWIAVBP and taxation schemes differ.
--
"We began to realize, as we plowed on with the destruction of New Jersey,
that the extent of our American lunatic fringe had been underestimated."
Orson Wells on the reaction to the _War Of The Worlds_ broadcast.
|
| |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 21:36:24
From:
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > I think my solution's even better: a small, high gas mileage vehicle
> > with a trailer hitch, and a small utility trailer for the rare events
> > when I need a pickup truck's capacity.
Then On Nov 4, 4:23 pm, Lee Ayrton <layr...@panix.com > wrote:
> There are advantages to both approaches, but both of them require
> sufficient real estate to park two vehicles and in some places (ie
> Boston) there isn't room for even one.
... and Lee Ayrton agreed.
My trailer requires only about 2' x 4' to park it. It stands on its
tail against the side wall of my garage.
I built this one myself. But I know I've seen folding utility
trailers advertised, for those who want to buy off the rack. Those
would need even less parking space.
I really think this is an under-utilized solution.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 21:10:11
From:
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Nov 4, 11:59 am, Richard Evans <info...@mindspring.com > wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >Under what circumstances do you need to reach your truck's max
> >acceleration? Does this happen regularly?
>
> I'm not talking maximum, just enough to safely accelerate into traffic
> on the interstate.
That doesn't compute. If you're not using the maximum acceleration of
your vehicle, you can do well with a vehicle that has less maximum
acceleration. You'll just use a little more of its acceleration
capacity.
And of course, if other things remain equal, it will probably cost you
less to purchase, and get better gas mileage to boot.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 21:30:38
From:
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Nov 4, 2:54 pm, Richard Evans <info...@mindspring.com > wrote:
> Opus the Penguin <opusthepenguin+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> I said that gas economy is low on my list and I wouldn't even
> >> consider it unless the vehicle met my other needs. One of those
> >> needs is decent highway acceleration, which I wouldn't get out of
> >> a 2L.
>
> >Why do you consider that a "need"? How much more are you willing to
> >pay to have this need met?
>
> I've already answered that multiple times. Move on.
I must have missed the "multiple times." The only answer I recall was
that you didn't want to talk about maximum acceleration - but that you
needed enough acceleration to safely merge onto a freeway.
Care to try again?
BTW, in my younger days, I drove many thousands of miles in a
Volkswagon van. That's the vehicle Road & Track magazine pitted
against the Goodyear Blimp in a comparison test.
I don't recall which accelerated more quickly, but it must have been
close. And still, I always did fine merging onto freeways.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 19:38:32
From: Wayne Pein
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I don't recall which accelerated more quickly, but it must have been
> close. And still, I always did fine merging onto freeways.
>
I often am able to use only a tiny bit of my Scion xB's 107 hp
acceleration when merging because drivers with much more powerful and
faster vehicles in front of me are too inept/distracted/etc to actually
press the gas pedal a bit and get up to full speed before hitting the
freeway. So I'm forced to sit behind them at 55 mph rather than 65 mph.
Wayne
|
| | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 15:51:13
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
frkrygow@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
> ...
> BTW, in my younger days, I drove many thousands of miles in a
> Volkswagon van.
You have my deepest sympathy, if by van you mean Type II.
> That's the vehicle Road & Track magazine pitted
> against the Goodyear Blimp in a comparison test.
The blimp was likely quieter with a better interior heater.
> I don't recall which accelerated more quickly, but it must have been
> close. And still, I always did fine merging onto freeways.
Rides in a Type IV in winter always seemed slow, because it was so damn
cold.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 16:23:33
From: Lee Ayrton
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 4, 1:46 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Why not have a pickup for taking stuff to the landfill, and a small high
>> mileage vehicle for the daily commute? Why not "right fit" driving?
>
> I think my solution's even better: a small, high gas mileage vehicle
> with a trailer hitch, and a small utility trailer for the rare events
> when I need a pickup truck's capacity.
There are advantages to both approaches, but both of them require
sufficient real estate to park two vehicles and in some places (ie
Boston) there isn't room for even one.
--
"We began to realize, as we plowed on with the destruction of New Jersey,
that the extent of our American lunatic fringe had been underestimated."
Orson Wells on the reaction to the _War Of The Worlds_ broadcast.
|
| |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 21:13:56
From:
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Nov 4, 1:46 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
<tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk > wrote:
>
>
> Why not have a pickup for taking stuff to the landfill, and a small high
> mileage vehicle for the daily commute? Why not "right fit" driving?
I think my solution's even better: a small, high gas mileage vehicle
with a trailer hitch, and a small utility trailer for the rare events
when I need a pickup truck's capacity.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 15:17:34
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
frkrygow@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Nov 4, 1:46 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Why not have a pickup for taking stuff to the landfill, and a small high
>> mileage vehicle for the daily commute? Why not "right fit" driving?
>
> I think my solution's even better: a small, high gas mileage vehicle
> with a trailer hitch, and a small utility trailer for the rare events
> when I need a pickup truck's capacity.
That only works for people with enough parking space for a trailer, or
renting one if the need is infrequent enough.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 17:55:25
From: Zoot Katz
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 15:17:34 -0600, Tom Sherman
<sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com > wrote:
>>> Why not have a pickup for taking stuff to the landfill, and a small high
>>> mileage vehicle for the daily commute? Why not "right fit" driving?
>>
>> I think my solution's even better: a small, high gas mileage vehicle
>> with a trailer hitch, and a small utility trailer for the rare events
>> when I need a pickup truck's capacity.
>
>That only works for people with enough parking space for a trailer, or
>renting one if the need is infrequent enough.
IIRC, Franks's utility trailer is of a size that can be stored tipped
up on its end. That's plenty big enough for domestic dump and
materials runs. A larger trailer can always be rented but then you'd
probably need a truck to haul it, and stop it, with its max. load.
--
zk
|
| |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 12:17:35
From: artyw2@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Nov 2, 11:50 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
<tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk > wrote:
> Mike Kruger wrote:
>
> > xhos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> Mike Kruger wrote:
> > >>> According to a study by Charles Courtemanche, an additional $1 per
> > >>> gallon in real gasoline prices would reduce U.S. obesity by 15
> > >>> percent after five years.
>
> > >>>http://improbable.com/2007/10/30/fat-people-have-less-gas/
>
> > >> Correlation and causation confused yet again.
>
> > > Did you read the dissertation? Because unless you did, how would you
> > > know that that particular error has been committed?
>
> > An article he's submitted to a journal is here.
> >http://artsci.wustl.edu/%7Ecjcourte/gas_obesity.pdf
>
> > He seems to be hedging well enough for academic use: "A causal relationship
> > between gasoline prices and obesity is possible ... I find empirical support
> > for this theory. My estimates imply..." That's the start of the abstract.
>
> > I haven't read the entire paper yet. There's 19 equations, most of which
> > seem to be regressions.
>
> If you put the price of gas at ten bucks a gallon, everyone is going to
> ride their bikes. So they'll get less fat. How isn't that causation?
They could always take the bus.
|
| | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 19:05:32
From: Claire Petersky
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
<artyw2@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1194207455.898515.239350@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 2, 11:50 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Mike Kruger wrote:
>> If you put the price of gas at ten bucks a gallon, everyone is going to
>> ride their bikes. So they'll get less fat. How isn't that causation?
>
> They could always take the bus.
Yeah, but they'd have to walk to the bus stop, and then, they'd have to walk
from the bus stop to wherever they were going, and that'd be more walking
then they'd do now, and they'd weigh less.
--
Warm Regards,
Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 22:17:52
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Claire Petersky wrote:
>
> <artyw2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1194207455.898515.239350@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > On Nov 2, 11:50 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> > <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Mike Kruger wrote:
>
> >> If you put the price of gas at ten bucks a gallon, everyone is going to
> >> ride their bikes. So they'll get less fat. How isn't that causation?
> >
> > They could always take the bus.
>
> Yeah, but they'd have to walk to the bus stop, and then, they'd have to walk
> from the bus stop to wherever they were going, and that'd be more walking
> then they'd do now, and they'd weigh less.
>
Now they just have to walk all around the Walmart, "Hey, where the hell
did I park my damned car!?" At least the bus is in the same place every
time.
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
|
| |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 14:03:58
From: Lee Ayrton
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:
> Richard Evans wrote:
>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>> A compact pickup with a reasonably sized (e.g. 2L) turbo-diesel should be
>>> able to approach that figure.
>>
>> I said that gas economy is low on my list and I wouldn't even consider
>> it unless the vehicle met my other needs. One of those needs is decent
>> highway acceleration, which I wouldn't get out of a 2L.
>
> With the output of modern diesel, I would fine a 2L adequate for a compact
> pickup, as long as it had a 6-speed manual to keep the engine between torque
> and power peaks.
Some (many? (all?)) automatics for light truck diesels are
computer-controlled to match the gear and the engine performance. Big
trucks, too:
http://trailer-bodybuilders.com/mag/trucks_freightliner_offers_aisin/
--
"We began to realize, as we plowed on with the destruction of New Jersey,
that the extent of our American lunatic fringe had been underestimated."
Orson Wells on the reaction to the _War Of The Worlds_ broadcast.
|
| |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 13:46:34
From: Lee Ayrton
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, Richard Evans wrote:
> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> I wouldn't buy such a vehicle in any case. Even at that, when I do buy
>>> my next car, the cost of gas won't enter into it unless I can find one
>>> that meets my needs in all other respects. My "car" is actually a
>>> compact pickup truck. I've been driving pickups since 1973 and don't
>>> ever plan to buy anything else. When they come out with a small pickup
>>> that does what I want AND gets 30mpg, then we'll talk.
>>>
>> Why not have a pickup for taking stuff to the landfill, and a small high
>> mileage vehicle for the daily commute? Why not "right fit" driving?
>
> Because I'm semi-retired and don't commute. Even if I did, you're
> asking me to spend even more than I outlined in the equation I posted
> earlier. Now you want me to have *two* cars to pay for and maintain
> just to save a few bucks on gas.
But think of all the jobs in Detroit you'll be saving.
Lee "C*Os, mostly" Ayrton
--
"We began to realize, as we plowed on with the destruction of New Jersey,
that the extent of our American lunatic fringe had been underestimated."
Orson Wells on the reaction to the _War Of The Worlds_ broadcast.
|
| | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 14:59:28
From: Richard Evans
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Lee Ayrton <layrton@panix.com > wrote:
>> Because I'm semi-retired and don't commute. Even if I did, you're
>> asking me to spend even more than I outlined in the equation I posted
>> earlier. Now you want me to have *two* cars to pay for and maintain
>> just to save a few bucks on gas.
>
>But think of all the jobs in Detroit you'll be saving.
In the last forty years I've owned over a hundred cars, new and used.
I've done my share for Detroit.
|
| |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 13:43:41
From: Lee Ayrton
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:
> Lee Ayrton wrote:
>> On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>> Think of it this way, if you could afford to drive your 15 mpg SUV at $2
>>>> per gallon, you can likely afford to drive a 45 mpg car at $6 a gallon
>>>> and a 60 mpg Trotter-mobile at $8. Americans can certainly adjust to
>>>> increases in petrol prices.
>>>
>>> But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more
>>> sensible vehicles.
>>
>> I'd like to think so and, if history is any guide, some will drive smaller,
>> more sensible vehicles. A second effect could be a tidal change away from
>> long commutes, with people living closer to their workplace. But some
>> Murricans will demand and get higher wages to cover their higher commute
>> cost, which will inevitably lead to inflation and an eventual return to
>> something approaching current costs in constant dollars.
>
> The only US workers that can demand and get higher wages are top executives,
There is a thing called "voting with their feet". If jobs are available,
people can and do move from lower-paying jobs to higher-paying work.
They'll leave the cannery and work at the packing house, if that's where
the money is. In order for the cannery to hire enough workers, it raises
wages (and prices). The mushroom farm notices that the cannery is now
paying a higher wage and raises its wages (and prices) to slow the loss of
workers. The nursing home begins to lose workers to the mushroom
farm. Lather, rinse, repeat.
> who get paid more and more, irregardless of how well the company performs.
Well, that's a different kettle of fish to grind.
> Real wages for everyone else have been dropping for 3+ decades, and will
> continue to do so.
Focusing only on the case at hand, the cost of gasoline, the
inflation-adjusted cost at the 1980 peak was $3.06 in 2007 dollars.
Contention: Inflation has, historically, erased the constant-dollar rise
in fuel costs.
Discuss.
Reference material:
http://www.fintrend.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Gasoline_Inflation.asp
http://www.randomuseless.info/gasprice/gasprice.html
--
"We began to realize, as we plowed on with the destruction of New Jersey,
that the extent of our American lunatic fringe had been underestimated."
Orson Wells on the reaction to the _War Of The Worlds_ broadcast.
|
| | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 13:05:03
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Lee Ayrton wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:
>
>> Lee Ayrton wrote:
>>> On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>
>>>>> Think of it this way, if you could afford to drive your 15 mpg SUV
>>>>> at $2
>>>>> per gallon, you can likely afford to drive a 45 mpg car at $6 a gallon
>>>>> and a 60 mpg Trotter-mobile at $8. Americans can certainly adjust to
>>>>> increases in petrol prices.
>>>>
>>>> But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more
>>>> sensible vehicles.
>>>
>>> I'd like to think so and, if history is any guide, some will drive
>>> smaller, more sensible vehicles. A second effect could be a tidal
>>> change away from long commutes, with people living closer to their
>>> workplace. But some Murricans will demand and get higher wages to
>>> cover their higher commute cost, which will inevitably lead to
>>> inflation and an eventual return to something approaching current
>>> costs in constant dollars.
>>
>> The only US workers that can demand and get higher wages are top
>> executives,
>
> There is a thing called "voting with their feet". If jobs are
> available, people can and do move from lower-paying jobs to
> higher-paying work. They'll leave the cannery and work at the packing
> house, if that's where the money is. In order for the cannery to hire
> enough workers, it raises wages (and prices). The mushroom farm notices
> that the cannery is now paying a higher wage and raises its wages (and
> prices) to slow the loss of workers. The nursing home begins to lose
> workers to the mushroom farm. Lather, rinse, repeat.
"If the jobs are available". That is a very big if.
The higher paying jobs are being shipped off to low wage countries, and
unemployment and lack of a social safety net is built into the US
economy for the very purpose of provide capital leverage over labor.
>> who get paid more and more, irregardless of how well the company
>> performs.
>
> Well, that's a different kettle of fish to grind.
I like mixed metaphors.
>> Real wages for everyone else have been dropping for 3+ decades, and
>> will continue to do so.
>
> Focusing only on the case at hand, the cost of gasoline, the
> inflation-adjusted cost at the 1980 peak was $3.06 in 2007 dollars.
> Contention: Inflation has, historically, erased the constant-dollar rise
> in fuel costs.
>
> Discuss.
>
>
> Reference material:
> http://www.fintrend.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Gasoline_Inflation.asp
> http://www.randomuseless.info/gasprice/gasprice.html
That is a whole 'nother kettle of axes.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 10:51:22
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Even my ancient Honda Civic wagon, 1.5 liters, has more acceleration
> than I ever need.
>
Put in the 1.3 and five tall gears and you won't be saying that. OTOH,
if you want to drive, you can drive think about which gear you have to
be in or your smoked on that hill climb.
> Seriously, that engine hasn't seen its red line in
> probably ten years. And I've noticed that car models almost always
> gain horsepower from year to year. I don't understand why so many
> people would actually need that.
>
> Under what circumstances do you need to reach your truck's max
> acceleration? Does this happen regularly?
>
If you are being chased by the cops. So if you are a bank robber, I
think think you need the turbo or the 8 cyl.
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
|
| | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 11:53:58
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>
> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>> Even my ancient Honda Civic wagon, 1.5 liters, has more acceleration
>> than I ever need.
>>
> Put in the 1.3 and five tall gears and you won't be saying that. OTOH,
> if you want to drive, you can drive think about which gear you have to
> be in or your smoked on that hill climb.
I have driven up steep hills in trucks with 150+ pounds per horsepower.
Of course, this is difficult to do if the driver is intent on stuffing
his face with a Big Mac while gabbing on the phone.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 05:58:45
From: Blinky the Shark
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>
>>>>> Sparky is a penguin [1].
>>
>> Actually, Blinky is a penguin, too, or at least a Penquinista by virtue
>> of his use of Linux.
>>
>>>> Opus is a penguin (here in alt.fan.cecil-adams).[1a]
>>
>>>> [1a] Opus the Penguin
>>> I thought Opus was a German Shepard (very early Bloom County reference).
>>
>> I didn't actually follow the Breathed stuff, but I wasn't aware of that.
>
> In a very early strip, Michael Binkley tells his father he has a pet
> German Shepard, but it is actually Opus the penguin. This was before
> Opus became a regular character with speech and personality. (Note:
> based on my memory of reading the strip in a collection over 15 years ago).
Ah.
I didn't even know Michael's last name. Even though it's very much like
my first name. If I ever have to change my name, like for the Witness
Protection Program, maybe I'll use Binkley the Shark.
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
|
| |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 05:02:23
From: Blinky the Shark
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> Sparky is a penguin [1].
Actually, Blinky is a penguin, too, or at least a Penquinista by virtue
of his use of Linux.
>> Opus is a penguin (here in alt.fan.cecil-adams).[1a]
>> [1a] Opus the Penguin
>
> I thought Opus was a German Shepard (very early Bloom County reference).
I didn't actually follow the Breathed stuff, but I wasn't aware of that.
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
|
| | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 07:42:56
From: Charles Bishop
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
In article <slrnfiqo34.ion.no.spam@thurston.blinkynet.net >, Blinky the
Shark <no.spam@box.invalid > wrote:
>Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>
>>>> Sparky is a penguin [1].
>
>Actually, Blinky is a penguin, too, or at least a Penquinista by virtue
>of his use of Linux.
>
>>> Opus is a penguin (here in alt.fan.cecil-adams).[1a]
>
>>> [1a] Opus the Penguin
>>
>> I thought Opus was a German Shepard (very early Bloom County reference).
>
>I didn't actually follow the Breathed stuff, but I wasn't aware of that.
"I didn't actually follow the Breathed stuff, [so] I wasn't aware of that."
"I . . . follow the Breathed stuff, but I wasn't aware of that."
charles, writing for comprehension, bishop
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 21:07:57
From: bill van
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
In article
<ctbishop-0411070742570001@dialup-4.246.39.61.dial1.sanjose1.level3.net >
,
ctbishop@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop) wrote:
> In article <slrnfiqo34.ion.no.spam@thurston.blinkynet.net>, Blinky the
> Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Tom Sherman wrote:
> >> Blinky the Shark wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman wrote:
> >
> >>>> Sparky is a penguin [1].
> >
> >Actually, Blinky is a penguin, too, or at least a Penquinista by virtue
> >of his use of Linux.
> >
> >>> Opus is a penguin (here in alt.fan.cecil-adams).[1a]
> >
> >>> [1a] Opus the Penguin
> >>
> >> I thought Opus was a German Shepard (very early Bloom County reference).
> >
> >I didn't actually follow the Breathed stuff, but I wasn't aware of that.
>
> "I didn't actually follow the Breathed stuff, [so] I wasn't aware of that."
>
> "I . . . follow the Breathed stuff, but I wasn't aware of that."
>
Now Albert 'ad 'eard about lions-
'Ow they was ferocious and wild;
To see lion lyin' so peaceful
Just didn't seem right to the child.
So straightway the brave little feller,
Not showin' a morsel of fear,
Took 'is stick with the 'orse's 'ead 'andle
And stuck it in Wallace's ear.
You could see that the lion din't like it,
For givin' a kind of a roll,
'E pulled Albert inside the cage with 'im
And swallered the little lad - 'ole!
--
bill
remove my country for e-mail
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 17:59:49
From: Charles Bishop
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
In article <billvan-3F27C5.13075604112007@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net >, bill
van <billvan@shawcanada.ca > wrote:
>In article
><ctbishop-0411070742570001@dialup-4.246.39.61.dial1.sanjose1.level3.net>
>,
> ctbishop@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop) wrote:
>
>> In article <slrnfiqo34.ion.no.spam@thurston.blinkynet.net>, Blinky the
>> Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >Tom Sherman wrote:
>> >> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>> >>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> >
>> >>>> Sparky is a penguin [1].
>> >
>> >Actually, Blinky is a penguin, too, or at least a Penquinista by virtue
>> >of his use of Linux.
>> >
>> >>> Opus is a penguin (here in alt.fan.cecil-adams).[1a]
>> >
>> >>> [1a] Opus the Penguin
>> >>
>> >> I thought Opus was a German Shepard (very early Bloom County reference).
>> >
>> >I didn't actually follow the Breathed stuff, but I wasn't aware of that.
>>
>> "I didn't actually follow the Breathed stuff, [so] I wasn't aware of that."
>>
>> "I . . . follow the Breathed stuff, but I wasn't aware of that."
>>
> Now Albert 'ad 'eard about lions-
>'Ow they was ferocious and wild;
>To see lion lyin' so peaceful
>Just didn't seem right to the child.
>So straightway the brave little feller,
>Not showin' a morsel of fear,
>Took 'is stick with the 'orse's 'ead 'andle
>And stuck it in Wallace's ear.
>You could see that the lion din't like it,
>For givin' a kind of a roll,
>'E pulled Albert inside the cage with 'im
>And swallered the little lad - 'ole!
I'm not going in the ocean for a while; I should be safe.
charles, land shark, bishop
|
| | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 00:18:01
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Blinky the Shark wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>
>>>> Sparky is a penguin [1].
>
> Actually, Blinky is a penguin, too, or at least a Penquinista by virtue
> of his use of Linux.
>
>>> Opus is a penguin (here in alt.fan.cecil-adams).[1a]
>
>>> [1a] Opus the Penguin
>> I thought Opus was a German Shepard (very early Bloom County reference).
>
> I didn't actually follow the Breathed stuff, but I wasn't aware of that.
In a very early strip, Michael Binkley tells his father he has a pet
German Shepard, but it is actually Opus the penguin. This was before
Opus became a regular character with speech and personality. (Note:
based on my memory of reading the strip in a collection over 15 years ago).
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 03:59:19
From: Blinky the Shark
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>>>> landotter wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 2, 7:56 pm, "Mike Kruger" <Mik...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> According to a study by Charles Courtemanche
>>>>>>>>> You'd trust a study by a dude with a faggy name like that?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In other news, gas is $7/gallon in the UK and they still fry Mars
>>>>>>>>> bars.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Think of it this way, if you could afford to drive your 15 mpg SUV at
>>>>>>>> $2 per gallon, you can likely afford to drive a 45 mpg car at $6 a
>>>>>>>> gallon and a 60 mpg Trotter-mobile at $8. Americans can certainly
>>>>>>>> adjust to increases in petrol prices.
>>>>>>> But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more
>>>>>>> sensible vehicles.
>>>>>> <yawn> Which would only be needed because of those prices.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Similarly, "At least higher cancer rates would get more people into
>>>>>> chemotherapy and radiotherapy."
>>>>> Must be a SUV driver that likes endangering others with excessive
>>>>> vehicle mass?
>>>> Sorry, Sparky. Ford Focus.
>>>>
>>> So do you like your view being blocked by over sized SUVs, or the danger
>>> their excess mass poses to you, or the fact that many of their drivers
>>> can not see well enough to make safe lane changes? All to carry one
>>> person on pavement most of the time? That makes a lot of sense!
>>
>> Sorry, Sparky. Nothing I said implied that I'm an SUV lover.
>
> Sparky is a penguin [1].
Opus is a penguin (here in alt.fan.cecil-adams).[1a]
> You implied that the only reason for smaller, more sensible vehicles
> would be higher gas prices. Maybe a review of what you write for meaning
> is in order?
The discussion was - at least as it got crossposted here - about prices
and MPG. That's what I responded to. I have a reasonably efficient car
because of costs.
This is a holy wars issue, and I try to avoid them.
Now, excuse me while - in keeping with my earlier analogy - I hit my thumb
with a hammer because it feels so good when I stop.
Oh...and my best bicycle-riding year, I put 2,500 miles on my touring bike
to 3,500 miles on my automobile.
[1a] Opus the Penguin
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
|
| | |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 23:12:07
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Blinky the Shark wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>>>>> landotter wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 2, 7:56 pm, "Mike Kruger" <Mik...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> According to a study by Charles Courtemanche
>>>>>>>>>> You'd trust a study by a dude with a faggy name like that?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In other news, gas is $7/gallon in the UK and they still fry Mars
>>>>>>>>>> bars.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Think of it this way, if you could afford to drive your 15 mpg SUV at
>>>>>>>>> $2 per gallon, you can likely afford to drive a 45 mpg car at $6 a
>>>>>>>>> gallon and a 60 mpg Trotter-mobile at $8. Americans can certainly
>>>>>>>>> adjust to increases in petrol prices.
>>>>>>>> But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more
>>>>>>>> sensible vehicles.
>>>>>>> <yawn> Which would only be needed because of those prices.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Similarly, "At least higher cancer rates would get more people into
>>>>>>> chemotherapy and radiotherapy."
>>>>>> Must be a SUV driver that likes endangering others with excessive
>>>>>> vehicle mass?
>>>>> Sorry, Sparky. Ford Focus.
>>>>>
>>>> So do you like your view being blocked by over sized SUVs, or the danger
>>>> their excess mass poses to you, or the fact that many of their drivers
>>>> can not see well enough to make safe lane changes? All to carry one
>>>> person on pavement most of the time? That makes a lot of sense!
>>> Sorry, Sparky. Nothing I said implied that I'm an SUV lover.
>> Sparky is a penguin [1].
>
> Opus is a penguin (here in alt.fan.cecil-adams).[1a]
>
>> You implied that the only reason for smaller, more sensible vehicles
>> would be higher gas prices. Maybe a review of what you write for meaning
>> is in order?
>
> The discussion was - at least as it got crossposted here - about prices
> and MPG. That's what I responded to. I have a reasonably efficient car
> because of costs.
>
> This is a holy wars issue, and I try to avoid them.
>
> Now, excuse me while - in keeping with my earlier analogy - I hit my thumb
> with a hammer because it feels so good when I stop.
>
> Oh...and my best bicycle-riding year, I put 2,500 miles on my touring bike
> to 3,500 miles on my automobile.
>
> [1a] Opus the Penguin
I thought Opus was a German Shepard (very early Bloom County reference).
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 20:54:03
From:
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Nov 3, 10:13 pm, Richard Evans <info...@mindspring.com > wrote:
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
> >Richard Evans wrote:
> >> My "car" is actually a
> >> compact pickup truck. I've been driving pickups since 1973 and don't
> >> ever plan to buy anything else. When they come out with a small pickup
> >> that does what I want AND gets 30mpg, then we'll talk.
>
> >A compact pickup with a reasonably sized (e.g. 2L) turbo-diesel should
> >be able to approach that figure.
>
> I said that gas economy is low on my list and I wouldn't even consider
> it unless the vehicle met my other needs. One of those needs is decent
> highway acceleration, which I wouldn't get out of a 2L.
Hmm. How much acceleration do you really need?
Our "family" car is now a Pontiac Vibe. 1.8 Liters, IIRC. Standard
engine. The only time I felt the acceleration was a bit slow was
when towing a trailer about half the mass of the car!
Even my ancient Honda Civic wagon, 1.5 liters, has more acceleration
than I ever need. Seriously, that engine hasn't seen its red line in
probably ten years. And I've noticed that car models almost always
gain horsepower from year to year. I don't understand why so many
people would actually need that.
Under what circumstances do you need to reach your truck's max
acceleration? Does this happen regularly?
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 11:59:22
From: Richard Evans
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>On Nov 3, 10:13 pm, Richard Evans <info...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Richard Evans wrote:
>> >> My "car" is actually a
>> >> compact pickup truck. I've been driving pickups since 1973 and don't
>> >> ever plan to buy anything else. When they come out with a small pickup
>> >> that does what I want AND gets 30mpg, then we'll talk.
>>
>> >A compact pickup with a reasonably sized (e.g. 2L) turbo-diesel should
>> >be able to approach that figure.
>>
>> I said that gas economy is low on my list and I wouldn't even consider
>> it unless the vehicle met my other needs. One of those needs is decent
>> highway acceleration, which I wouldn't get out of a 2L.
>
>Hmm. How much acceleration do you really need?
My previous 3L Ranger (same engine as the Mazda) was barely adequate.
My earlier 2.3L Mazda, with standard transmission was even less barely
adequate. My 4L is adequate, but still no race car.
>
>Under what circumstances do you need to reach your truck's max
>acceleration? Does this happen regularly?
I'm not talking maximum, just enough to safely accelerate into traffic
on the interstate.
|
| |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 01:48:18
From: Blinky the Shark
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>> landotter wrote:
>>>>>>> On Nov 2, 7:56 pm, "Mike Kruger" <Mik...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> According to a study by Charles Courtemanche
>>>>>>> You'd trust a study by a dude with a faggy name like that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In other news, gas is $7/gallon in the UK and they still fry Mars
>>>>>>> bars.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Think of it this way, if you could afford to drive your 15 mpg SUV at
>>>>>> $2 per gallon, you can likely afford to drive a 45 mpg car at $6 a
>>>>>> gallon and a 60 mpg Trotter-mobile at $8. Americans can certainly
>>>>>> adjust to increases in petrol prices.
>>>>> But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more
>>>>> sensible vehicles.
>>>> <yawn> Which would only be needed because of those prices.
>>>>
>>>> Similarly, "At least higher cancer rates would get more people into
>>>> chemotherapy and radiotherapy."
>>> Must be a SUV driver that likes endangering others with excessive
>>> vehicle mass?
>>
>> Sorry, Sparky. Ford Focus.
>>
> So do you like your view being blocked by over sized SUVs, or the danger
> their excess mass poses to you, or the fact that many of their drivers
> can not see well enough to make safe lane changes? All to carry one
> person on pavement most of the time? That makes a lot of sense!
Sorry, Sparky. Nothing I said implied that I'm an SUV lover.
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
|
| | |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 21:37:46
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Blinky the Shark wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>>> landotter wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Nov 2, 7:56 pm, "Mike Kruger" <Mik...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> According to a study by Charles Courtemanche
>>>>>>>> You'd trust a study by a dude with a faggy name like that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other news, gas is $7/gallon in the UK and they still fry Mars
>>>>>>>> bars.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Think of it this way, if you could afford to drive your 15 mpg SUV at
>>>>>>> $2 per gallon, you can likely afford to drive a 45 mpg car at $6 a
>>>>>>> gallon and a 60 mpg Trotter-mobile at $8. Americans can certainly
>>>>>>> adjust to increases in petrol prices.
>>>>>> But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more
>>>>>> sensible vehicles.
>>>>> <yawn> Which would only be needed because of those prices.
>>>>>
>>>>> Similarly, "At least higher cancer rates would get more people into
>>>>> chemotherapy and radiotherapy."
>>>> Must be a SUV driver that likes endangering others with excessive
>>>> vehicle mass?
>>> Sorry, Sparky. Ford Focus.
>>>
>> So do you like your view being blocked by over sized SUVs, or the danger
>> their excess mass poses to you, or the fact that many of their drivers
>> can not see well enough to make safe lane changes? All to carry one
>> person on pavement most of the time? That makes a lot of sense!
>
> Sorry, Sparky. Nothing I said implied that I'm an SUV lover.
Sparky is a penguin [1].
You implied that the only reason for smaller, more sensible vehicles
would be higher gas prices. Maybe a review of what you write for meaning
is in order?
[1] <http://www.thismodernworld.com/ >.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 01:25:09
From: Blinky the Shark
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>> landotter wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 2, 7:56 pm, "Mike Kruger" <Mik...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>>>>> According to a study by Charles Courtemanche
>>>>> You'd trust a study by a dude with a faggy name like that?
>>>>>
>>>>> In other news, gas is $7/gallon in the UK and they still fry Mars
>>>>> bars.
>>>>>
>>>> Think of it this way, if you could afford to drive your 15 mpg SUV at
>>>> $2 per gallon, you can likely afford to drive a 45 mpg car at $6 a
>>>> gallon and a 60 mpg Trotter-mobile at $8. Americans can certainly
>>>> adjust to increases in petrol prices.
>>> But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more
>>> sensible vehicles.
>>
>> <yawn> Which would only be needed because of those prices.
>>
>> Similarly, "At least higher cancer rates would get more people into
>> chemotherapy and radiotherapy."
>
> Must be a SUV driver that likes endangering others with excessive
> vehicle mass?
Sorry, Sparky. Ford Focus.
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
|
| | |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 20:33:23
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Blinky the Shark wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>> landotter wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 2, 7:56 pm, "Mike Kruger" <Mik...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> According to a study by Charles Courtemanche
>>>>>> You'd trust a study by a dude with a faggy name like that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In other news, gas is $7/gallon in the UK and they still fry Mars
>>>>>> bars.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Think of it this way, if you could afford to drive your 15 mpg SUV at
>>>>> $2 per gallon, you can likely afford to drive a 45 mpg car at $6 a
>>>>> gallon and a 60 mpg Trotter-mobile at $8. Americans can certainly
>>>>> adjust to increases in petrol prices.
>>>> But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more
>>>> sensible vehicles.
>>> <yawn> Which would only be needed because of those prices.
>>>
>>> Similarly, "At least higher cancer rates would get more people into
>>> chemotherapy and radiotherapy."
>> Must be a SUV driver that likes endangering others with excessive
>> vehicle mass?
>
> Sorry, Sparky. Ford Focus.
>
So do you like your view being blocked by over sized SUVs, or the danger
their excess mass poses to you, or the fact that many of their drivers
can not see well enough to make safe lane changes? All to carry one
person on pavement most of the time? That makes a lot of sense!
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 21:08:53
From: Gooserider
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
"Mike Kruger" <MikeKr@mouse-potato.com > wrote in message
news:BGPWi.16339$lD6.13651@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> According to a study by Charles Courtemanche, an additional $1 per gallon
> in real gasoline prices would reduce U.S. obesity by 15 percent after five
> years.
>
> http://improbable.com/2007/10/30/fat-people-have-less-gas/
And if people weighed less, gas consumption would reduce, and the price
would drop.
|
| | |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 20:48:40
From: Bob Ward
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Sat, 3 Nov 2007 21:08:53 -0400, "Gooserider"
<Gooserider@mouse-potato.com > wrote:
>
>"Mike Kruger" <MikeKr@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
>news:BGPWi.16339$lD6.13651@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>> According to a study by Charles Courtemanche, an additional $1 per gallon
>> in real gasoline prices would reduce U.S. obesity by 15 percent after five
>> years.
>>
>> http://improbable.com/2007/10/30/fat-people-have-less-gas/
>
>
>And if people weighed less, gas consumption would reduce, and the price
>would drop.
>
No, the oil companies would charge more to recover the drop in
revenue.
Look what the Electric and Water companies have been doing.
|
| |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 22:14:58
From: Blinky the Shark
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>
>> landotter wrote:
>>> On Nov 2, 7:56 pm, "Mike Kruger" <Mik...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>>> According to a study by Charles Courtemanche
>>> You'd trust a study by a dude with a faggy name like that?
>>>
>>> In other news, gas is $7/gallon in the UK and they still fry Mars
>>> bars.
>>>
>> Think of it this way, if you could afford to drive your 15 mpg SUV at
>> $2 per gallon, you can likely afford to drive a 45 mpg car at $6 a
>> gallon and a 60 mpg Trotter-mobile at $8. Americans can certainly
>> adjust to increases in petrol prices.
>
> But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more
> sensible vehicles.
<yawn > Which would only be needed because of those prices.
Similarly, "At least higher cancer rates would get more people into
chemotherapy and radiotherapy."
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
|
| | |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 17:45:11
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Blinky the Shark wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>> landotter wrote:
>>>> On Nov 2, 7:56 pm, "Mike Kruger" <Mik...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>>>> According to a study by Charles Courtemanche
>>>> You'd trust a study by a dude with a faggy name like that?
>>>>
>>>> In other news, gas is $7/gallon in the UK and they still fry Mars
>>>> bars.
>>>>
>>> Think of it this way, if you could afford to drive your 15 mpg SUV at
>>> $2 per gallon, you can likely afford to drive a 45 mpg car at $6 a
>>> gallon and a 60 mpg Trotter-mobile at $8. Americans can certainly
>>> adjust to increases in petrol prices.
>> But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more
>> sensible vehicles.
>
> <yawn> Which would only be needed because of those prices.
>
> Similarly, "At least higher cancer rates would get more people into
> chemotherapy and radiotherapy."
Must be a SUV driver that likes endangering others with excessive
vehicle mass?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 17:21:09
From: Lee Ayrton
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>> landotter wrote:
>>>
>>> In other news, gas is $7/gallon in the UK and they still fry Mars bars.
>>>
>> Think of it this way, if you could afford to drive your 15 mpg SUV at $2
>> per gallon, you can likely afford to drive a 45 mpg car at $6 a gallon
>> and a 60 mpg Trotter-mobile at $8. Americans can certainly adjust to
>> increases in petrol prices.
>
> But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more sensible
> vehicles.
I'd like to think so and, if history is any guide, some will drive
smaller, more sensible vehicles. A second effect could be a tidal change
away from long commutes, with people living closer to their workplace.
But some Murricans will demand and get higher wages to cover their higher
commute cost, which will inevitably lead to inflation and an eventual
return to something approaching current costs in constant dollars.
Lee "Depending on what China does, of course" Ayrton
--
"We began to realize, as we plowed on with the destruction of New Jersey,
that the extent of our American lunatic fringe had been underestimated."
Orson Wells on the reaction to the _War Of The Worlds_ broadcast.
|
| | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 07:40:13
From: Charles Bishop
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
In article <Pine.NEB.4.64.0711031716110.3960@panix1.panix.com >, Lee Ayrton
<layrton@panix.com > wrote:
>On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:
>
>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>> landotter wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In other news, gas is $7/gallon in the UK and they still fry Mars bars.
>>>>
>>> Think of it this way, if you could afford to drive your 15 mpg SUV at $2
>>> per gallon, you can likely afford to drive a 45 mpg car at $6 a gallon
>>> and a 60 mpg Trotter-mobile at $8. Americans can certainly adjust to
>>> increases in petrol prices.
>>
>> But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more sensible
>> vehicles.
>
>I'd like to think so and, if history is any guide, some will drive
>smaller, more sensible vehicles. A second effect could be a tidal change
>away from long commutes, with people living closer to their workplace.
>But some Murricans will demand and get higher wages to cover their higher
>commute cost, which will inevitably lead to inflation and an eventual
>return to something approaching current costs in constant dollars.
How does having a higher commute cost translate into higher wages? If they
can demand (and get) higher wages just for having a more costly commute,
why can't they demand (and get) higher wages just because? If a company
wants to keep a valued employee because they have a more expensive
commute, they would want to keep her if she lived closer and the salary
would reflect this, so just having a longer commute won't mean higher
wages.
Inflation doesn't result from a few people getting higher wages. If more
is paid to them, less is paid somewhere else, absent more income to the
company.
>
>Lee "Depending on what China does, of course" Ayrton
They're the 800 lb gorilla?
--
charles
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 10:41:53
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Charles Bishop wrote:
>
> In article <Pine.NEB.4.64.0711031716110.3960@panix1.panix.com>, Lee Ayrton
> >> But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more sensible
> >> vehicles.
> >
> >I'd like to think so and, if history is any guide, some will drive
> >smaller, more sensible vehicles. A second effect could be a tidal change
> >away from long commutes, with people living closer to their workplace.
> >But some Murricans will demand and get higher wages to cover their higher
> >commute cost, which will inevitably lead to inflation and an eventual
> >return to something approaching current costs in constant dollars.
>
> How does having a higher commute cost translate into higher wages? If they
> can demand (and get) higher wages just for having a more costly commute,
> why can't they demand (and get) higher wages just because? If a company
> wants to keep a valued employee because they have a more expensive
> commute, they would want to keep her if she lived closer and the salary
> would reflect this, so just having a longer commute won't mean higher
> wages.
>
Except that the worker is more likely to decide not to work at that
place unless they are paid more because of their higher costs.
> Inflation doesn't result from a few people getting higher wages. If more
> is paid to them, less is paid somewhere else, absent more income to the
> company.
>
There is something called "wage inflation".
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 11:57:47
From: Charles Bishop
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
In article <472E1271.815395F9@yahoo.co.uk >, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
<tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk > wrote:
>Charles Bishop wrote:
>>
>> In article <Pine.NEB.4.64.0711031716110.3960@panix1.panix.com>, Lee Ayrton
>
>
>> >> But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more
sensible
>> >> vehicles.
>> >
>> >I'd like to think so and, if history is any guide, some will drive
>> >smaller, more sensible vehicles. A second effect could be a tidal change
>> >away from long commutes, with people living closer to their workplace.
>> >But some Murricans will demand and get higher wages to cover their higher
>> >commute cost, which will inevitably lead to inflation and an eventual
>> >return to something approaching current costs in constant dollars.
>>
>> How does having a higher commute cost translate into higher wages? If they
>> can demand (and get) higher wages just for having a more costly commute,
>> why can't they demand (and get) higher wages just because? If a company
>> wants to keep a valued employee because they have a more expensive
>> commute, they would want to keep her if she lived closer and the salary
>> would reflect this, so just having a longer commute won't mean higher
>> wages.
>>
>Except that the worker is more likely to decide not to work at that
>place unless they are paid more because of their higher costs.
Sure, but that doesn't mean they automatically get it. Also if they're
worth the salary + commuting costs if they live far away, they are worth
that if they walk to work.
>
>
>
>> Inflation doesn't result from a few people getting higher wages. If more
>> is paid to them, less is paid somewhere else, absent more income to the
>> company.
>>
>There is something called "wage inflation".
It doesn't result from one, or several people asking for mone money.
--
charles
|
| | | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 10:50:10
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Charles Bishop wrote:
>
> In article <472E1271.815395F9@yahoo.co.uk>, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Charles Bishop wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <Pine.NEB.4.64.0711031716110.3960@panix1.panix.com>, Lee Ayrton
> >
> >
> >> >> But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more
> sensible
> >> >> vehicles.
> >> >
> >> >I'd like to think so and, if history is any guide, some will drive
> >> >smaller, more sensible vehicles. A second effect could be a tidal change
> >> >away from long commutes, with people living closer to their workplace.
> >> >But some Murricans will demand and get higher wages to cover their higher
> >> >commute cost, which will inevitably lead to inflation and an eventual
> >> >return to something approaching current costs in constant dollars.
> >>
> >> How does having a higher commute cost translate into higher wages? If they
> >> can demand (and get) higher wages just for having a more costly commute,
> >> why can't they demand (and get) higher wages just because? If a company
> >> wants to keep a valued employee because they have a more expensive
> >> commute, they would want to keep her if she lived closer and the salary
> >> would reflect this, so just having a longer commute won't mean higher
> >> wages.
> >>
> >Except that the worker is more likely to decide not to work at that
> >place unless they are paid more because of their higher costs.
>
> Sure, but that doesn't mean they automatically get it. Also if they're
> worth the salary + commuting costs if they live far away, they are worth
> that if they walk to work.
>
You are right. But sometimes you have to pay people more to take a job
that lacks some benefits or something that they'd get somewhere else.
This is just competition.
> >> Inflation doesn't result from a few people getting higher wages. If more
> >> is paid to them, less is paid somewhere else, absent more income to the
> >> company.
> >>
> >There is something called "wage inflation".
>
> It doesn't result from one, or several people asking for mone money.
>
I'm pretty sure that unions, in the auto industry say, in the 70s,
generated wage inflation with their endlessly escalating demands for
mo'.
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 07:47:33
From: Charles Bishop
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
In article <472F65E2.872859B@yahoo.co.uk >, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
<tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk > wrote:
>Charles Bishop wrote:
>>
>> In article <472E1271.815395F9@yahoo.co.uk>, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
>> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >Charles Bishop wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <Pine.NEB.4.64.0711031716110.3960@panix1.panix.com>, Lee Ayrton
>> >
>> >
>> >> >> But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more
>> sensible
>> >> >> vehicles.
>> >> >
>> >> >I'd like to think so and, if history is any guide, some will drive
>> >> >smaller, more sensible vehicles. A second effect could be a tidal change
>> >> >away from long commutes, with people living closer to their workplace.
>> >> >But some Murricans will demand and get higher wages to cover their higher
>> >> >commute cost, which will inevitably lead to inflation and an eventual
>> >> >return to something approaching current costs in constant dollars.
>> >>
>> >> How does having a higher commute cost translate into higher wages? If they
>> >> can demand (and get) higher wages just for having a more costly commute,
>> >> why can't they demand (and get) higher wages just because? If a company
>> >> wants to keep a valued employee because they have a more expensive
>> >> commute, they would want to keep her if she lived closer and the salary
>> >> would reflect this, so just having a longer commute won't mean higher
>> >> wages.
>> >>
>> >Except that the worker is more likely to decide not to work at that
>> >place unless they are paid more because of their higher costs.
>>
>> Sure, but that doesn't mean they automatically get it. Also if they're
>> worth the salary + commuting costs if they live far away, they are worth
>> that if they walk to work.
>>
>You are right. But sometimes you have to pay people more to take a job
>that lacks some benefits or something that they'd get somewhere else.
>This is just competition.
Sure, for individuals. If I want Bill Bonde to work for me and he says, I
like where I live and don't want to move, can I have an additional
$10,000/year to offset travel time and costs, I'll say yes. However,
uppost, Lee is saying that this is a general case - if anyone has travel
costs, then they will get paid more than someone who doesn't. This isn't
true. The company will evaluate whether each case is worth it, but
everyone won't get the money.
>
>> >> Inflation doesn't result from a few people getting higher wages. If more
>> >> is paid to them, less is paid somewhere else, absent more income to the
>> >> company.
>> >>
>> >There is something called "wage inflation".
>>
>> It doesn't result from one, or several people asking for mone money.
>>
>I'm pretty sure that unions, in the auto industry say, in the 70s,
>generated wage inflation with their endlessly escalating demands for
>mo'.
If we're limiting inflation to one patricular sector, then maybe. It would
depend on how large the percentage of union workers was. However with a
fixed amount of money rising costs in wages, say will have to be offset by
reductions in something else, so there is no general rise in prices.
--
charles
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 07:29:11
From: Paul Ciszek
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
In article <472F65E2.872859B@yahoo.co.uk >,
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk > wrote:
>
>I'm pretty sure that unions, in the auto industry say, in the 70s,
>generated wage inflation with their endlessly escalating demands for
>mo'.
If we do away with unions (which we almost have) AND do away with all
forms of government regulation (as people like Bonde would like to do)
and then the economy collapses, we will be back to the good old days
when employees could be considered disposable. This seems to already
be the case in coal mining.
--
Please reply to:
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 21:35:55
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Paul Ciszek wrote:
>
> In article <472F65E2.872859B@yahoo.co.uk>,
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >I'm pretty sure that unions, in the auto industry say, in the 70s,
> >generated wage inflation with their endlessly escalating demands for
> >mo'.
>
> If we do away with unions (which we almost have) AND do away with all
> forms of government regulation (as people like Bonde would like to do)
>
1) I don't oppose unions working to protect the health and safety of
workers.
2) I don't oppose unions if workers want them and if they aren't
monopolies across entire industries.
3) I oppose unions and megacompanies having monopoly power across entire
industries without government controls and limits.
4) I don't oppose all forms of government regulations.
> and then the economy collapses, we will be back to the good old days
> when employees could be considered disposable. This seems to already
> be the case in coal mining.
>
Coal mining is a good example of where more efforts by unions and
governments could be in place to insist on safety. The Chinese coal mine
situation is so bad they make black humour movies about it. Whatever it
is in the US, it's not as bad as that. But it clearly is bad because you
shouldn't put people a mile underground with only one way out.
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 03:54:13
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Paul Ciszek wrote:
> In article <472F65E2.872859B@yahoo.co.uk>,
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> I'm pretty sure that unions, in the auto industry say, in the 70s,
>> generated wage inflation with their endlessly escalating demands for
>> mo'.
>
> If we do away with unions (which we almost have) AND do away with all
> forms of government regulation (as people like Bonde would like to do)
> and then the economy collapses, we will be back to the good old days
> when employees could be considered disposable. This seems to already
> be the case in coal mining.
>
Next to be brought back is the official class system. The long term goal
is to turn the clock back 1000 years to a feudal system.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 21:36:32
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> Paul Ciszek wrote:
> > In article <472F65E2.872859B@yahoo.co.uk>,
> > Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> I'm pretty sure that unions, in the auto industry say, in the 70s,
> >> generated wage inflation with their endlessly escalating demands for
> >> mo'.
> >
> > If we do away with unions (which we almost have) AND do away with all
> > forms of government regulation (as people like Bonde would like to do)
> > and then the economy collapses, we will be back to the good old days
> > when employees could be considered disposable. This seems to already
> > be the case in coal mining.
> >
> Next to be brought back is the official class system. The long term goal
> is to turn the clock back 1000 years to a feudal system.
>
Are you posting out of rec.bicycles.misc?
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2007 20:51:01
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Paul Ciszek wrote:
>>> In article <472F65E2.872859B@yahoo.co.uk>,
>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> I'm pretty sure that unions, in the auto industry say, in the 70s,
>>>> generated wage inflation with their endlessly escalating demands for
>>>> mo'.
>>> If we do away with unions (which we almost have) AND do away with all
>>> forms of government regulation (as people like Bonde would like to do)
>>> and then the economy collapses, we will be back to the good old days
>>> when employees could be considered disposable. This seems to already
>>> be the case in coal mining.
>>>
>> Next to be brought back is the official class system. The long term goal
>> is to turn the clock back 1000 years to a feudal system.
>>
> Are you posting out of rec.bicycles.misc?
>
I am a "regular" on several cycling groups, including rec.bicycles.misc.
Never posted to alt.fan.cecil-adams until this cross-posted thread.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 09:53:07
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>
>> Paul Ciszek wrote:
>>> In article <472F65E2.872859B@yahoo.co.uk>,
>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> I'm pretty sure that unions, in the auto industry say, in the 70s,
>>>> generated wage inflation with their endlessly escalating demands
>>>> for mo'.
>>>
>>> If we do away with unions (which we almost have) AND do away with
>>> all forms of government regulation (as people like Bonde would like
>>> to do) and then the economy collapses, we will be back to the good
>>> old days when employees could be considered disposable. This seems
>>> to already be the case in coal mining.
>>>
>> Next to be brought back is the official class system. The long term
>> goal is to turn the clock back 1000 years to a feudal system.
>>
> Are you posting out of rec.bicycles.misc?
No, he's posting out his always-whiny ass! LOL
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2007 20:52:03
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Bill Sornson wrote:
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> Paul Ciszek wrote:
>>>> In article <472F65E2.872859B@yahoo.co.uk>,
>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> I'm pretty sure that unions, in the auto industry say, in the 70s,
>>>>> generated wage inflation with their endlessly escalating demands
>>>>> for mo'.
>>>> If we do away with unions (which we almost have) AND do away with
>>>> all forms of government regulation (as people like Bonde would like
>>>> to do) and then the economy collapses, we will be back to the good
>>>> old days when employees could be considered disposable. This seems
>>>> to already be the case in coal mining.
>>>>
>>> Next to be brought back is the official class system. The long term
>>> goal is to turn the clock back 1000 years to a feudal system.
>>>
>> Are you posting out of rec.bicycles.misc?
>
> No, he's posting out his always-whiny ass! LOL
>
Mr. Sornson does not even seem to come up with good quips anymore.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| | |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 17:43:46
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Lee Ayrton wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:
>
>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>> landotter wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In other news, gas is $7/gallon in the UK and they still fry Mars bars.
>>>>
>>> Think of it this way, if you could afford to drive your 15 mpg SUV at $2
>>> per gallon, you can likely afford to drive a 45 mpg car at $6 a gallon
>>> and a 60 mpg Trotter-mobile at $8. Americans can certainly adjust to
>>> increases in petrol prices.
>>
>> But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more
>> sensible vehicles.
>
> I'd like to think so and, if history is any guide, some will drive
> smaller, more sensible vehicles. A second effect could be a tidal
> change away from long commutes, with people living closer to their
> workplace. But some Murricans will demand and get higher wages to cover
> their higher commute cost, which will inevitably lead to inflation and
> an eventual return to something approaching current costs in constant
> dollars.
The only US workers that can demand and get higher wages are top
executives, who get paid more and more, irregardless of how well the
company performs. Real wages for everyone else have been dropping for 3+
decades, and will continue to do so.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 09:58:08
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> Lee Ayrton wrote:
> > On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:
> >
> >> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >>> landotter wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> In other news, gas is $7/gallon in the UK and they still fry Mars bars.
> >>>>
> >>> Think of it this way, if you could afford to drive your 15 mpg SUV at $2
> >>> per gallon, you can likely afford to drive a 45 mpg car at $6 a gallon
> >>> and a 60 mpg Trotter-mobile at $8. Americans can certainly adjust to
> >>> increases in petrol prices.
> >>
> >> But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more
> >> sensible vehicles.
> >
> > I'd like to think so and, if history is any guide, some will drive
> > smaller, more sensible vehicles. A second effect could be a tidal
> > change away from long commutes, with people living closer to their
> > workplace. But some Murricans will demand and get higher wages to cover
> > their higher commute cost, which will inevitably lead to inflation and
> > an eventual return to something approaching current costs in constant
> > dollars.
>
> The only US workers that can demand and get higher wages are top
> executives, who get paid more and more, irregardless of how well the
> company performs. Real wages for everyone else have been dropping for 3+
> decades, and will continue to do so.
>
You'll never be a top executive if you keep saying "irregardless".
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 11:04:44
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Lee Ayrton wrote:
>>> On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>> landotter wrote:
>>>>>> In other news, gas is $7/gallon in the UK and they still fry Mars bars.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Think of it this way, if you could afford to drive your 15 mpg SUV at $2
>>>>> per gallon, you can likely afford to drive a 45 mpg car at $6 a gallon
>>>>> and a 60 mpg Trotter-mobile at $8. Americans can certainly adjust to
>>>>> increases in petrol prices.
>>>> But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more
>>>> sensible vehicles.
>>> I'd like to think so and, if history is any guide, some will drive
>>> smaller, more sensible vehicles. A second effect could be a tidal
>>> change away from long commutes, with people living closer to their
>>> workplace. But some Murricans will demand and get higher wages to cover
>>> their higher commute cost, which will inevitably lead to inflation and
>>> an eventual return to something approaching current costs in constant
>>> dollars.
>> The only US workers that can demand and get higher wages are top
>> executives, who get paid more and more, irregardless of how well the
>> company performs. Real wages for everyone else have been dropping for 3+
>> decades, and will continue to do so.
>>
> You'll never be a top executive if you keep saying "irregardless".
I will never get to be a top executive because I was born in the wrong
social class, do not have the proper "old-boy" connections, and do not
suck up to people.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 11:58:24
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >
> > Tom Sherman wrote:
> >> Lee Ayrton wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >>>>> landotter wrote:
> >>>>>> In other news, gas is $7/gallon in the UK and they still fry Mars bars.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Think of it this way, if you could afford to drive your 15 mpg SUV at $2
> >>>>> per gallon, you can likely afford to drive a 45 mpg car at $6 a gallon
> >>>>> and a 60 mpg Trotter-mobile at $8. Americans can certainly adjust to
> >>>>> increases in petrol prices.
> >>>> But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more
> >>>> sensible vehicles.
> >>> I'd like to think so and, if history is any guide, some will drive
> >>> smaller, more sensible vehicles. A second effect could be a tidal
> >>> change away from long commutes, with people living closer to their
> >>> workplace. But some Murricans will demand and get higher wages to cover
> >>> their higher commute cost, which will inevitably lead to inflation and
> >>> an eventual return to something approaching current costs in constant
> >>> dollars.
> >> The only US workers that can demand and get higher wages are top
> >> executives, who get paid more and more, irregardless of how well the
> >> company performs. Real wages for everyone else have been dropping for 3+
> >> decades, and will continue to do so.
> >>
> > You'll never be a top executive if you keep saying "irregardless".
>
> I will never get to be a top executive because I was born in the wrong
> social class, do not have the proper "old-boy" connections, and do not
> suck up to people.
>
Is that really the reason?
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 13:01:08
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> Lee Ayrton wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>>> landotter wrote:
>>>>>>>> In other news, gas is $7/gallon in the UK and they still fry Mars bars.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Think of it this way, if you could afford to drive your 15 mpg SUV at $2
>>>>>>> per gallon, you can likely afford to drive a 45 mpg car at $6 a gallon
>>>>>>> and a 60 mpg Trotter-mobile at $8. Americans can certainly adjust to
>>>>>>> increases in petrol prices.
>>>>>> But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more
>>>>>> sensible vehicles.
>>>>> I'd like to think so and, if history is any guide, some will drive
>>>>> smaller, more sensible vehicles. A second effect could be a tidal
>>>>> change away from long commutes, with people living closer to their
>>>>> workplace. But some Murricans will demand and get higher wages to cover
>>>>> their higher commute cost, which will inevitably lead to inflation and
>>>>> an eventual return to something approaching current costs in constant
>>>>> dollars.
>>>> The only US workers that can demand and get higher wages are top
>>>> executives, who get paid more and more, irregardless of how well the
>>>> company performs. Real wages for everyone else have been dropping for 3+
>>>> decades, and will continue to do so.
>>>>
>>> You'll never be a top executive if you keep saying "irregardless".
>> I will never get to be a top executive because I was born in the wrong
>> social class, do not have the proper "old-boy" connections, and do not
>> suck up to people.
>>
> Is that really the reason?
Well, I have never wanted to be a business manager, since it mostly
involves attempting to pay others less than fair value for their
products or services. Capitalism generally rewards the worst behaved.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2007 15:50:34
From: Sir Thomas of Cannondale
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
"Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com > wrote in message
news:fgl4uu$fae$4@registered.motzarella.org...
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>
>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> Lee Ayrton wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>>>> landotter wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In other news, gas is $7/gallon in the UK and they still fry Mars
>>>>>>>>> bars.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Think of it this way, if you could afford to drive your 15 mpg SUV
>>>>>>>> at $2
>>>>>>>> per gallon, you can likely afford to drive a 45 mpg car at $6 a
>>>>>>>> gallon
>>>>>>>> and a 60 mpg Trotter-mobile at $8. Americans can certainly adjust
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> increases in petrol prices.
>>>>>>> But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more
>>>>>>> sensible vehicles.
>>>>>> I'd like to think so and, if history is any guide, some will drive
>>>>>> smaller, more sensible vehicles. A second effect could be a tidal
>>>>>> change away from long commutes, with people living closer to their
>>>>>> workplace. But some Murricans will demand and get higher wages to
>>>>>> cover
>>>>>> their higher commute cost, which will inevitably lead to inflation
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> an eventual return to something approaching current costs in constant
>>>>>> dollars.
>>>>> The only US workers that can demand and get higher wages are top
>>>>> executives, who get paid more and more, irregardless of how well the
>>>>> company performs. Real wages for everyone else have been dropping for
>>>>> 3+
>>>>> decades, and will continue to do so.
>>>>>
>>>> You'll never be a top executive if you keep saying "irregardless".
>>> I will never get to be a top executive because I was born in the wrong
>>> social class, do not have the proper "old-boy" connections, and do not
>>> suck up to people.
>>>
>> Is that really the reason?
>
> Well, I have never wanted to be a business manager, since it mostly
> involves attempting to pay others less than fair value for their products
> or services. Capitalism generally rewards the worst behaved.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
===========================================
I belive like everything else, there are good capitalists and bad.
People like Bill Gates may not be personally a hoot, yet he has created much
wealth for many folks.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2007 20:49:12
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Sir Thomas of Cannondale wrote:
> "Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fgl4uu$fae$4@registered.motzarella.org...
>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> Lee Ayrton wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>>>>> landotter wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In other news, gas is $7/gallon in the UK and they still fry Mars
>>>>>>>>>> bars.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Think of it this way, if you could afford to drive your 15 mpg SUV
>>>>>>>>> at $2
>>>>>>>>> per gallon, you can likely afford to drive a 45 mpg car at $6 a
>>>>>>>>> gallon
>>>>>>>>> and a 60 mpg Trotter-mobile at $8. Americans can certainly adjust
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> increases in petrol prices.
>>>>>>>> But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more
>>>>>>>> sensible vehicles.
>>>>>>> I'd like to think so and, if history is any guide, some will drive
>>>>>>> smaller, more sensible vehicles. A second effect could be a tidal
>>>>>>> change away from long commutes, with people living closer to their
>>>>>>> workplace. But some Murricans will demand and get higher wages to
>>>>>>> cover
>>>>>>> their higher commute cost, which will inevitably lead to inflation
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> an eventual return to something approaching current costs in constant
>>>>>>> dollars.
>>>>>> The only US workers that can demand and get higher wages are top
>>>>>> executives, who get paid more and more, irregardless of how well the
>>>>>> company performs. Real wages for everyone else have been dropping for
>>>>>> 3+
>>>>>> decades, and will continue to do so.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You'll never be a top executive if you keep saying "irregardless".
>>>> I will never get to be a top executive because I was born in the wrong
>>>> social class, do not have the proper "old-boy" connections, and do not
>>>> suck up to people.
>>>>
>>> Is that really the reason?
>> Well, I have never wanted to be a business manager, since it mostly
>> involves attempting to pay others less than fair value for their products
>> or services. Capitalism generally rewards the worst behaved.
>>
>> --
>> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
>> When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
> ===========================================
>
> I belive like everything else, there are good capitalists and bad.
> People like Bill Gates may not be personally a hoot, yet he has created much
> wealth for many folks.
>
And has put others out of work, not by making a better product, but by
predatory business practices and having the good fortune of being able
to sell an operating system designed by someone else to IBM.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 10:47:33
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >
> > Tom Sherman wrote:
> >> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman wrote:
> >>>> Lee Ayrton wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >>>>>>> landotter wrote:
> >>>>>>>> In other news, gas is $7/gallon in the UK and they still fry Mars bars.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Think of it this way, if you could afford to drive your 15 mpg SUV at $2
> >>>>>>> per gallon, you can likely afford to drive a 45 mpg car at $6 a gallon
> >>>>>>> and a 60 mpg Trotter-mobile at $8. Americans can certainly adjust to
> >>>>>>> increases in petrol prices.
> >>>>>> But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more
> >>>>>> sensible vehicles.
> >>>>> I'd like to think so and, if history is any guide, some will drive
> >>>>> smaller, more sensible vehicles. A second effect could be a tidal
> >>>>> change away from long commutes, with people living closer to their
> >>>>> workplace. But some Murricans will demand and get higher wages to cover
> >>>>> their higher commute cost, which will inevitably lead to inflation and
> >>>>> an eventual return to something approaching current costs in constant
> >>>>> dollars.
> >>>> The only US workers that can demand and get higher wages are top
> >>>> executives, who get paid more and more, irregardless of how well the
> >>>> company performs. Real wages for everyone else have been dropping for 3+
> >>>> decades, and will continue to do so.
> >>>>
> >>> You'll never be a top executive if you keep saying "irregardless".
> >> I will never get to be a top executive because I was born in the wrong
> >> social class, do not have the proper "old-boy" connections, and do not
> >> suck up to people.
> >>
> > Is that really the reason?
>
> Well, I have never wanted to be a business manager, since it mostly
> involves attempting to pay others less than fair value for their
> products or services. Capitalism generally rewards the worst behaved.
>
What sort of system would you suggest?
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 06:13:52
From: Jerry Bauer
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 10:47:33 -0800, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote
(in article <472F6545.7840E3F7@yahoo.co.uk >):
>
>
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>
>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> Lee Ayrton wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>>>>> landotter wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In other news, gas is $7/gallon in the UK and they still fry Mars
>>>>>>>>>> bars.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Think of it this way, if you could afford to drive your 15 mpg SUV
>>>>>>>>> at $2
>>>>>>>>> per gallon, you can likely afford to drive a 45 mpg car at $6 a
>>>>>>>>> gallon
>>>>>>>>> and a 60 mpg Trotter-mobile at $8. Americans can certainly adjust to
>>>>>>>>> increases in petrol prices.
>>>>>>>> But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more
>>>>>>>> sensible vehicles.
>>>>>>> I'd like to think so and, if history is any guide, some will drive
>>>>>>> smaller, more sensible vehicles. A second effect could be a tidal
>>>>>>> change away from long commutes, with people living closer to their
>>>>>>> workplace. But some Murricans will demand and get higher wages to cover
>>>>>>> their higher commute cost, which will inevitably lead to inflation and
>>>>>>> an eventual return to something approaching current costs in constant
>>>>>>> dollars.
>>>>>> The only US workers that can demand and get higher wages are top
>>>>>> executives, who get paid more and more, irregardless of how well the
>>>>>> company performs. Real wages for everyone else have been dropping for 3+
>>>>>> decades, and will continue to do so.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You'll never be a top executive if you keep saying "irregardless".
>>>> I will never get to be a top executive because I was born in the wrong
>>>> social class, do not have the proper "old-boy" connections, and do not
>>>> suck up to people.
>>>>
>>> Is that really the reason?
>>
>> Well, I have never wanted to be a business manager, since it mostly
>> involves attempting to pay others less than fair value for their
>> products or services. Capitalism generally rewards the worst behaved.
>>
> What sort of system would you suggest?
Give me what I want.
--
Jerry Randal Bauer
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 22:44:52
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Jerry Bauer wrote:
>
> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 10:47:33 -0800, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote
> (in article <472F6545.7840E3F7@yahoo.co.uk>):
>
> >
> >
> > Tom Sherman wrote:
> >>
> >> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Tom Sherman wrote:
> >>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
> >>>>>> Lee Ayrton wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> landotter wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> In other news, gas is $7/gallon in the UK and they still fry Mars
> >>>>>>>>>> bars.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Think of it this way, if you could afford to drive your 15 mpg SUV
> >>>>>>>>> at $2
> >>>>>>>>> per gallon, you can likely afford to drive a 45 mpg car at $6 a
> >>>>>>>>> gallon
> >>>>>>>>> and a 60 mpg Trotter-mobile at $8. Americans can certainly adjust to
> >>>>>>>>> increases in petrol prices.
> >>>>>>>> But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more
> >>>>>>>> sensible vehicles.
> >>>>>>> I'd like to think so and, if history is any guide, some will drive
> >>>>>>> smaller, more sensible vehicles. A second effect could be a tidal
> >>>>>>> change away from long commutes, with people living closer to their
> >>>>>>> workplace. But some Murricans will demand and get higher wages to cover
> >>>>>>> their higher commute cost, which will inevitably lead to inflation and
> >>>>>>> an eventual return to something approaching current costs in constant
> >>>>>>> dollars.
> >>>>>> The only US workers that can demand and get higher wages are top
> >>>>>> executives, who get paid more and more, irregardless of how well the
> >>>>>> company performs. Real wages for everyone else have been dropping for 3+
> >>>>>> decades, and will continue to do so.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> You'll never be a top executive if you keep saying "irregardless".
> >>>> I will never get to be a top executive because I was born in the wrong
> >>>> social class, do not have the proper "old-boy" connections, and do not
> >>>> suck up to people.
> >>>>
> >>> Is that really the reason?
> >>
> >> Well, I have never wanted to be a business manager, since it mostly
> >> involves attempting to pay others less than fair value for their
> >> products or services. Capitalism generally rewards the worst behaved.
> >>
> > What sort of system would you suggest?
>
> Give me what I want.
>
So that's either you're a king or the society is in anarchy.
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 20:52:19
From: Jerry Bauer
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 22:44:52 -0800, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote
(in article <47300D64.67870121@yahoo.co.uk >):
> So that's either you're a king or the society is in anarchy.
I like that "I'm the king" alternative. Except that the people are
revolting.
--
Jerry "in silk stockings and pink satin pants" Bauer
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 22:16:38
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Jerry Bauer wrote:
>
> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 22:44:52 -0800, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote
> (in article <47300D64.67870121@yahoo.co.uk>):
>
> > So that's either you're a king or the society is in anarchy.
>
> I like that "I'm the king" alternative. Except that the people are
> revolting.
>
> Jerry "in silk stockings and pink satin pants" Bauer
>
Maybe you could be that king that that actor played that was on that
show, "Yes, Minister", a bureaucrat, thought he was king a bit there
too.
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 03:46:19
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> Lee Ayrton wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>>>>>> landotter wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In other news, gas is $7/gallon in the UK and they still fry Mars bars.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Think of it this way, if you could afford to drive your 15 mpg SUV at $2
>>>>>>>>> per gallon, you can likely afford to drive a 45 mpg car at $6 a gallon
>>>>>>>>> and a 60 mpg Trotter-mobile at $8. Americans can certainly adjust to
>>>>>>>>> increases in petrol prices.
>>>>>>>> But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more
>>>>>>>> sensible vehicles.
>>>>>>> I'd like to think so and, if history is any guide, some will drive
>>>>>>> smaller, more sensible vehicles. A second effect could be a tidal
>>>>>>> change away from long commutes, with people living closer to their
>>>>>>> workplace. But some Murricans will demand and get higher wages to cover
>>>>>>> their higher commute cost, which will inevitably lead to inflation and
>>>>>>> an eventual return to something approaching current costs in constant
>>>>>>> dollars.
>>>>>> The only US workers that can demand and get higher wages are top
>>>>>> executives, who get paid more and more, irregardless of how well the
>>>>>> company performs. Real wages for everyone else have been dropping for 3+
>>>>>> decades, and will continue to do so.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You'll never be a top executive if you keep saying "irregardless".
>>>> I will never get to be a top executive because I was born in the wrong
>>>> social class, do not have the proper "old-boy" connections, and do not
>>>> suck up to people.
>>>>
>>> Is that really the reason?
>> Well, I have never wanted to be a business manager, since it mostly
>> involves attempting to pay others less than fair value for their
>> products or services. Capitalism generally rewards the worst behaved.
>>
> What sort of system would you suggest?
>
Democratic control of the economy and elections, instead of the system
where we vote for our overseers that represent the ruling class.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 07:23:31
From: Paul Ciszek
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
In article <472F6545.7840E3F7@yahoo.co.uk >,
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk > wrote:
>
>Tom Sherman wrote:
>>
>> Well, I have never wanted to be a business manager, since it mostly
>> involves attempting to pay others less than fair value for their
>> products or services. Capitalism generally rewards the worst behaved.
>>
>What sort of system would you suggest?
Not all forms of private enterprise are the same as "capitalism" as
it is currently practiced.
Socialism is where you have two cows, and the government gives one
of them to your neighbor.
Communism is where you have two cows, the government nationalizes them
and gives you the milk (if you're lucky).
Private enterprise is where you have two cows, you sell one, and buy
a bull.
Capitalism is where you have two cows, you sell three cows to an off-
shore coporation and lease back four cows which you then use as collateral
on a loan, while selling shares in five cows... (iterate for as long as
you can get away with) ...meanwhile you've killed the original two cows
to keep your operating coasts low.
--
Please reply to:
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 23:00:50
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Well, I have never wanted to be a business manager, since it mostly
>> involves attempting to pay others less than fair value for their
>> products or services. Capitalism generally rewards the worst behaved.
> What sort of system would you suggest?
Whiners Whin. LOL
Bill "don't hold your breath" S.
|
| |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 20:40:22
From:
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Nov 3, 12:14 am, sally <sa...@sally.com > wrote:
> What is the average adult weight in countries with much higher gasoline
> prices than the USA? Last time I visited England and Germany, I did not see
> huge numbers of skinny people.
While I don't know enough to comment on the paper mentioned by the OP,
I must say my impression is different than Sally's.
Last time I was in England and Wales, my business colleague and I
remarked on the greater American obesity as soon as we landed, while
we were watching Americans walk around the airport.
I know that the Brits are concerned about their rising obesity
levels. But I'm pretty sure we're far worse than they are.
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 13:58:05
From: Claire Petersky
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
<frkrygow@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1194122422.560107.26170@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 3, 12:14 am, sally <sa...@sally.com> wrote:
>> What is the average adult weight in countries with much higher gasoline
>> prices than the USA? Last time I visited England and Germany, I did not
>> see
>> huge numbers of skinny people.
>
> While I don't know enough to comment on the paper mentioned by the OP,
> I must say my impression is different than Sally's.
>
> Last time I was in England and Wales, my business colleague and I
> remarked on the greater American obesity as soon as we landed, while
> we were watching Americans walk around the airport.
I agree with Frank here.
> I know that the Brits are concerned about their rising obesity
> levels. But I'm pretty sure we're far worse than they are.
And while the Japanese are concerned about their rising obesity levels, the
weekend after we got back from Japan, my husband and I went riding out in
the countryside. We stopped at a small town diner for lunch. We saw more
obese people just in that diner than I saw in two weeks of traveling around
Japan.
--
Warm Regards,
Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 15:31:51
From: Zoot Katz
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Sat, 3 Nov 2007 13:58:05 -0700, "Claire Petersky"
<cpetersky@mouse-potato.com > wrote:
>
><frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1194122422.560107.26170@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>> On Nov 3, 12:14 am, sally <sa...@sally.com> wrote:
>>> What is the average adult weight in countries with much higher gasoline
>>> prices than the USA? Last time I visited England and Germany, I did not
>>> see
>>> huge numbers of skinny people.
>>
>> While I don't know enough to comment on the paper mentioned by the OP,
>> I must say my impression is different than Sally's.
>>
>> Last time I was in England and Wales, my business colleague and I
>> remarked on the greater American obesity as soon as we landed, while
>> we were watching Americans walk around the airport.
>
>I agree with Frank here.
>
>> I know that the Brits are concerned about their rising obesity
>> levels. But I'm pretty sure we're far worse than they are.
>
>And while the Japanese are concerned about their rising obesity levels, the
>weekend after we got back from Japan, my husband and I went riding out in
>the countryside. We stopped at a small town diner for lunch. We saw more
>obese people just in that diner than I saw in two weeks of traveling around
>Japan.
Vancouver was used as an example of a walkable city and it has the
lowest obesity rates among Canadian cities.
This may partially be due to our large Asian and SE Asian populations
possibly predisposed to slight structure. Traditional diets too do
not promote obesity. The younger generations though do display a
higher rate of obesity than their parents.
It's also partially due to its proximity mountains and sea for active
recreational pursuits. There's a lot of hiking, biking, kayaking,
skiing, sailing and diving gear sold here. Some is made here.
Sitting at the cafe I see a lot of cyclists and pedestrians. Very few
of them are obese. The people getting out of cars tend to be fatter
than the regulars I see walking and riding by.
I concur that life in the sprawl has put many pounds on many people.
--
zk
|
| |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 11:22:28
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Nov 3, 1:17 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
<tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk > wrote:
> landotter wrote:
>
> > On Nov 2, 7:56 pm, "Mike Kruger" <Mik...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> > > According to a study by Charles Courtemanche
>
> > You'd trust a study by a dude with a faggy name like that?
>
> > In other news, gas is $7/gallon in the UK and they still fry Mars bars.
>
> Think of it this way, if you could afford to drive your 15 mpg SUV at $2
> per gallon, you can likely afford to drive a 45 mpg car at $6 a gallon
> and a 60 mpg Trotter-mobile at $8. Americans can certainly adjust to
> increases in petrol prices.
Yup. Fuel pricing does little to discourage miles driven. Folks I know
in the UK and Sweden that live outside of cities drive just as much.
The secret to getting people to drive less is inextricably linked to
urban design.
> "Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
Brilliant!
|
| | |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 22:29:24
From:
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
landotter <landotter@gmail.com > wrote:
> Yup. Fuel pricing does little to discourage miles driven. Folks I know
> in the UK and Sweden that live outside of cities drive just as much.
Just as much as what?
Xho
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the
payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked
advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate
this fact.
|
| |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 09:46:47
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Tom Keats wrote:
>
> In article <472BFE01.A2313772@yahoo.co.uk>,
> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
> >
> >
> > Mike Kruger wrote:
> >>
> >> xhoster@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> Mike Kruger wrote:
> >> >>> According to a study by Charles Courtemanche, an additional $1 per
> >> >>> gallon in real gasoline prices would reduce U.S. obesity by 15
> >> >>> percent after five years.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> http://improbable.com/2007/10/30/fat-people-have-less-gas/
> >> >>>
> >> >> Correlation and causation confused yet again.
> >> >
> >> > Did you read the dissertation? Because unless you did, how would you
> >> > know that that particular error has been committed?
> >>
> >> An article he's submitted to a journal is here.
> >> http://artsci.wustl.edu/%7Ecjcourte/gas_obesity.pdf
> >>
> >> He seems to be hedging well enough for academic use: "A causal relationship
> >> between gasoline prices and obesity is possible ... I find empirical support
> >> for this theory. My estimates imply..." That's the start of the abstract.
> >>
> >> I haven't read the entire paper yet. There's 19 equations, most of which
> >> seem to be regressions.
> >>
> > If you put the price of gas at ten bucks a gallon, everyone is going to
> > ride their bikes.
>
> No they won't. They'll begrudgingly pay the
> ten bucks a gallon, and continue to drive.
> They're hooked. Totally and inextricably addicted.
>
You mean still drive giant SUVs? I suspect not. The truth is, three
dollars a gallon isn't that high if you consider inflation and
historical high gas prices. Ten dollars a gallon is crazy too much to
pay and you would see a response.
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
|
| |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 08:24:43
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Nov 2, 7:56 pm, "Mike Kruger" <Mik...@mouse-potato.com > wrote:
> According to a study by Charles Courtemanche
You'd trust a study by a dude with a faggy name like that?
In other news, gas is $7/gallon in the UK and they still fry Mars bars.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 09:25:25
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Blinky the Shark wrote:
>
> Dana Myers wrote:
> > Blinky the Shark wrote:
> >> Lee Ayrton wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Richard Evans wrote:
> >>>>> Opus the Penguin <opusthepenguin+usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Richard Evans (infodex@mindspring.com) wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Richard Evans wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Yeah, I hear that. I think it's outrageous that a 4L engine gets
> >>>>>>>>> only 15mpg around town. My previous 3L only got 18. But, to
> >>>>>>>>> repeat myself, gas cost alone is not enough to get me to trade.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> At $3 a gallon. But what about at $10 a gallon?
> >>>>>>> I don't know how many times I can say this or in how many ways,
> >>>>>>> but not even $10/gal gas would be enough to buy a new car on that
> >>>>>>> basis alone.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> YMMV.
> >>>>>> Sure, ok. But what about $10.19 a gallon?
> >>>>> Oh, in that case, sure.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Are you really willing to spend $20 in gas just to drive across town to
> >>>> buy a loaf of bread?
> >>> At prices like that, what will a loaf of bread cost?
> >>
> >> Only society's upper crust will be able to afford bread.
> >
> > What? The peasants have no bread? Let them eat cake...
>
> Dammit. I was going to go there, too. Ya heel. :)
>
Down boy, down.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 03:47:03
From: Blinky the Shark
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Dana Myers wrote:
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>> Lee Ayrton wrote:
>>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Richard Evans wrote:
>>>>> Opus the Penguin <opusthepenguin+usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Richard Evans (infodex@mindspring.com) wrote:
>>>>>>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Richard Evans wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Yeah, I hear that. I think it's outrageous that a 4L engine gets
>>>>>>>>> only 15mpg around town. My previous 3L only got 18. But, to
>>>>>>>>> repeat myself, gas cost alone is not enough to get me to trade.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At $3 a gallon. But what about at $10 a gallon?
>>>>>>> I don't know how many times I can say this or in how many ways,
>>>>>>> but not even $10/gal gas would be enough to buy a new car on that
>>>>>>> basis alone.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> YMMV.
>>>>>> Sure, ok. But what about $10.19 a gallon?
>>>>> Oh, in that case, sure.
>>>>>
>>>> Are you really willing to spend $20 in gas just to drive across town to
>>>> buy a loaf of bread?
>>> At prices like that, what will a loaf of bread cost?
>>
>> Only society's upper crust will be able to afford bread.
>
> What? The peasants have no bread? Let them eat cake...
Dammit. I was going to go there, too. Ya heel. :)
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 09:29:51
From: Dana Myers
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Blinky the Shark wrote:
> Dana Myers wrote:
>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>> Lee Ayrton wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Richard Evans wrote:
>>>>>> Opus the Penguin <opusthepenguin+usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Richard Evans (infodex@mindspring.com) wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Richard Evans wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, I hear that. I think it's outrageous that a 4L engine gets
>>>>>>>>>> only 15mpg around town. My previous 3L only got 18. But, to
>>>>>>>>>> repeat myself, gas cost alone is not enough to get me to trade.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At $3 a gallon. But what about at $10 a gallon?
>>>>>>>> I don't know how many times I can say this or in how many ways,
>>>>>>>> but not even $10/gal gas would be enough to buy a new car on that
>>>>>>>> basis alone.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> YMMV.
>>>>>>> Sure, ok. But what about $10.19 a gallon?
>>>>>> Oh, in that case, sure.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Are you really willing to spend $20 in gas just to drive across town to
>>>>> buy a loaf of bread?
>>>> At prices like that, what will a loaf of bread cost?
>>> Only society's upper crust will be able to afford bread.
>> What? The peasants have no bread? Let them eat cake...
>
> Dammit. I was going to go there, too. Ya heel. :)
Heh. It was sort of a gimme; I almost left of "Let them eat cake".
;-)
|
| | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 01:17:04
From: Blinky the Shark
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Lee Ayrton wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>
>> Richard Evans wrote:
>>> Opus the Penguin <opusthepenguin+usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Richard Evans (infodex@mindspring.com) wrote:
>>>>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> Richard Evans wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah, I hear that. I think it's outrageous that a 4L engine gets
>>>>>>> only 15mpg around town. My previous 3L only got 18. But, to
>>>>>>> repeat myself, gas cost alone is not enough to get me to trade.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> At $3 a gallon. But what about at $10 a gallon?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know how many times I can say this or in how many ways,
>>>>> but not even $10/gal gas would be enough to buy a new car on that
>>>>> basis alone.
>>>>>
>>>>> YMMV.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, ok. But what about $10.19 a gallon?
>>>
>>> Oh, in that case, sure.
>>>
>> Are you really willing to spend $20 in gas just to drive across town to
>> buy a loaf of bread?
>
> At prices like that, what will a loaf of bread cost?
Only society's upper crust will be able to afford bread.
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 19:41:14
From: Dana Myers
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Blinky the Shark wrote:
> Lee Ayrton wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>
>>> Richard Evans wrote:
>>>> Opus the Penguin <opusthepenguin+usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Richard Evans (infodex@mindspring.com) wrote:
>>>>>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> Richard Evans wrote:
>>>>>>>> Yeah, I hear that. I think it's outrageous that a 4L engine gets
>>>>>>>> only 15mpg around town. My previous 3L only got 18. But, to
>>>>>>>> repeat myself, gas cost alone is not enough to get me to trade.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At $3 a gallon. But what about at $10 a gallon?
>>>>>> I don't know how many times I can say this or in how many ways,
>>>>>> but not even $10/gal gas would be enough to buy a new car on that
>>>>>> basis alone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> YMMV.
>>>>> Sure, ok. But what about $10.19 a gallon?
>>>> Oh, in that case, sure.
>>>>
>>> Are you really willing to spend $20 in gas just to drive across town to
>>> buy a loaf of bread?
>> At prices like that, what will a loaf of bread cost?
>
> Only society's upper crust will be able to afford bread.
What? The peasants have no bread? Let them eat cake...
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 21:31:06
From: Richard Evans
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid > wrote:
>Lee Ayrton wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>
>>> Richard Evans wrote:
>>>> Opus the Penguin <opusthepenguin+usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Richard Evans (infodex@mindspring.com) wrote:
>>>>>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> Richard Evans wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yeah, I hear that. I think it's outrageous that a 4L engine gets
>>>>>>>> only 15mpg around town. My previous 3L only got 18. But, to
>>>>>>>> repeat myself, gas cost alone is not enough to get me to trade.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At $3 a gallon. But what about at $10 a gallon?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know how many times I can say this or in how many ways,
>>>>>> but not even $10/gal gas would be enough to buy a new car on that
>>>>>> basis alone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> YMMV.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure, ok. But what about $10.19 a gallon?
>>>>
>>>> Oh, in that case, sure.
>>>>
>>> Are you really willing to spend $20 in gas just to drive across town to
>>> buy a loaf of bread?
>>
>> At prices like that, what will a loaf of bread cost?
>
>Only society's upper crust will be able to afford bread.
What rye wit.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 19:31:45
From: Lee Ayrton
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> Richard Evans wrote:
>> Opus the Penguin <opusthepenguin+usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Richard Evans (infodex@mindspring.com) wrote:
>>>> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Richard Evans wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah, I hear that. I think it's outrageous that a 4L engine gets
>>>>>> only 15mpg around town. My previous 3L only got 18. But, to
>>>>>> repeat myself, gas cost alone is not enough to get me to trade.
>>>>>>
>>>>> At $3 a gallon. But what about at $10 a gallon?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know how many times I can say this or in how many ways,
>>>> but not even $10/gal gas would be enough to buy a new car on that
>>>> basis alone.
>>>>
>>>> YMMV.
>>>
>>> Sure, ok. But what about $10.19 a gallon?
>>
>> Oh, in that case, sure.
>>
> Are you really willing to spend $20 in gas just to drive across town to
> buy a loaf of bread?
At prices like that, what will a loaf of bread cost?
--
"We began to realize, as we plowed on with the destruction of New Jersey,
that the extent of our American lunatic fringe had been underestimated."
Orson Wells on the reaction to the _War Of The Worlds_ broadcast.
|
| | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 16:36:20
From: Lee Ayrton
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, Richard Evans wrote:
> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Among my other need is an automatic transmission. You aren't getting
>>> my point. I am not willing to sacrifice features I need just to get
>>> better mileage.
>>>
>> If this is true, then how can the US reduce its thirst for gasoline and
>> deal with its balance of trade problems? If you won't change, why should
>> we think anyone else will?
>
> I absolutely will change. As soon as the manufacturers produce a car
> that gives me the features I want at greatly increased mileage. As I
> said earlier, I think it sucks that a six-cylinder engine gets only
> 15mpg, but that's pretty much standard across all similar truck lines.
> There's an episode of Penn & Teller on Showtime this week that
> includes a road test of a hybrid car. It got 45mpg on the highway, but
> takes 12.6 seconds to go zero to sixty and has no room for a family of
> four. Yet we are expected to buy the damn thing just because it gets
> good mileage.
http://cars.about.com/cs/testdrives/fr/prius_tst.htm
2004 Prius. 60 MPG city, 51 MPG highway, 0 to 60 in 10 seconds. Seats 4
comfortably -- and, yes, I've ridden in one.
--
"We began to realize, as we plowed on with the destruction of New Jersey,
that the extent of our American lunatic fringe had been underestimated."
Orson Wells on the reaction to the _War Of The Worlds_ broadcast.
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 16:53:08
From: Richard Evans
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Lee Ayrton <layrton@panix.com > wrote:
>
>http://cars.about.com/cs/testdrives/fr/prius_tst.htm
>
>2004 Prius. 60 MPG city, 51 MPG highway, 0 to 60 in 10 seconds. Seats 4
>comfortably -- and, yes, I've ridden in one.
Fine. Now show me a compact truck model and we'll talk.
|
| | |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 10:17:21
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
landotter wrote:
>
> On Nov 2, 7:56 pm, "Mike Kruger" <Mik...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> > According to a study by Charles Courtemanche
>
> You'd trust a study by a dude with a faggy name like that?
>
> In other news, gas is $7/gallon in the UK and they still fry Mars bars.
>
Think of it this way, if you could afford to drive your 15 mpg SUV at $2
per gallon, you can likely afford to drive a 45 mpg car at $6 a gallon
and a 60 mpg Trotter-mobile at $8. Americans can certainly adjust to
increases in petrol prices.
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 08:08:17
From: Veronique
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Nov 5, 1:37 am, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com >
wrote:
> Is this collectible car used for every day transportation? I doubt it
> would survive 40 years of commuting in the upper Midwest without
> spending a lot on corrosion related repairs. Not to mention, a 1950s
> engine will not go 800,000 miles (40 years worth of my use) without
> several rebuilds, no matter how well treated.
How much will each rebuild cost, compared to buying a new car each
time?
V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 05:37:51
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Veronique wrote:
> On Nov 5, 1:37 am, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Is this collectible car used for every day transportation? I doubt it
>> would survive 40 years of commuting in the upper Midwest without
>> spending a lot on corrosion related repairs. Not to mention, a 1950s
>> engine will not go 800,000 miles (40 years worth of my use) without
>> several rebuilds, no matter how well treated.
>
>
> How much will each rebuild cost, compared to buying a new car each
> time?
Do you really believe that a 1955 Chevy will last 40 years of daily use,
including 3 months a year driving in salt and slush, without needing a
lot of repairs beyond engine replacement?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 10:42:34
From:
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
In alt.fan.cecil-adams Veronique <veroniqueunique@gmail.com > wrote:
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
> > Is this collectible car used for every day transportation? I doubt
> > it would survive 40 years of commuting in the upper Midwest without
> > spending a lot on corrosion related repairs. Not to mention, a 1950s
> > engine will not go 800,000 miles (40 years worth of my use) without
> > several rebuilds, no matter how well treated.
> How much will each rebuild cost, compared to buying a new car each
> time?
Again: it depends. A junkyard motor is a couple hundred bucks, around a
thousand installed, and you can expect those to last fifty to a hundred
thousand miles or so. A reman is gonna be a thousand or two, and last
two or three times as long.[1] A crate motor, depending on what you want
in it, is going to be between five and ten grand, and last forever,
assuming you maintain it and you don't flog the hell out of it.
[1] Jasper warranties their engines for 3 years or 100,000 miles. The
junkyard, not so much, although most junkyards will generally give you a
different one if you get a dud. If you're doing it yourself, that's
pretty annoying, since you wind up doing an extra engine change.
--
Huey
|
| | | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 05:36:18
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
huey.callison@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
> In alt.fan.cecil-adams Veronique <veroniqueunique@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Is this collectible car used for every day transportation? I doubt
>>> it would survive 40 years of commuting in the upper Midwest without
>>> spending a lot on corrosion related repairs. Not to mention, a 1950s
>>> engine will not go 800,000 miles (40 years worth of my use) without
>>> several rebuilds, no matter how well treated.
>> How much will each rebuild cost, compared to buying a new car each
>> time?
>
> Again: it depends. A junkyard motor is a couple hundred bucks, around a
> thousand installed, and you can expect those to last fifty to a hundred
> thousand miles or so. A reman is gonna be a thousand or two, and last
> two or three times as long.[1] A crate motor, depending on what you want
> in it, is going to be between five and ten grand, and last forever,
> assuming you maintain it and you don't flog the hell out of it.
You can flog a Honda for 160,000 miles and still have good compression
and no oil consumption. However, other things will go wrong due to age
and corrosion (e.g. the 1994 Civic I had for 11 years).
> [1] Jasper warranties their engines for 3 years or 100,000 miles. The
> junkyard, not so much, although most junkyards will generally give you a
> different one if you get a dud. If you're doing it yourself, that's
> pretty annoying, since you wind up doing an extra engine change.
>
Do you get a free loaner car each engine change, or do you have to rent?
Did you have enough advance warning of the engine needed to be replaced
to not break down on the road?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 06:11:48
From: Veronique
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Nov 4, 9:58 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com >
wrote:
> huey.calli...@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
> > That doesn't answer my question. If anything, it suggests that you
> > aren't terribly good at buying used cars.
>
> There are very few good used cars when your budget is $1500. Now that I
> can afford not to drive trash, there is no way in hell that I will put
> up with questionable reliability and things that do not work.
If you can't afford $1500, how are you able to afford that $300+ car
payment each month for five years? Plus the comprehensive auto
insurance required for the loan?
V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 00:24:15
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Veronique wrote:
> On Nov 4, 9:58 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> huey.calli...@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
>
>
>>> That doesn't answer my question. If anything, it suggests that you
>>> aren't terribly good at buying used cars.
>> There are very few good used cars when your budget is $1500. Now that I
>> can afford not to drive trash, there is no way in hell that I will put
>> up with questionable reliability and things that do not work.
>
>
> If you can't afford $1500, how are you able to afford that $300+ car
> payment each month for five years? Plus the comprehensive auto
> insurance required for the loan?
Past and present tense. Back when I could only afford cheap cars, it was
barely worthwhile going to work because of the repair costs. I am
spending about the same now that I can afford a new car, but without the
aggravations of unreliability and the annoyance of things that are
broken, but too expensive to fix.
The sensible point of having money is that it can make problems go away.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 07:32:30
From:
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
In alt.fan.cecil-adams Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@removethisyahoo.com > wrote:
> Veronique wrote:
> > If you can't afford $1500, how are you able to afford that $300+ car
> > payment each month for five years? Plus the comprehensive auto
> > insurance required for the loan?
> Past and present tense. Back when I could only afford cheap cars, it
> was barely worthwhile going to work because of the repair costs. I am
> spending about the same now that I can afford a new car
Look, the fundamental issue here is whether a used car is cheaper than a
new car. And obviously it is, but you keep saying things like "back
when I could only afford cheap cars" and then "I am spending about the
same now". One of those two things must be wrong. Either you could
afford a nicer car then, or you're not paying the same now
--
Huey
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 04:57:24
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
huey.callison@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
> In alt.fan.cecil-adams Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
>> Veronique wrote:
>>> If you can't afford $1500, how are you able to afford that $300+ car
>>> payment each month for five years? Plus the comprehensive auto
>>> insurance required for the loan?
>> Past and present tense. Back when I could only afford cheap cars, it
>> was barely worthwhile going to work because of the repair costs. I am
>> spending about the same now that I can afford a new car
>
> Look, the fundamental issue here is whether a used car is cheaper than a
> new car. And obviously it is, but you keep saying things like "back
> when I could only afford cheap cars" and then "I am spending about the
> same now". One of those two things must be wrong. Either you could
> afford a nicer car then, or you're not paying the same now
>
Someone in their early 20's who had to drop out of school for health
reasons and is not being supported by parents is NOT going to have money
to purchase outright or get a loan for a decent vehicle. When one has
less than $750 cash (adjusted to 2007 dollars) for a car, one is NOT
going to get a good vehicle. In fact, repairs just to keep it running
can be more than payments on reasonable new vehicle. However, I could
pay for repairs with a credit card, and get further into debt by only
being able to pay the interest and not the balance. Not a good
situation, and not one I plan to repeat.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 22:42:29
From: Bob Ward
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 00:24:15 -0600, Tom Sherman
<sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com > wrote:
>Past and present tense. Back when I could only afford cheap cars, it was
>barely worthwhile going to work because of the repair costs. I am
>spending about the same now that I can afford a new car, but without the
>aggravations of unreliability and the annoyance of things that are
>broken, but too expensive to fix.
>
>The sensible point of having money is that it can make problems go away.
The sensible USE of money means that the careful shopper can make
problems go away without spending too much money.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 03:27:14
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Bob Ward wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 00:24:15 -0600, Tom Sherman
> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Past and present tense. Back when I could only afford cheap cars, it was
>> barely worthwhile going to work because of the repair costs. I am
>> spending about the same now that I can afford a new car, but without the
>> aggravations of unreliability and the annoyance of things that are
>> broken, but too expensive to fix.
>>
>> The sensible point of having money is that it can make problems go away.
>
> The sensible USE of money means that the careful shopper can make
> problems go away without spending too much money.
>
And having a car that needs $0.20/mile in repair costs above and beyond
scheduled maintenance is not a sensible use of money.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 17:16:19
From: Bob Ward
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 03:27:14 -0600, Tom Sherman
<sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com > wrote:
>Bob Ward wrote:
>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 00:24:15 -0600, Tom Sherman
>> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Past and present tense. Back when I could only afford cheap cars, it was
>>> barely worthwhile going to work because of the repair costs. I am
>>> spending about the same now that I can afford a new car, but without the
>>> aggravations of unreliability and the annoyance of things that are
>>> broken, but too expensive to fix.
>>>
>>> The sensible point of having money is that it can make problems go away.
>>
>> The sensible USE of money means that the careful shopper can make
>> problems go away without spending too much money.
>>
>And having a car that needs $0.20/mile in repair costs above and beyond
>scheduled maintenance is not a sensible use of money.
You keep thinking that your needs should be appropriate for everyone.
Several of us have posted that it has not been our experience that
keeping a good used car maintained approaches the cost of buying a
new car. Perhaps you are an incompetent driver, and you DO need to
buy a new car to replace the one you've destroyed so quickly - but
don't project that on everyone else.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2007 21:20:13
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Bob Ward wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 03:27:14 -0600, Tom Sherman
> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Bob Ward wrote:
>>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 00:24:15 -0600, Tom Sherman
>>> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Past and present tense. Back when I could only afford cheap cars, it was
>>>> barely worthwhile going to work because of the repair costs. I am
>>>> spending about the same now that I can afford a new car, but without the
>>>> aggravations of unreliability and the annoyance of things that are
>>>> broken, but too expensive to fix.
>>>>
>>>> The sensible point of having money is that it can make problems go away.
>>> The sensible USE of money means that the careful shopper can make
>>> problems go away without spending too much money.
>>>
>> And having a car that needs $0.20/mile in repair costs above and beyond
>> scheduled maintenance is not a sensible use of money.
>
> You keep thinking that your needs should be appropriate for everyone.
Hey, if you do not need reliable transportation, good for you. Do not
project that to others.
> Several of us have posted that it has not been our experience that
> keeping a good used car maintained approaches the cost of buying a
> new car. Perhaps you are an incompetent driver, and you DO need to
> buy a new car to replace the one you've destroyed so quickly - but
> don't project that on everyone else.
>
Perhaps you have a problem with reading comprehension? Where did I write
that I destroyed any vehicles? I had a couple of vehicles destroyed by
others while parked, that I got lousy insurance settlements on, however.
Perhaps you have been lucky in the used vehicles you ended up with - do
not project that on everyone else.
Most of the repairs I have had on cars have had nothing to do with
maintenance or driving style. Are alternators, fuel pumps, starters,
electric systems, windows, air conditioning systems and door
handles/locks affected by these? For that matter, are sealed wheel
bearings, baring collisions with curbs? How does maintenance keep
suspension parts and other undercarriage parts from rusting?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2007 21:18:24
From: Bob Ward
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:20:13 -0600, Tom Sherman
<sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com > wrote:
>>>> The sensible point of having money is that it can make problems go away.
>>>> The sensible USE of money means that the careful shopper can make
>>>> problems go away without spending too much money.
>>>>
>>> And having a car that needs $0.20/mile in repair costs above and beyond
>>> scheduled maintenance is not a sensible use of money.
>>
>> You keep thinking that your needs should be appropriate for everyone.
>
>Hey, if you do not need reliable transportation, good for you. Do not
>project that to others.
You keep wanting to project as fact that an older car cannot be
reliable.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 23:32:48
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Bob Ward wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:20:13 -0600, Tom Sherman
> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> The sensible point of having money is that it can make problems go away.
>>>>> The sensible USE of money means that the careful shopper can make
>>>>> problems go away without spending too much money.
>>>>>
>>>> And having a car that needs $0.20/mile in repair costs above and beyond
>>>> scheduled maintenance is not a sensible use of money.
>>> You keep thinking that your needs should be appropriate for everyone.
>> Hey, if you do not need reliable transportation, good for you. Do not
>> project that to others.
>
> You keep wanting to project as fact that an older car cannot be
> reliable.
Depends on a lot of factors. But you will not convince me that the 15+
year old vehicles some go on and on about will be reliable without
anything short of a full rebuild, which is NOT economical.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 23:17:52
From: Bob Ward
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 23:32:48 -0600, Tom Sherman
<sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com > wrote:
>Bob Ward wrote:
>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:20:13 -0600, Tom Sherman
>> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> The sensible point of having money is that it can make problems go away.
>>>>>> The sensible USE of money means that the careful shopper can make
>>>>>> problems go away without spending too much money.
>>>>>>
>>>>> And having a car that needs $0.20/mile in repair costs above and beyond
>>>>> scheduled maintenance is not a sensible use of money.
>>>> You keep thinking that your needs should be appropriate for everyone.
>>> Hey, if you do not need reliable transportation, good for you. Do not
>>> project that to others.
>>
>> You keep wanting to project as fact that an older car cannot be
>> reliable.
>
>Depends on a lot of factors. But you will not convince me that the 15+
>year old vehicles some go on and on about will be reliable without
>anything short of a full rebuild, which is NOT economical.
Why should I feel compelled to convince you of anything?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 21:50:34
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Bob Ward wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 23:32:48 -0600, Tom Sherman
> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Bob Ward wrote:
>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:20:13 -0600, Tom Sherman
>>> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> The sensible point of having money is that it can make problems go away.
>>>>>>> The sensible USE of money means that the careful shopper can make
>>>>>>> problems go away without spending too much money.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> And having a car that needs $0.20/mile in repair costs above and beyond
>>>>>> scheduled maintenance is not a sensible use of money.
>>>>> You keep thinking that your needs should be appropriate for everyone.
>>>> Hey, if you do not need reliable transportation, good for you. Do not
>>>> project that to others.
>>> You keep wanting to project as fact that an older car cannot be
>>> reliable.
>> Depends on a lot of factors. But you will not convince me that the 15+
>> year old vehicles some go on and on about will be reliable without
>> anything short of a full rebuild, which is NOT economical.
>
> Why should I feel compelled to convince you of anything?
>
You are arguing with me on Usenet, no?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 21:59:42
From:
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@removethisyahoo.com > wrote:
> Bob Ward wrote:
> > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Bob Ward wrote:
> >>> You keep wanting to project as fact that an older car cannot be
> >>> reliable.
> >> Depends on a lot of factors. But you will not convince me that the
> >> 15+ year old vehicles some go on and on about will be reliable
> >> without anything short of a full rebuild, which is NOT economical.
> > Why should I feel compelled to convince you of anything?
> You are arguing with me on Usenet, no?
This does not magically imbue you with intelligence.
--
Huey
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 22:30:42
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
huey.callison@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
>> Bob Ward wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Bob Ward wrote:
>>>>> You keep wanting to project as fact that an older car cannot be
>>>>> reliable.
>>>> Depends on a lot of factors. But you will not convince me that the
>>>> 15+ year old vehicles some go on and on about will be reliable
>>>> without anything short of a full rebuild, which is NOT economical.
>>> Why should I feel compelled to convince you of anything?
>> You are arguing with me on Usenet, no?
>
> This does not magically imbue you with intelligence.
>
Tell that to the Weschler people.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 20:47:44
From: Jerry Bauer
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 20:30:42 -0800, Tom Sherman wrote
(in article <fh0nlo$g9l$3@registered.motzarella.org >):
> huey.callison@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Bob Ward wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Bob Ward wrote:
>>>>>> You keep wanting to project as fact that an older car cannot be
>>>>>> reliable.
>>>>> Depends on a lot of factors. But you will not convince me that the
>>>>> 15+ year old vehicles some go on and on about will be reliable
>>>>> without anything short of a full rebuild, which is NOT economical.
>>>> Why should I feel compelled to convince you of anything?
>>> You are arguing with me on Usenet, no?
>>
>> This does not magically imbue you with intelligence.
>>
> Tell that to the Weschler people.
>
>
Hey, Weschler people! Arguing on Usenet does not magically imbue Tom
Sherman with intelligence!
--
Jerry "Heh, heh! I said 'imbue'!" Bauer
|
| | | |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 16:06:28
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>
> landotter wrote:
>> On Nov 2, 7:56 pm, "Mike Kruger" <Mik...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>> According to a study by Charles Courtemanche
>> You'd trust a study by a dude with a faggy name like that?
>>
>> In other news, gas is $7/gallon in the UK and they still fry Mars bars.
>>
> Think of it this way, if you could afford to drive your 15 mpg SUV at $2
> per gallon, you can likely afford to drive a 45 mpg car at $6 a gallon
> and a 60 mpg Trotter-mobile at $8. Americans can certainly adjust to
> increases in petrol prices.
But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more
sensible vehicles.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 10:17:32
From:
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Nov 5, 11:22 am, Richard Evans <info...@mindspring.com > wrote:
> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> And you two-vehicle advocates have to realize that if saving money on
> gas is the incentive, then buying/owning two vehicles more than
> offsets that savings.
I'll agree that having one person own two motor vehicles is unlikely
to make financial sense. In fact, I don't believe even a motor
scooter could be justified on those grounds.
I'm still advocating trailers, though, for occasional load carrying.
> >I just see so many empty pickups and SUVs with one driver that I'm not
> >convinced "need" is really the right word.
>
> "Need" is as good a word as any, given that none of us really "need" a
> car in the sense that we "need" oxygen. On top of that, I'm not sure
> that your observation counts as a measure of need. I use my pickup
> every day, but you'd probably say it's empty because you can't see
> under the cap. And even if I use it once a month, leaving it empty the
> other 29 days, I still "need" it. I'm sure many people commute in
> their SUV's with only one occupant, then fill the things up on the
> weekends.
I think you're heading down a slippery slope with your argument.
Sure, the guy down the street will say he "needs" his huge SUV, even
though it always seems to be empty but for him. And the teenagers
from the hood will say they "need" their boom cars, and to hell with
anyone who doesn't like their sound. And the bar half a mile away
"needed" to have an outside stage, with speakers so loud they
literally kept toddlers one mile away from sleeping at night. So
"need" is pretty meaningless.
A more rational way to discuss this would be by comparing costs and
benefits. We could attempt to price real costs to society, but that's
pretty tough, and tends to generate even more disagreement. So let's
just talk about cost and benefit for the individual, in terms of
dollars. And please, let's eliminate any "needs" based on image -
like "needing" an Escalade with huge wheels and spinners, so you can
look "bad" or "rich" or whatever.
So, what's the cost benefit of owning an SUV even if it get's filled
on the weekend? Most have surprisingly low seating and cargo capacity
for their size. A mid-sized, mid-priced station wagon would do the
same with greater economy and greater overall safety, if fashion
hadn't made them so difficult to find. And again, a regular passenger
car or hatchback with a trailer does even better. Both options would
make more financial sense.
What's under your truck's cap, exactly? Is it _really_ more than can
fit in the back of my Honda wagon with the seats down, or another
better-gas-mileage vehicle? If so, are you carrying it because you'll
lose significant money by not taking it everywhere? Or is it there
because it's a place to store it?
If you "need" to haul stuff only once a month, what would be the cost
of alternatives? Those could be, say, paying Lowes to deliver that
water heater, instead of hauling it yourself... but that's certainly
not once per month. Or, say, paying the $15 tag fee on a utility
trailer - but that's only once a year.
I think LOTS of people make unwise purchases based on events that are
so rare they're negligible. And lots of people can't think outside
their particular box. Instead, they get a notion, then invent reasons
to justify it. That _must_ be true of 90% of SUV owners!
> Need, in this context, is subjective, but last I knew we were each
> allowed to make such subjective decisions for ourselves.
It's true, we are. And honestly, I certainly don't collar pickup
drivers to discuss this. But when you enter a discussion group and
try to justify your decisions, you're asking for comment - and getting
it!
- Frank Krygowski
|
| | | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 14:51:07
From: Richard Evans
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>
>What's under your truck's cap, exactly? Is it _really_ more than can
>fit in the back of my Honda wagon with the seats down, or another
>better-gas-mileage vehicle? If so, are you carrying it because you'll
>lose significant money by not taking it everywhere? Or is it there
>because it's a place to store it?
I haul garbage. You want that in the back of your Honda?
>
>If you "need" to haul stuff only once a month, what would be the cost
>of alternatives? Those could be, say, paying Lowes to deliver that
>water heater, instead of hauling it yourself... but that's certainly
>not once per month. Or, say, paying the $15 tag fee on a utility
>trailer - but that's only once a year.
It would be my personal decision.
>> Need, in this context, is subjective, but last I knew we were each
>> allowed to make such subjective decisions for ourselves.
>
>It's true, we are. And honestly, I certainly don't collar pickup
>drivers to discuss this. But when you enter a discussion group and
>try to justify your decisions, you're asking for comment - and getting
>it!
And rebutting it. What's your point?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 09:22:42
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Richard Evans wrote:
>
> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >What's under your truck's cap, exactly? Is it _really_ more than can
> >fit in the back of my Honda wagon with the seats down, or another
> >better-gas-mileage vehicle? If so, are you carrying it because you'll
> >lose significant money by not taking it everywhere? Or is it there
> >because it's a place to store it?
>
> I haul garbage. You want that in the back of your Honda?
>
About the only thing that pickups are better at than station wagons,
that and odd sized loads. Of course by having a small trailer for those
times you take out the trash, even that is possible without mussing the
interior and you get much more enclosed space, kind of a good thing when
you are zooming down the road at 65 mph in the rain.
> >If you "need" to haul stuff only once a month, what would be the cost
> >of alternatives? Those could be, say, paying Lowes to deliver that
> >water heater, instead of hauling it yourself... but that's certainly
> >not once per month. Or, say, paying the $15 tag fee on a utility
> >trailer - but that's only once a year.
>
> It would be my personal decision.
>
Only the communists, or is it the fascists?, are saying that you can't
decide these things for yourself. The issue though is whether or not
they make sense or can make sense for a large number of people and how
to minimize the negative aspects of trying them out. Obviously if
government is pushing people to have a huge SUV by how it taxes and how
vehicles are insured, etc., that's beyond just "personal decision",
that's into "public policy".
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 19:56:04
From: Bob Ward
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 09:22:42 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
<tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk > wrote:
>About the only thing that pickups are better at than station wagons,
>that and odd sized loads. Of course by having a small trailer for those
>times you take out the trash, even that is possible without mussing the
>interior and you get much more enclosed space, kind of a good thing when
>you are zooming down the road at 65 mph in the rain.
While pulling a trailer?
Thanks for confirming your stupidity.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 22:27:39
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Bob Ward wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 09:22:42 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> About the only thing that pickups are better at than station wagons,
>> that and odd sized loads. Of course by having a small trailer for those
>> times you take out the trash, even that is possible without mussing the
>> interior and you get much more enclosed space, kind of a good thing when
>> you are zooming down the road at 65 mph in the rain.
>
> While pulling a trailer?
>
> Thanks for confirming your stupidity.
>
Ever drive I-80 across Iowa and Nebraska? Convoys of semis going 80+
mph. Insane, actually.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 21:32:30
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>
> Richard Evans wrote:
>> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> What's under your truck's cap, exactly? Is it _really_ more than can
>>> fit in the back of my Honda wagon with the seats down, or another
>>> better-gas-mileage vehicle? If so, are you carrying it because you'll
>>> lose significant money by not taking it everywhere? Or is it there
>>> because it's a place to store it?
>> I haul garbage. You want that in the back of your Honda?
>>
> About the only thing that pickups are better at than station wagons,
> that and odd sized loads....
Or heavy loads. I doubt a station wagon would have been happy hauling
the thirty 50-lb. bags I did in a 1 ton pickup the other day.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2007 12:13:04
From: Charles Wm. Dimmick
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>
>> Richard Evans wrote:
>>> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> What's under your truck's cap, exactly? Is it _really_ more than can
>>>> fit in the back of my Honda wagon with the seats down, or another
>>>> better-gas-mileage vehicle? If so, are you carrying it because you'll
>>>> lose significant money by not taking it everywhere? Or is it there
>>>> because it's a place to store it?
>>> I haul garbage. You want that in the back of your Honda?
>>>
>> About the only thing that pickups are better at than station wagons,
>> that and odd sized loads....
>
> Or heavy loads. I doubt a station wagon would have been happy hauling
> the thirty 50-lb. bags I did in a 1 ton pickup the other day.
>
Depends on your definition of a station wagon. When I moved from
Texas to Tennessee, back in 1970, I hauled 1700 lbs. of books in
my 1966 Chevy Suburban. Checked weight both before and after loading
at the local truck weigh station.
Charles
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2007 21:15:07
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Charles Wm. Dimmick wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>>>
>>> Richard Evans wrote:
>>>> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What's under your truck's cap, exactly? Is it _really_ more than can
>>>>> fit in the back of my Honda wagon with the seats down, or another
>>>>> better-gas-mileage vehicle? If so, are you carrying it because you'll
>>>>> lose significant money by not taking it everywhere? Or is it there
>>>>> because it's a place to store it?
>>>> I haul garbage. You want that in the back of your Honda?
>>>>
>>> About the only thing that pickups are better at than station wagons,
>>> that and odd sized loads....
>>
>> Or heavy loads. I doubt a station wagon would have been happy hauling
>> the thirty 50-lb. bags I did in a 1 ton pickup the other day.
>>
> Depends on your definition of a station wagon. When I moved from
> Texas to Tennessee, back in 1970, I hauled 1700 lbs. of books in
> my 1966 Chevy Suburban. Checked weight both before and after loading
> at the local truck weigh station.
I believe by common usage, a Suburban is a truck or SUV, not a station
wagon.
1700 pounds is not much of a load. I loaded up the 1 ton pickup with
about 2500 pounds in the bed and hooked up a 8000 pound trailer. The $75
dollar gas stops makes me happy that it is not my personal vehicle.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2007 08:07:49
From: Bill Turlock
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
"Charles Wm. Dimmick" wrote:
>
> Tom Sherman wrote:
> > Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
> >>
> >> Richard Evans wrote:
> >>> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> What's under your truck's cap, exactly? Is it _really_ more than can
> >>>> fit in the back of my Honda wagon with the seats down, or another
> >>>> better-gas-mileage vehicle? If so, are you carrying it because you'll
> >>>> lose significant money by not taking it everywhere? Or is it there
> >>>> because it's a place to store it?
> >>> I haul garbage. You want that in the back of your Honda?
> >>>
> >> About the only thing that pickups are better at than station wagons,
> >> that and odd sized loads....
> >
> > Or heavy loads. I doubt a station wagon would have been happy hauling
> > the thirty 50-lb. bags I did in a 1 ton pickup the other day.
> >
> Depends on your definition of a station wagon. When I moved from
> Texas to Tennessee, back in 1970, I hauled 1700 lbs. of books in
> my 1966 Chevy Suburban. Checked weight both before and after loading
> at the local truck weigh station.
>
What was that, maybe a half dozen of them chiseled-in-stone
books?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2007 21:02:14
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Richard Evans wrote:
> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> What's under your truck's cap, exactly? Is it _really_ more than can
>> fit in the back of my Honda wagon with the seats down, or another
>> better-gas-mileage vehicle? If so, are you carrying it because you'll
>> lose significant money by not taking it everywhere? Or is it there
>> because it's a place to store it?
>
> I haul garbage. You want that in the back of your Honda?...
No garbage pickup route by your residence?
When I lived in the country, garbage disposal was an empty 55-gallon
barrel out back and a match. I always volunteered to take out the
garbage, since I like playing with fire. :)
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2007 22:49:23
From: Richard Evans
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com > wrote:
>Richard Evans wrote:
>> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> What's under your truck's cap, exactly? Is it _really_ more than can
>>> fit in the back of my Honda wagon with the seats down, or another
>>> better-gas-mileage vehicle? If so, are you carrying it because you'll
>>> lose significant money by not taking it everywhere? Or is it there
>>> because it's a place to store it?
>>
>> I haul garbage. You want that in the back of your Honda?...
>
>No garbage pickup route by your residence?
Yes, but the house sits way back in the woods. I built a corral for
the cans by the curb. I throw all the garbage (bagged) into the truck.
On garbage day, I take it to the curb and transfer it to the cans.
>
>When I lived in the country, garbage disposal was an empty 55-gallon
>barrel out back and a match. I always volunteered to take out the
>garbage, since I like playing with fire. :)
Worst drought in a hundred years here. Open burning not a good idea.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 23:25:50
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Richard Evans wrote:
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Richard Evans wrote:
>>> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> What's under your truck's cap, exactly? Is it _really_ more than can
>>>> fit in the back of my Honda wagon with the seats down, or another
>>>> better-gas-mileage vehicle? If so, are you carrying it because you'll
>>>> lose significant money by not taking it everywhere? Or is it there
>>>> because it's a place to store it?
>>> I haul garbage. You want that in the back of your Honda?...
>> No garbage pickup route by your residence?
>
> Yes, but the house sits way back in the woods. I built a corral for
> the cans by the curb. I throw all the garbage (bagged) into the truck.
> On garbage day, I take it to the curb and transfer it to the cans....
I would use a SUV for this purpose:
<http://organicengines.com/products/the-sensible-utility-vehicle-aka-the-suv/ >.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 11:11:28
From: Richard Evans
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com > wrote:
>>>> I haul garbage. You want that in the back of your Honda?...
>>> No garbage pickup route by your residence?
>>
>> Yes, but the house sits way back in the woods. I built a corral for
>> the cans by the curb. I throw all the garbage (bagged) into the truck.
>> On garbage day, I take it to the curb and transfer it to the cans....
>
>I would use a SUV for this purpose:
><http://organicengines.com/products/the-sensible-utility-vehicle-aka-the-suv/>.
Great. Now I either have to run every bag to the curb as it's full, or
keep cans near the house to store it in, in which case I'm right back
where I started. Not to mention spending $1,750 to do something that
I'm doing now for zero additional cost.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 21:29:24
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Richard Evans wrote:
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> I haul garbage. You want that in the back of your Honda?...
>>>> No garbage pickup route by your residence?
>>> Yes, but the house sits way back in the woods. I built a corral for
>>> the cans by the curb. I throw all the garbage (bagged) into the truck.
>>> On garbage day, I take it to the curb and transfer it to the cans....
>> I would use a SUV for this purpose:
>> <http://organicengines.com/products/the-sensible-utility-vehicle-aka-the-suv/>.
>
> Great. Now I either have to run every bag to the curb as it's full, or
> keep cans near the house to store it in, in which case I'm right back
> where I started. Not to mention spending $1,750 to do something that
> I'm doing now for zero additional cost.
I think it is clear which Usenet group Richard Evans is from. Some of us
would enjoy an excuse to pedal.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 12:16:56
From: Lee Ayrton
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, huey.callison@gmail.com wrote:
> In alt.fan.cecil-adams Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
>> Veronique wrote:
>>> If you can't afford $1500, how are you able to afford that $300+ car
>>> payment each month for five years? Plus the comprehensive auto
>>> insurance required for the loan?
>> Past and present tense. Back when I could only afford cheap cars, it
>> was barely worthwhile going to work because of the repair costs. I am
>> spending about the same now that I can afford a new car
>
> Look, the fundamental issue here is whether a used car is cheaper than a
> new car. And obviously it is, but you keep saying things like "back
It seems to me that on the tangible side of the question, driving a
loan-free old car is cheaper only if your repair and maintenance costs
are lower than the depreciation plus financing cost on an equivalent new
vehicle. We'll dismiss taxes and insurance costs for the nonce with a
cavalier wave of the hand.
According to this calculator,
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/cto/CTOintroController
A 2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee will cost me $53K over 5 years, a 2003 will
cost me $41K for the same time period, the difference is largely in the
$10K depreciation in the first year on the 2007. Once we get past that
$10K drop driving the car off the lot it costs $8/yr, give or take
$1500.
On the less tangible side we've got the upthread stated need for
reliability -- the need to travel long distances on short notice. For
some folks a failure to show when called can result in losing the rest of
the project, so (assuming here that newer vehicles are less likely to
break down or be under extensive repair than older vehicles) a few
thousand dollars more in vehicle costs are insurance against income losses
in the tens of thousands for this project and more on future projects.
Sadly, Edmunds doesn't have a cost calculator for that one.
--
"We began to realize, as we plowed on with the destruction of New Jersey,
that the extent of our American lunatic fringe had been underestimated."
Orson Wells on the reaction to the _War Of The Worlds_ broadcast.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 05:03:00
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Lee Ayrton wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, huey.callison@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> In alt.fan.cecil-adams Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@removethisyahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Veronique wrote:
>
>>>> If you can't afford $1500, how are you able to afford that $300+ car
>>>> payment each month for five years? Plus the comprehensive auto
>>>> insurance required for the loan?
>
>>> Past and present tense. Back when I could only afford cheap cars, it
>>> was barely worthwhile going to work because of the repair costs. I am
>>> spending about the same now that I can afford a new car
>>
>> Look, the fundamental issue here is whether a used car is cheaper than a
>> new car. And obviously it is, but you keep saying things like "back
>
> It seems to me that on the tangible side of the question, driving a
> loan-free old car is cheaper only if your repair and maintenance costs
> are lower than the depreciation plus financing cost on an equivalent new
> vehicle. We'll dismiss taxes and insurance costs for the nonce with a
> cavalier wave of the hand.
>
> According to this calculator,
> http://www.edmunds.com/apps/cto/CTOintroController
>
> A 2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee will cost me $53K over 5 years, a 2003 will
> cost me $41K for the same time period, the difference is largely in the
> $10K depreciation in the first year on the 2007. Once we get past that
> $10K drop driving the car off the lot it costs $8/yr, give or take $1500.
>
> On the less tangible side we've got the upthread stated need for
> reliability -- the need to travel long distances on short notice. For
> some folks a failure to show when called can result in losing the rest
> of the project, so (assuming here that newer vehicles are less likely to
> break down or be under extensive repair than older vehicles) a few
> thousand dollars more in vehicle costs are insurance against income
> losses in the tens of thousands for this project and more on future
> projects.
>
> Sadly, Edmunds doesn't have a cost calculator for that one.
Thank you for posting this very sensible analysis.
I will admit that a relatively new, low mileage vehicle coming off a 2
or 3 year lease or trade-in, AND fully inspected with an extended
manufacturers warranty will probably be the best deal financially, IF
one can find the vehicle one needs on the market. The above is much
different that having a vehicle with more than 100,000 miles or 5 years
in age, when things start to break, irregardless of maintenance or
driving type.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 09:35:47
From: Lee Ayrton
Subject: My other car is a... WAS: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Sun, 4 Nov 2007, Bob Ward wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 23:10:12 -0600, Tom Sherman
> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>> Veronique wrote:
>>> See, the trouble is, you're not driving an old-enough car.
>>
>> Get much older and all the rubber parts start to go.
>>
>> Late 1980s to early 1990s cars are to be avoided at all costs, due to
>> those stupid motorized seatbelts.
>
> Again - it all comes down to proper maintenance and repair. I have a
> friend who owns and drives a 1955 Chevy. He's owned the car for over
> forty years. I suspect it is in considerably better shape than the
> current disposable car you seem to be so proud of will be in five
> years.
To be fair, that `55 required more routine maintenance when it was still
new than cars manufactured in the past decade do now -- plugs, points and
condensor, for example, which needed attention or replacement every few
thousand miles while modern cars go tens of thousands of miles without
needing tuning at all. The metalurgy behind bearings, rings, cylinder
walls and other wear surfaces was not what it is today and those items
were subject to much more wear then than in modern vehicles.
> Since there is no "book value" on a 1955 Chevy, he has an agreed value
> policy that places its value at $45,000, and can provide independent
> appraisals and comparables to support it.
Agreed value is, well, the agreed value and the cost of the insurance
reflects that risk to the insurer. He could just as well find a company
willing to insure it for $100,000 or $1M, but it will cost him. I have a
vehicle under an agreed value policy, it costs me a flat fee per thousand
dollars of coverage.
--
"We began to realize, as we plowed on with the destruction of New Jersey,
that the extent of our American lunatic fringe had been underestimated."
Orson Wells on the reaction to the _War Of The Worlds_ broadcast.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 14:53:41
From: Bob Ward
Subject: Re: My other car is a... WAS: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 09:35:47 -0500, Lee Ayrton <layrton@panix.com >
wrote:
>To be fair, that `55 required more routine maintenance when it was still
>new than cars manufactured in the past decade do now -- plugs, points and
>condensor, for example, which needed attention or replacement every few
>thousand miles while modern cars go tens of thousands of miles without
>needing tuning at all. The metalurgy behind bearings, rings, cylinder
>walls and other wear surfaces was not what it is today and those items
>were subject to much more wear then than in modern vehicles.
>
That was true of the original engine - but the current power is a rat
motor (crate engine, I'm pretty sure) with a six-speed trans behind
it.
It was pretty much a street racer for many years - no back seat, roll
cage and racing buckets installed, etc., but with age has come
enlightenment - this last year he installed A/C - it's just a toy,
now.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 05:39:10
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: My other car is a... WAS: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Bob Ward wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 09:35:47 -0500, Lee Ayrton <layrton@panix.com>
> wrote:
>
>> To be fair, that `55 required more routine maintenance when it was still
>> new than cars manufactured in the past decade do now -- plugs, points and
>> condensor, for example, which needed attention or replacement every few
>> thousand miles while modern cars go tens of thousands of miles without
>> needing tuning at all. The metalurgy behind bearings, rings, cylinder
>> walls and other wear surfaces was not what it is today and those items
>> were subject to much more wear then than in modern vehicles.
>>
>
> That was true of the original engine - but the current power is a rat
> motor (crate engine, I'm pretty sure) with a six-speed trans behind
> it.
>
> It was pretty much a street racer for many years - no back seat, roll
> cage and racing buckets installed, etc., but with age has come
> enlightenment - this last year he installed A/C - it's just a toy,
> now.
>
A toy is not a daily commuter/business travel vehicle.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 17:13:11
From: Bob Ward
Subject: Re: My other car is a... WAS: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 05:39:10 -0600, Tom Sherman
<sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com > wrote:
>Bob Ward wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 09:35:47 -0500, Lee Ayrton <layrton@panix.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> To be fair, that `55 required more routine maintenance when it was still
>>> new than cars manufactured in the past decade do now -- plugs, points and
>>> condensor, for example, which needed attention or replacement every few
>>> thousand miles while modern cars go tens of thousands of miles without
>>> needing tuning at all. The metalurgy behind bearings, rings, cylinder
>>> walls and other wear surfaces was not what it is today and those items
>>> were subject to much more wear then than in modern vehicles.
>>>
>>
>> That was true of the original engine - but the current power is a rat
>> motor (crate engine, I'm pretty sure) with a six-speed trans behind
>> it.
>>
>> It was pretty much a street racer for many years - no back seat, roll
>> cage and racing buckets installed, etc., but with age has come
>> enlightenment - this last year he installed A/C - it's just a toy,
>> now.
>>
>A toy is not a daily commuter/business travel vehicle.
That was never stated, inferred, or implied.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2007 23:43:21
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: My other car is a... WAS: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Bob Ward wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 05:39:10 -0600, Tom Sherman
> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Bob Ward wrote:
>>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 09:35:47 -0500, Lee Ayrton <layrton@panix.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> To be fair, that `55 required more routine maintenance when it was still
>>>> new than cars manufactured in the past decade do now -- plugs, points and
>>>> condensor, for example, which needed attention or replacement every few
>>>> thousand miles while modern cars go tens of thousands of miles without
>>>> needing tuning at all. The metalurgy behind bearings, rings, cylinder
>>>> walls and other wear surfaces was not what it is today and those items
>>>> were subject to much more wear then than in modern vehicles.
>>>>
>>> That was true of the original engine - but the current power is a rat
>>> motor (crate engine, I'm pretty sure) with a six-speed trans behind
>>> it.
>>>
>>> It was pretty much a street racer for many years - no back seat, roll
>>> cage and racing buckets installed, etc., but with age has come
>>> enlightenment - this last year he installed A/C - it's just a toy,
>>> now.
>>>
>> A toy is not a daily commuter/business travel vehicle.
>
> That was never stated, inferred, or implied.
>
Then why did you bring up how great of condition said 1955 Chevrolet was
in an earlier posting to this thread, if the car is only used as a toy?
Toy use is hardly a fair comparison to all year commuting, especially in
the upper Midwest with heavily salted roads and salty slush that soaks
the car.
Heck, the aforementioned 1955 Chevrolet does not even have the original
power train - I wonder how much the car actually costs on a per mile
basis? Likely more than my 2005 Honda Civic.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 Nov 2007 17:53:30
From: Richard Evans
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com > wrote:
>
>But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more
>sensible vehicles.
Let's see. I drive 12k per year and get 15mpg from my paid-for 6-cyl
Mazda, using 800 gals per year. At $3/gal that costs me $2,400 per
year.
Gas goes to $10 per gallon and my 800 gals cost $8000.
Or, I trade for a new car that gets 30mpg. I now use 400 gals per
year. At $10, that's $4000, per year. But the new car costs me
(conservatively) about $400 a month for 4-5 years, so in addition to
gas I'm now paying about $4,800 in car payments, for a total of $8,800
per year.
If the new car costs (including interest) $24,000 over five years, and
I save $4k per year in gas, it takes me six years to break even. The
more expensive the new car, the longer the break-even point.
"Sensible", to me, is sticking with a car that's pretty much paid for,
regardless of the cost of gas.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 10:44:52
From: Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Richard Evans wrote:
>
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more
> >sensible vehicles.
>
> Let's see. I drive 12k per year and get 15mpg from my paid-for 6-cyl
> Mazda, using 800 gals per year. At $3/gal that costs me $2,400 per
> year.
>
> Gas goes to $10 per gallon and my 800 gals cost $8000.
>
> Or, I trade for a new car that gets 30mpg. I now use 400 gals per
> year. At $10, that's $4000, per year. But the new car costs me
> (conservatively) about $400 a month for 4-5 years, so in addition to
> gas I'm now paying about $4,800 in car payments, for a total of $8,800
> per year.
>
> If the new car costs (including interest) $24,000 over five years, and
> I save $4k per year in gas, it takes me six years to break even. The
> more expensive the new car, the longer the break-even point.
>
> "Sensible", to me, is sticking with a car that's pretty much paid for,
> regardless of the cost of gas.
>
Do you really contend that the cost of a car that gets good mileage must
be $400 a month? Why not buy a used car that gets good mileage?
Another point though is something you've run into, that the people who
buy new cars are the sort of people who are willing to pay $400 a month
for the privilege. These are the same sorts of people who are willing to
pay more money they could avoid for lots of gasoline. So that means that
a disproportionate amount of the cars bought today are actually trucks,
SUVs, that sort of thing.
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 13:45:26
From: Richard Evans
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
"Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk > wrote:
>>
>Do you really contend that the cost of a car that gets good mileage must
>be $400 a month? Why not buy a used car that gets good mileage?
I don't know where you've been shopping, but $400/month is pretty
conservative for a car payment of any kind these days. I suppose you
could go back to one that's old enough to cost less, but then where is
your big gas savings running old technology?
My current Mazda cost $20k in 2001, which is pretty reasonable for any
kind of new car, and even with 48-month 0% financing it cost $416 a
month.
>
>Another point though is something you've run into, that the people who
>buy new cars are the sort of people who are willing to pay $400 a month
>for the privilege.
I say again: $400 a month doesn't buy much privilege.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 14:56:03
From: Patrick M Geahan
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Richard Evans <infodex@mindspring.com > wrote:
> I don't know where you've been shopping, but $400/month is pretty
> conservative for a car payment of any kind these days.
Really? I've been buying new cars since 2000, and have never had a payment
of more than 300 a month. And no loans longer than sixty months.
No stripped-down buckets, either.
--
-------Patrick M Geahan----pmgeahan@thepatcave.org---ICQ:3784715------
"You know, this is how the sum total of human knowledge is increased.
Not with idle speculation and meaningless chatter, but with a
medium-sized hammer and some free time." - spam.sc@pffcu.com, a.f.c-a
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 16:58:00
From: Richard Evans
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Patrick M Geahan <pmgeahan@mail.thepatcave.org > wrote:
>Richard Evans <infodex@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't know where you've been shopping, but $400/month is pretty
>> conservative for a car payment of any kind these days.
>
>Really? I've been buying new cars since 2000, and have never had a payment
>of more than 300 a month. And no loans longer than sixty months.
I didn't say it was rock bottom, I said it was conservative. Of course
some can get lower payments, especially if they stretch to 60-month
financing. If you had a $300/month payment with zero interest you'd be
paying $18k. The same for 48 months is $375. Are you trying to tell me
that $18k is not at the lower spectrum of new car prices?
Consider this headline:
"Edmunds.com Reports Average New Vehicle Price Tops $30K for the First
Time"
http://www.edmunds.com/help/about/press/101245/article.html
So, *my* "average cost" is even more conservative than Edmunds'
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2007 15:11:27
From: Greg Goss
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Richard Evans <infodex@mindspring.com > wrote:
>I didn't say it was rock bottom, I said it was conservative. Of course
>some can get lower payments, especially if they stretch to 60-month
>financing. If you had a $300/month payment with zero interest you'd be
>paying $18k. The same for 48 months is $375. Are you trying to tell me
>that $18k is not at the lower spectrum of new car prices?
A year ago, I was shopping for a car. The finalists were two new
models and one no-longer-made model.
One of the finalists was the Suzuki Swift+. It doesn't get the gas
mileage I wanted, but the price difference could buy a lot of gas.
If you were willing to self-finance, the car was available for under
$12K plus taxes. And that was at a time when C$12K was worth about
US$11.
And I'm a lousy negotiator. If they were offering it to me for
$11,998, I'm sure someone else could have got it for $10,500.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2007 16:15:05
From: Bob Ward
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 15:11:27 -0700, Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org > wrote:
>
>If you were willing to self-finance, the car was available for under
>$12K plus taxes. And that was at a time when C$12K was worth about
>US$11.
I knew the ratio was bad at one time - but had no idea it was THAT
bad.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 16:28:18
From: Richard Evans
Subject: said it was representative
|
Patrick M Geahan <pmgeahan@mail.thepatcave.org > wrote:
>Richard Evans <infodex@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't know where you've been shopping, but $400/month is pretty
>> conservative for a car payment of any kind these days.
>
>Really? I've been buying new cars since 2000, and have never had a payment
>of more than 300 a month. And no loans longer than sixty months.
I didn't say it was rock bottom, I said it was conservative. Of course
some can get lower payments, especially if they stretch to 60-month
financing. If you had a $300/month payment with zero interest you'd be
paying $18k. The same for 48 months is $375. Are you trying to tell me
that $18k is not at the lower spectrum of new car prices?
Consider this headline:
"Edmunds.com Reports Average New Vehicle Price Tops $30K for the First
Time"
http://www.edmunds.com/help/about/press/101245/article.html
So, my "average cost" is even more conservative than Edmunds'
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 16:54:53
From: Richard Evans
Subject: Re: said it was representative: IGNORE
|
Crap. This was intended for another thread. Ignore it
Richard Evans <infodex@mindspring.com > wrote:
>Patrick M Geahan <pmgeahan@mail.thepatcave.org> wrote:
>
>>Richard Evans <infodex@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know where you've been shopping, but $400/month is pretty
>>> conservative for a car payment of any kind these days.
>>
>>Really? I've been buying new cars since 2000, and have never had a payment
>>of more than 300 a month. And no loans longer than sixty months.
>
>I didn't say it was rock bottom, I said it was conservative. Of course
>some can get lower payments, especially if they stretch to 60-month
>financing. If you had a $300/month payment with zero interest you'd be
>paying $18k. The same for 48 months is $375. Are you trying to tell me
>that $18k is not at the lower spectrum of new car prices?
>
>Consider this headline:
>
>"Edmunds.com Reports Average New Vehicle Price Tops $30K for the First
>Time"
>
>http://www.edmunds.com/help/about/press/101245/article.html
>
>So, my "average cost" is even more conservative than Edmunds'
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 15:43:09
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: said it was representative
|
Richard Evans wrote:
> Patrick M Geahan <pmgeahan@mail.thepatcave.org> wrote:
>
>> Richard Evans <infodex@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know where you've been shopping, but $400/month is pretty
>>> conservative for a car payment of any kind these days.
>> Really? I've been buying new cars since 2000, and have never had a payment
>> of more than 300 a month. And no loans longer than sixty months.
>
> I didn't say it was rock bottom, I said it was conservative. Of course
> some can get lower payments, especially if they stretch to 60-month
> financing. If you had a $300/month payment with zero interest you'd be
> paying $18k. The same for 48 months is $375. Are you trying to tell me
> that $18k is not at the lower spectrum of new car prices?
>
> Consider this headline:
>
> "Edmunds.com Reports Average New Vehicle Price Tops $30K for the First
> Time"
Fools and their money are easily parted?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 13:09:03
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Richard Evans wrote:
> "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )" <tributyltinpaint@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Do you really contend that the cost of a car that gets good mileage must
>> be $400 a month? Why not buy a used car that gets good mileage?
>
> I don't know where you've been shopping, but $400/month is pretty
> conservative for a car payment of any kind these days. I suppose you
> could go back to one that's old enough to cost less, but then where is
> your big gas savings running old technology?
My late model Honda Civic meets all my transportation needs, except for
the occasional need to haul larger items, and costs less than
three-quarters of the aforementioned $400/month. I also get a real world
34-35 mpg, driving like a maniac. :)
> My current Mazda cost $20k in 2001, which is pretty reasonable for any
> kind of new car, and even with 48-month 0% financing it cost $416 a
> month.
>
>
>> Another point though is something you've run into, that the people who
>> buy new cars are the sort of people who are willing to pay $400 a month
>> for the privilege.
>
> I say again: $400 a month doesn't buy much privilege.
Who wants that type of privilege?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 11:50:27
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' ) wrote:
>
> Richard Evans wrote:
>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> But at least higher gas prices would get people into smaller, more
>>> sensible vehicles.
>> Let's see. I drive 12k per year and get 15mpg from my paid-for 6-cyl
>> Mazda, using 800 gals per year. At $3/gal that costs me $2,400 per
>> year.
>>
>> Gas goes to $10 per gallon and my 800 gals cost $8000.
>>
>> Or, I trade for a new car that gets 30mpg. I now use 400 gals per
>> year. At $10, that's $4000, per year. But the new car costs me
>> (conservatively) about $400 a month for 4-5 years, so in addition to
>> gas I'm now paying about $4,800 in car payments, for a total of $8,800
>> per year.
>>
>> If the new car costs (including interest) $24,000 over five years, and
>> I save $4k per year in gas, it takes me six years to break even. The
>> more expensive the new car, the longer the break-even point.
>>
>> "Sensible", to me, is sticking with a car that's pretty much paid for,
>> regardless of the cost of gas.
>>
> Do you really contend that the cost of a car that gets good mileage must
> be $400 a month? Why not buy a used car that gets good mileage?
>
> Another point though is something you've run into, that the people who
> buy new cars are the sort of people who are willing to pay $400 a month
> for the privilege. These are the same sorts of people who are willing to
> pay more money they could avoid for lots of gasoline. So that means that
> a disproportionate amount of the cars bought today are actually trucks,
> SUVs, that sort of thing.
Some of us NEED reliable transportation to stay employed, and can not
afford to have frequent breakdowns on the road. This requires a fairly
new vehicle. Furthermore, the maintenance costs on a older vehicle can
outweigh the payments on a newer one. If an older vehicle is very well
maintained so as to be reliable, you will NOT get fair value from
insurance if someone else damages or steals it (been there, done that).
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2007 09:36:15
From: Lee Ayrton
Subject: Re: My other car is a... WAS: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Bob Ward wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 09:35:47 -0500, Lee Ayrton <layrton@panix.com>
> wrote:
>
>> To be fair, that `55 required more routine maintenance when it was still
>> new than cars manufactured in the past decade do now -- plugs, points and
>> condensor, for example, which needed attention or replacement every few
>> thousand miles while modern cars go tens of thousands of miles without
>> needing tuning at all. The metalurgy behind bearings, rings, cylinder
>> walls and other wear surfaces was not what it is today and those items
>> were subject to much more wear then than in modern vehicles.
>>
>
> That was true of the original engine - but the current power is a rat
> motor (crate engine, I'm pretty sure) with a six-speed trans behind
> it.
Ah, well, in that case it is hardly a fair comparison as an "old car" to a
newer one, izzit?
--
"We began to realize, as we plowed on with the destruction of New Jersey,
that the extent of our American lunatic fringe had been underestimated."
Orson Wells on the reaction to the _War Of The Worlds_ broadcast.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Nov 2007 16:40:45
From: Bob Ward
Subject: Re: My other car is a... WAS: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 09:36:15 -0500, Lee Ayrton <layrton@panix.com >
wrote:
>On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Bob Ward wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 09:35:47 -0500, Lee Ayrton <layrton@panix.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> To be fair, that `55 required more routine maintenance when it was still
>>> new than cars manufactured in the past decade do now -- plugs, points and
>>> condensor, for example, which needed attention or replacement every few
>>> thousand miles while modern cars go tens of thousands of miles without
>>> needing tuning at all. The metalurgy behind bearings, rings, cylinder
>>> walls and other wear surfaces was not what it is today and those items
>>> were subject to much more wear then than in modern vehicles.
>>>
>>
>> That was true of the original engine - but the current power is a rat
>> motor (crate engine, I'm pretty sure) with a six-speed trans behind
>> it.
>
>Ah, well, in that case it is hardly a fair comparison as an "old car" to a
>newer one, izzit?
That wasn't the dog I was backing in this fight. The 55 Chevy was to
illustrate the concept of "agreed value insurance" for cars without a
realistic "book value" that would limit the value of the loss claim.
Some people seem to be reinterpreting the subject with each iteration.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 19:25:41
From:
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
In alt.fan.cecil-adams Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@removethisyahoo.com > wrote:
> Some of us NEED reliable transportation to stay employed, and can not
> afford to have frequent breakdowns on the road. This requires a fairly
> new vehicle. Furthermore, the maintenance costs on a older vehicle can
> outweigh the payments on a newer one.
A four-year note on a new base model Ford Focus is $336.45 payments.
You're gonna need to have a major repair (cracked head, transmission
rebuild) to add up to just a couple of those car payments. It's almost
always cheaper to keep a beater-car running than it is to buy even a
really inexpensive new car.
> If an older vehicle is very well maintained so as to be reliable, you
> will NOT get fair value from insurance if someone else damages or
> steals it (been there, done that).
You have the insurance you pay for. If you want your insurance to
replace your car to the tune of $5000, you gotta buy $5000 worth of
insurance.
--
Huey
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 12:12:55
From: Lee Ayrton
Subject: Re: My other car is a... WAS: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, Bob Ward wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 05:39:10 -0600, Tom Sherman
>> Bob Ward wrote:
>>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 09:35:47 -0500, Lee Ayrton <layrton@panix.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> To be fair, that `55 required more routine maintenance when it was still
>>>> new than cars manufactured in the past decade do now -- plugs, points and
>>>> condensor, for example, which needed attention or replacement every few
>>>> thousand miles while modern cars go tens of thousands of miles without
>>>> needing tuning at all. The metalurgy behind bearings, rings, cylinder
>>>> walls and other wear surfaces was not what it is today and those items
>>>> were subject to much more wear then than in modern vehicles.
>>>
>>> That was true of the original engine - but the current power is a rat
>>> motor (crate engine, I'm pretty sure) with a six-speed trans behind
>>> it.
>>>
>>> It was pretty much a street racer for many years - no back seat, roll
>>> cage and racing buckets installed, etc., but with age has come
>>> enlightenment - this last year he installed A/C - it's just a toy,
>>> now.
>>>
>> A toy is not a daily commuter/business travel vehicle.
>
> That was never stated, inferred, or implied.
Well, Bob, let's see what you wrote farther up, in context:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.cecil-adams/msg/ff9571506f10cab0
[begin quote -- attribution marks as in the original]------------------
>> See, the trouble is, you're not driving an old-enough car.
>Get much older and all the rubber parts start to go.
>Late 1980s to early 1990s cars are to be avoided at all costs, due to
>those stupid motorized seatbelts.
Again - it all comes down to proper maintenance and repair. I have a
friend who owns and drives a 1955 Chevy. He's owned the car for over
forty years. I suspect it is in considerably better shape than the
current disposable car you seem to be so proud of will be in five
years.
Since there is no "book value" on a 1955 Chevy, he has an agreed value
policy that places its value at $45,000, and can provide independent
appraisals and comparables to support it.
[end quote]-------------------------------------------------------
You aren't presenting that `55 as a street rod, you present it as a
"proper[ly] [maintained] and repair[ed]" vintage automobile that is in
"better shape" as a result of that activity than a modern vehicle. You
omitted the fact that it had been heavily modified, making it not a fair
comparison.
I've got a `79 Jeep that is in new-car condition, but I wouldn't hold it
up as an example of superior workmanship in the original or the benefit of
proper upkeep. There are two pieces of sheet metal that are original to
the Jeep and neither one is the body tub.
--
"We began to realize, as we plowed on with the destruction of New Jersey,
that the extent of our American lunatic fringe had been underestimated."
Orson Wells on the reaction to the _War Of The Worlds_ broadcast.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 21:57:03
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: My other car is a... WAS: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Lee Ayrton wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, Bob Ward wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 05:39:10 -0600, Tom Sherman
>>> Bob Ward wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 09:35:47 -0500, Lee Ayrton <layrton@panix.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> To be fair, that `55 required more routine maintenance when it was
>>>>> still
>>>>> new than cars manufactured in the past decade do now -- plugs,
>>>>> points and
>>>>> condensor, for example, which needed attention or replacement every
>>>>> few
>>>>> thousand miles while modern cars go tens of thousands of miles without
>>>>> needing tuning at all. The metalurgy behind bearings, rings, cylinder
>>>>> walls and other wear surfaces was not what it is today and those items
>>>>> were subject to much more wear then than in modern vehicles.
>>>>
>>>> That was true of the original engine - but the current power is a rat
>>>> motor (crate engine, I'm pretty sure) with a six-speed trans behind
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> It was pretty much a street racer for many years - no back seat, roll
>>>> cage and racing buckets installed, etc., but with age has come
>>>> enlightenment - this last year he installed A/C - it's just a toy,
>>>> now.
>>>>
>>> A toy is not a daily commuter/business travel vehicle.
>>
>> That was never stated, inferred, or implied.
>
> Well, Bob, let's see what you wrote farther up, in context:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.cecil-adams/msg/ff9571506f10cab0
> [begin quote -- attribution marks as in the original]------------------
>
>>> See, the trouble is, you're not driving an old-enough car.
>
>> Get much older and all the rubber parts start to go.
>
>> Late 1980s to early 1990s cars are to be avoided at all costs, due to
>> those stupid motorized seatbelts.
>
> Again - it all comes down to proper maintenance and repair. I have a
> friend who owns and drives a 1955 Chevy. He's owned the car for over
> forty years. I suspect it is in considerably better shape than the
> current disposable car you seem to be so proud of will be in five
> years.
>
> Since there is no "book value" on a 1955 Chevy, he has an agreed value
> policy that places its value at $45,000, and can provide independent
> appraisals and comparables to support it.
> [end quote]-------------------------------------------------------
>
> You aren't presenting that `55 as a street rod, you present it as a
> "proper[ly] [maintained] and repair[ed]" vintage automobile that is in
> "better shape" as a result of that activity than a modern vehicle. You
> omitted the fact that it had been heavily modified, making it not a fair
> comparison....
Indeed. I doubt even the most die-hard Chevy fanatic would claim that a
1995 Chevy would hold up to 40+ years of regular commuting use, with
just regular maintenance.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2007 19:53:22
From: Bob Ward
Subject: Re: My other car is a... WAS: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 12:12:55 -0500, Lee Ayrton <layrton@panix.com >
wrote:
>
>You aren't presenting that `55 as a street rod, you present it as a
>"proper[ly] [maintained] and repair[ed]" vintage automobile that is in
>"better shape" as a result of that activity than a modern vehicle. You
>omitted the fact that it had been heavily modified, making it not a fair
>comparison.
But not claiming that it was a daily driver - just pointing out that
age is not a criteria for the disposition of a car in all cases, and
refuting the statement that insurance would never replace a loss for
other than book value.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 19:35:35
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
huey.callison@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
> In alt.fan.cecil-adams Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
>> Some of us NEED reliable transportation to stay employed, and can not
>> afford to have frequent breakdowns on the road. This requires a fairly
>> new vehicle. Furthermore, the maintenance costs on a older vehicle can
>> outweigh the payments on a newer one.
>
> A four-year note on a new base model Ford Focus is $336.45 payments.
> You're gonna need to have a major repair (cracked head, transmission
> rebuild) to add up to just a couple of those car payments. It's almost
> always cheaper to keep a beater-car running than it is to buy even a
> really inexpensive new car.
I am paying less than that for a top of line (EX) Honda Civic. I do not
know where you area getting your repair prices, but a transmission
rebuild is going to $2000+, a clutch replacement $800+, a water pump
$400+, an engine rebuild $5000+.
>> If an older vehicle is very well maintained so as to be reliable, you
>> will NOT get fair value from insurance if someone else damages or
>> steals it (been there, done that).
>
> You have the insurance you pay for. If you want your insurance to
> replace your car to the tune of $5000, you gotta buy $5000 worth of
> insurance.
>
Not the way it works. Insurance policies do not pay more than book value
to replace a car, especially the policies of others who damage your car.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 20:31:35
From: Bob Ward
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 19:35:35 -0600, Tom Sherman
<sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com > wrote:
>>
>Not the way it works. Insurance policies do not pay more than book value
>to replace a car, especially the policies of others who damage your car.
That depends on the insurance policy you buy - just like jewelry and
artwork, it's not uncommon for exotic cars to be insured for far more
than "book" value, which is, after all, based on the average car in
average condition.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 23:03:30
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Bob Ward wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 19:35:35 -0600, Tom Sherman
> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Not the way it works. Insurance policies do not pay more than book value
>> to replace a car, especially the policies of others who damage your car.
>
> That depends on the insurance policy you buy - just like jewelry and
> artwork, it's not uncommon for exotic cars to be insured for far more
> than "book" value, which is, after all, based on the average car in
> average condition.
>
Would a 15 year old Toyota, Honda or Nissan sedan be considered exotic?
I think not.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 22:34:25
From: Bob Ward
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 23:03:30 -0600, Tom Sherman
<sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com > wrote:
>Bob Ward wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 19:35:35 -0600, Tom Sherman
>> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Not the way it works. Insurance policies do not pay more than book value
>>> to replace a car, especially the policies of others who damage your car.
>>
>> That depends on the insurance policy you buy - just like jewelry and
>> artwork, it's not uncommon for exotic cars to be insured for far more
>> than "book" value, which is, after all, based on the average car in
>> average condition.
>>
>Would a 15 year old Toyota, Honda or Nissan sedan be considered exotic?
>I think not.
Then why do you continue to post in a discussion you have obviously
lost?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 05 Nov 2007 03:39:21
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Bob Ward wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 23:03:30 -0600, Tom Sherman
> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Bob Ward wrote:
>>> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 19:35:35 -0600, Tom Sherman
>>> <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not the way it works. Insurance policies do not pay more than book value
>>>> to replace a car, especially the policies of others who damage your car.
>>> That depends on the insurance policy you buy - just like jewelry and
>>> artwork, it's not uncommon for exotic cars to be insured for far more
>>> than "book" value, which is, after all, based on the average car in
>>> average condition.
>>>
>> Would a 15 year old Toyota, Honda or Nissan sedan be considered exotic?
>> I think not.
>
> Then why do you continue to post in a discussion you have obviously
> lost?
>
What has been lost? Why bring exotic and collectible cars into the
discussion? Are you omniscient?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 20:00:09
From:
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@removethisyahoo.com > wrote:
> huey.callison@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
> > Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Some of us NEED reliable transportation to stay employed, and can
> >> not afford to have frequent breakdowns on the road. This requires a
> >> fairly new vehicle. Furthermore, the maintenance costs on a older
> >> vehicle can outweigh the payments on a newer one.
> > A four-year note on a new base model Ford Focus is $336.45 payments.
> > You're gonna need to have a major repair (cracked head, transmission
> > rebuild) to add up to just a couple of those car payments. It's
> > almost always cheaper to keep a beater-car running than it is to buy
> > even a really inexpensive new car.
> I am paying less than that for a top of line (EX) Honda Civic.
That implies one or more of: a) a trade-in, b) a down payment, c) longer
than a four-year note, or d) lower than prevailing interest rates.
> I do not know where you area getting your repair prices, but a
> transmission rebuild is going to $2000+, a clutch replacement $800+, a
> water pump $400+, an engine rebuild $5000+.
All of those depend on the car, but if you're keeping an older
beater-car running, you're not paying $5000 for an engine rebuild,
you're paying $1000 to put a junkyard motor in it. The last trans I had
rebuilt was an TH440, and I paid $1500. A water pump is generally a $100
part that takes me about an hour to put on, depending on the number of
friends standing around and the amount of beer I drink. The clutch
job is the only number I'm not going to argue with, $800 sounds about
right.
> >> If an older vehicle is very well maintained so as to be reliable, you
> >> will NOT get fair value from insurance if someone else damages or
> >> steals it (been there, done that).
> > You have the insurance you pay for. If you want your insurance to
> > replace your car to the tune of $5000, you gotta buy $5000 worth of
> > insurance.
> Not the way it works.
Not if you don't ask, no. Regular collision from most insurance
companies pays fair market value. If that's not enough to replace your
car, buy more insurance, or start putting money away to pay for the next
car.
--
Huey
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Nov 2007 10:00:11
From: Blinky the Shark
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Greg Goss wrote:
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>huey.callison@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I drive an eight-year-old truck with 150,000 miles on it. It has
>>> failed to start one time - fuel pump went bad. $300 part and a
>>> couple hours of swearing later, and I'm still waiting for that next
>>> thing to go wrong. It's been six months. Other than that: two sets
>>> of tires, a brake job, a couple wiper blades, a light bulb or two,
>>> and regular oil changes - and those are all things you'd also have
>>> to do to a new car. So - explain to me how a new car helps me any
>>> more than what I have now?
>>>
>>Every used vehicle I have owned has required frequent and expensive
>>repairs. I refuse to gamble by going down that road again.
>>
>>I don't have time to screw around waiting for tow trucks, renting cars
>>while mine is fixed, waiting by the side of the road in West Grain
>>Elevator Iowa, taking calls from people wanting to know why the hell I
>>did not show up on time, etc.
>
> In 2000 I paid $3300 for a seven-year old car. In 2001 I paid $33,000
That ($3300 (US)) is just about what I paid for the seven-year-old
Triumph (with 37k miles on it) that was my daily driver from 1983
through 2005. I eventually put a rebuilt engine in it, but everything
else was pretty much just normal maintenance (an exception being a pair
of axle shafts). I think I only needed a tow twice in those 22 years.
--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Nov 2007 03:57:00
From: Blinky the Shark
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
Tom Sherman wrote:
> Jerry Bauer wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 03:21:41 -0800, Tom Sherman wrote
>> (in article <fgs70g$v8o$1@registered.motzarella.org>):
>>
>>
>>> Do you live in an area where road salt is excessive? In the upper
>>> Midwest, salt corrosion eventually causes problems with any vehicle that
>>> is driven year around, and this extends beyond cosmetic body rust to
>>> brakes, shift linkages, wheels, wheel bearings, suspension parts,
>>> exhaust systems, etc.
>>
>> Well, there's your problem. You live in the wrong place!
>
> Well, we do not have earthquakes, forest fires, landslides, hurricanes
> or a water shortage here by the Great Lakes. :)
Boring! ;)
(For the record, I spent my first 34 years in salt-encrusted Michigan.)
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 04 Nov 2007 20:33:58
From: Tom Sherman
Subject: Re: Fat people? Less gas!
|
huey.callison@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
>> huey.callison@gmail.com aka Huey Callison wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman <sunsetss0003@removethisyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Some of us NEED reliable transportation to stay employed, and can
>>>> not afford to have frequent breakdowns on the road. This requires a
>>>> fairly new vehicle. Furthermore, the maintenance costs on a older
>>>> vehicle can outweigh the payments on a newer one.
>>> A four-year note on a new base model Ford Focus is $336.45 payments.
>>> You're gonna need to have a major repair (cracked head, transmission
>>> rebuild) to add up to just a couple of those car payments. It's
>>> almost always cheaper to keep a beater-car running than it is to buy
>>> even a really inexpensive new car.
>> I am paying less than that for a top of line (EX) Honda Civic.
>
> That implies one or more of: a) a trade-in, b) a down payment, c) longer
> than a four-year note, or d) lower than prevailing interest rates.
I happened to get one of the very last Civics of that model year, so yes
I am paying below market rates.
>> I do not know where you area getting your repair prices, but a
>> transmission rebuild is going to $2000+, a clutch replacement $800+, a
>> water pump $400+, an engine rebuild $5000+.
>
> All of those depend on the car, but if you're keeping an older
> beater-car running, you're not paying $5000 for an engine rebuild,
> you're paying $1000 to put a junkyard motor in it. The last trans I had
> rebuilt was an TH440, and I paid $1500. A water pump is generally a $100
> part that takes me about an hour to put on, depending on the number of
> friends standing around and the amount of beer I drink. The clutch
> job is the only number I'm not going to argue with, $800 sounds about
> right.
Will an older beater car with parts from a junkyard be reliable? I have
to travel with a car for work, and can not spend time broken down,
looking for parts at a junkyard, or repairing it. I also live in an
apartment, and having a place with a garage to do repairs in would cost
an additional amount more than my car payments.
>>>> If an older vehicle is very well maintained so as to be reliable, you
>>>> will NOT get fair value from insurance if someone else damages or
>>>> steals it (been there, done that).
>>> You have the insurance you pay for. If you want your insurance to
>>> replace your car to the tune of $5000, you gotta buy $5000 worth of
>>> insurance.
>> Not the way it works.
>
> Not if you don't ask, no. Regular collision from most insurance
> companies pays fair market value. If that's not enough to replace your
> car, buy more insurance, or start putting money away to pay for the next
> car.
Where does one find insurance for more than market value?
Putting away money does not solve the problem that if one has an older,
well maintained, but not collectible car, one will NOT get fair value if
it is wrecked, since book value is based on "average" condition for its age.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
When did ignorance of biology become a "family value"?
|
|
