If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message n.umich.edu... > On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, D. Dub wrote: > >> a VW diesel from that era will go forever and ever and ever and >> ever...... > > ....because at any given time, some 70 percent of the parts have just been > replaced at great expense. Actually no, those engines would go 500-600,000 km without a hitch. |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
> My traditional view of frugal auto transportation has
> been to have two beaters: (a small car I use most of > the time and a larger vehicle for hauling larger cargoes > and for backup). I've given up on my small car (a 1984 > Chrysler Laser with 265,000 miles and am considering > what I should buy next (I got the Laser about 6 years > ago when it had 145,000 miles on it). So taken > everything into consideration (initial cost, repair > costs, insurance/license costs, gas costs...) what do > you recommend as the type (age, mileage, foreign vs > domestic...) of vehicle to purchase? I would suggest a full size GM product from somewhere around '90 to '94. 3.8L engine. Parts are cheap and readily available. Any shop around can work on them. Decent mileage and you have some extra metal around you just in case that buss full of pregnant nuns doesnt stop. Steve B. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, D. Dub wrote:
>>> a VW diesel from that era will go forever and ever and ever and >>> ever...... >> ....because at any given time, some 70 percent of the parts have just >> been replaced at great expense. > Actually no, those engines would go 500-600,000 km without a hitch. The engines, sure. But not the starters, the alternators, the injection systems, the exhaust systems, the engine mounts, virtually the entire electrical system...all the stuff that makes the engine do something useful. (And that's assuming you can get it to start, a prerequisite for which is that it be above freezing...) |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, Corky Scott wrote:
> Besides all the difficulties the bugs had, they were susceptible to rust > and salt corrosion like no other car I know of. Well...the Chevrolet Vega was built using space-age compressed sheetrust, but that's scarcely a "car". > And it never did have a working heater because the side channels that > conducted the heat forward from the heater boxes had literally > disintegrated. Probably a good thing. Develop an exhaust leak on an air cooled VW, turn on the heater, gas yourself to death. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, ray wrote:
> Would you approve of an 83 Caravelle (Canadian) with a 318 and a > Manitoba safety for $1200? Go get it. The '83 Canadian M-body 318s ran fine. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, Steve wrote:
> ANY Chrysler product with a 318 or a slant-6 automatically qualifies as > a frugal, reliable, and cheap-to-maintain vehicle. Not necessarily. My 1989 Dodge D100 pickup has a 318 and it's reliable and cheap to maintain, but NOT frugal. Then again, I don't *need* a pickup truck. Not real sure why I still own this one... > A Caravelle is the Canadian M-body, isn't it? Yep. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, David wrote:
> > you can deal with the lack of power the slant six will run forever, > > and truth be told it's not *that* slow, > They had sufficient power, but they were pretty slow when you consider > the poor fuel-economy. Er...huh? Number one, the fuel economy wasn't poor for what the cars were. Number two, they aren't rockets in stock form, but they're plenty capable of keeping up with traffic. Number three, "slow considering the poor fuel economy" is a nonsequitur. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message n.umich.edu... > On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, David wrote: > > > > you can deal with the lack of power the slant six will run forever, > > > and truth be told it's not *that* slow, > > > They had sufficient power, but they were pretty slow when you consider > > the poor fuel-economy. > > Er...huh? Number one, the fuel economy wasn't poor for what the cars were. That was then, this is now. If you look at my post I compare it with my modern car which is much faster, *and* gets much better fuel economy. Do you find it an apples to oranges comparison? Nothing wrong with those. Sometimes you need to choose between apples and oranges. Or between an antique car and a modern one. > Number two, they aren't rockets in stock form, but they're plenty capable > of keeping up with traffic. Yup. I said they had sufficient power. > Number three, "slow considering the poor fuel > economy" is a nonsequitur. Not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you considering that sentence fragment on it's own? It doesn't contain sequential statements. If you examine the entire sentence, you'll find that part does follow from the previous part. If you're trying to say you didn't get my point, I'll elaborate. Many people buy vehicles these days with poor fuel economy. Usually there is some compensation. Often buyers accept the poor fuel economy because the vehicle provedes good accelleration. Not so in this case. Nor do those vehicles give exceptional cargo capacity. Or poser value |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
William R. Watt wrote:
> "Rod Speed" ) writes: > > >>Still think the body design is well past its useby date and >>that a Golf of the same vintage makes a lot more sense. > > > I would not recommned one of the early VW hatchbacks. Here in Canada they > were called Rabbit. I had a '76. The aluminum head went on it. Expensive > repair. That's fairly uncommon, and the heads are not all that expensive if you just buy good used. nate -- replace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
D. Dub wrote:
> "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message > n.umich.edu... > >>On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, D. Dub wrote: >> >> >>>a VW diesel from that era will go forever and ever and ever and >>>ever...... >> >>....because at any given time, some 70 percent of the parts have just been >>replaced at great expense. > > > Actually no, those engines would go 500-600,000 km without a hitch. > > Most of them end up junked when the injection pump goes, as that is a costly repair - by the time it goes, the $1K or so it costs to replace is more than the value of the car. Which is good if you have a good injection pump because your friendly local auto recycler's will have everything else. nate -- replace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Frugal auto transportation: theories? | Daniel J. Stern | Chrysler | 28 | January 9th 05 10:18 PM |
Auto Shipper Beware | Steve Sears | Antique cars | 0 | May 28th 04 05:58 PM |
Fleet Maintenance Pro v9.0.19 Enterprise 100 users, STRACfastMaintenance 2.5c, Auto Maintenance Pro v9.0 Professional Incl Keygen,various other AUTO and BOAT Maintenance progs ... | [email protected], [email protected] | Antique cars | 0 | October 23rd 03 09:08 PM |