Frugal auto transportation: theories?

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> Like hell you have.
>> Like hell it does.
>> Complete pack of lies.
>> Complete pack of lies.
>> So what ?
>> Yet another complete pack of lies.

> Is this the extent of your argument, or are you holding out on us?

Even you should be able to do better than that pathetic effort.

The last lie on tire pressures is completely trivial to check.

I have a 16 y.o. Chevy Cavalier with just over 300k on it. 2.2 engine,
automatic. This car just runs and runs...even here in rust country you
still see a zillion of them around. Minimal repairs, reasonably easy
to work on. Torque converter lockup solenoid is a weak link in these,
but I just disconnected it. Still get around 32-33 mixed driving & 38
hwy. Not the height of style, but no uglier than anything made in the
last 7-8 years.

Someone else mentioned a Volvo. Parts for 'em aren't cheap, but
they're built like a tank and with even reasonable care will last a
loooong time.

I would never even consider an older Japanese car...my experience is
that they're pretty good until they're about 8 years old, then just
fall apart.

Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>>>>Sell it to me!
>>>
>>>OK. He
>>>http://u225.torque.net/cars/89Ram/89Ram.html
>>>You know my e-mail.
>
>
>>that *is* a cute little truck. I see two problems: I'm a stickshift
>>snob, and it *does* appear to have canuckian plates on it.
>
>
> Yep, it does have Ontario plates on it. It's also got US emissions and US
> safety compliance, and the factory labelling to prove it. Therefore, no
> sweat crossing the border.
>
> You don't want a Torqueflite, eh? Mmkay!
>

I don't have any *problems* with TF's, I just *prefer* a stickshift.

>
>>Oh well, I'll just wait for my friend to get tired of his '63 Wagonaire
>>with 3/OD and limited slip rear... (yeah right)
>
>
> Yeah...you might want to take along a book or three for while you're
> waiting.

I'm a fast reader... I might need a parts runner to carry all the books.
Catch-22!

nate
--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Rod Speed wrote:

> "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
> n.umich.edu...
>
>>On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Like hell you have.
>>>Like hell it does.
>>>Complete pack of lies.
>>>Complete pack of lies.
>>>So what ?
>>>Yet another complete pack of lies.
>
>
>>Is this the extent of your argument, or are you holding out on us?
>
>
> Even you should be able to do better than that pathetic effort.
>
> The last lie on tire pressures is completely trivial to check.
>
>

Seems correct to me, not a lie at all. IIRC the fronts should be
significantly lower pressure than the rear to prevent, um, interesting
handling. Same with Corvairs.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
news
> Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> "Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
>> n.umich.edu...
>>
>>>On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Like hell you have.
>>>>Like hell it does.
>>>>Complete pack of lies.
>>>>Complete pack of lies.
>>>>So what ?

>>>>> In order to get the car to handle at all, the front
>>>>> tires HAD to be adjusted to 18 psi, and the rear
>>>>> tires at 32 psi, or the car was all over the road.

>>>> Yet another complete pack of lies.

>>> Is this the extent of your argument, or are you holding out on us?

>> Even you should be able to do better than that pathetic effort.

>> The last lie on tire pressures is completely trivial to check.

> Seems correct to me, not a lie at all.

More fool you.

> IIRC the fronts should be significantly lower pressure than the rear to
> prevent, um, interesting handling.

Nothing like his original lie.

> Same with Corvairs.

The lie aint true with those either.

Rod Speed wrote:

> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
> news >
>>Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
ngin.umich.edu...
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Like hell you have.
>>>>>Like hell it does.
>>>>>Complete pack of lies.
>>>>>Complete pack of lies.
>>>>>So what ?
>
>
>>>>>>In order to get the car to handle at all, the front
>>>>>>tires HAD to be adjusted to 18 psi, and the rear
>>>>>>tires at 32 psi, or the car was all over the road.
>
>
>>>>>Yet another complete pack of lies.
>
>
>>>>Is this the extent of your argument, or are you holding out on us?
>
>
>>>Even you should be able to do better than that pathetic effort.
>
>
>>>The last lie on tire pressures is completely trivial to check.
>
>
>>Seems correct to me, not a lie at all.
>
>
> More fool you.
>
>
>>IIRC the fronts should be significantly lower pressure than the rear to
>>prevent, um, interesting handling.
>
>
> Nothing like his original lie.
>
>
>>Same with Corvairs.
>
>
> The lie aint true with those either.
>
>

What's not true? Please share with us, oh great one. Share your
infinite wisdom on the subject of tire pressure and how you came to know
more about VWs and Corvairs than the people that claim to be experts on
them.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...
> Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
>> news >>
>>>Rod Speed wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
>>>>news:Pine.GSO.4.58.0501071626180.11644@alumni. engin.umich.edu...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Like hell you have.
>>>>>>Like hell it does.
>>>>>>Complete pack of lies.
>>>>>>Complete pack of lies.
>>>>>>So what ?
>>
>>
>>>>>>>In order to get the car to handle at all, the front
>>>>>>>tires HAD to be adjusted to 18 psi, and the rear
>>>>>>>tires at 32 psi, or the car was all over the road.
>>
>>
>>>>>>Yet another complete pack of lies.
>>
>>
>>>>>Is this the extent of your argument, or are you holding out on us?
>>
>>
>>>>Even you should be able to do better than that pathetic effort.
>>
>>
>>>>The last lie on tire pressures is completely trivial to check.
>>
>>
>>>Seems correct to me, not a lie at all.
>>
>>
>> More fool you.
>>
>>
>>>IIRC the fronts should be significantly lower pressure than the rear to
>>>prevent, um, interesting handling.
>>
>>
>> Nothing like his original lie.
>>
>>
>>>Same with Corvairs.
>>
>>
>> The lie aint true with those either.

> What's not true?

His original lie, ****wit.

> Please share with us,

Just how many of you is there between those ears, ****wit child ?

> oh great one. Share your infinite wisdom on the subject of tire pressure and
> how you came to know more about VWs and Corvairs than the people that claim to
> be experts on them.

None of those are actually stupid enough to run that lie that if those
pressures arent exactly used, the car is 'all over the road', ****wit.

I might just have owned one for quite a few years, ****wit child.

In fact even someone as stupid as you should find plenty
using google discussing which pressures work best, and
it aint JUST the ones that liar claimed are the only ones
that will ensure that the care aint 'all over the road'

Bull**** you way out of that one, ****wit child.

On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, Rod Speed wrote:

>>> Like hell you have.
>>> Like hell it does.
>>> Complete pack of lies.
>>> Complete pack of lies.
>>> So what ?
>>> Yet another complete pack of lies.

>> Is this the extent of your argument, or are you holding out on us?

> Even you should be able to do better than that pathetic effort.

So it was the extent of your argument, then. Y'know, you're wasting
effort. You could have simply typed "Is not times infinity!" and made
yourself look just as much like an ignorant, petulant, crabby little kid.

On Fri, 7 Jan 2005, Bobby The D wrote:

> I have a 16 y.o. Chevy Cavalier with just over 300k on it. 2.2 engine,
> automatic. This car just runs and runs.

Chevrolet Cadavaliers are like cockroaches: They won't die even long after
you wish they would. They are hell to drive. There is absolutely nothing
even remotely pleasant about the Cadavalier experience. They are an
ergonomic nightmare...and yet they refuse to die.

On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, Rod Speed wrote:

> > IIRC the fronts should be significantly lower pressure than the rear
> > to prevent, um, interesting handling. Same with Corvairs.

> The lie aint true with those either.

Ah, yes. You're right, and the rest of the world is wrong. Tell us,
friend: When were you granted a patent on uppercase-T Truth?