Who Says Cars Aren't an Investment?

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:52:23 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

>*sigh* 5 years is not a fact, it's a number I pulled from my ass

Thanks for admitting that. I figured as much.

>as an opinion. That's why I said _NO MORE THAN_ 5 years. You responded that
>the real number is three years.
>
>>>> Got any stats on the number of hybrids sold that are no longer on the
>>>> streets?
>
>>>What difference does that make?
>> Think about it.
>
>Again, what difference does it make? None.

If it's still being driven, it hasn't been scrapped.

And of course, you can feel good about supporting your local auto
dealer and manufacturer by buying a new one.

>
>>>>>Yet, to them, I am not good to the environment because I have one car
>>>>>with a V8 and another that is 32 years old. I can drive many many years
>>>>>on what they consume each time they replace a car.
>
>>>> I think we're getting into differing kinds of environmental costs as
>>>> well.
>
>>>Let's see, my '73 should have been replaced by 10 cars now, and my '97
>>>with 2.
>
>> That's only if you wish to compare yourself to the average.
>
>You seem to want to grasp some moral superiority to driving a hybrid.

No, I mainly objected to CH's claim that people just want to "look
intellectual".

> I
>am trying to point out to you that there are many ways to minimize one's
>impact on the environment.

I realize that. I test drove a hybrid. I did not buy one, even
though the hybrid I test drove was cheaper than what I ended up
buying.

> That the ways preached on TV by the
>environmental movement are not the only way.
>

Hmm - I'm not watching those programs. Why are you?

In article >, L Sternn wrote:

>>Again, what difference does it make? None.
>
> If it's still being driven, it hasn't been scrapped.

A new car was still manufactured.

> And of course, you can feel good about supporting your local auto
> dealer and manufacturer by buying a new one.

And consuming more materials more energy, negatively impacting the
environment.

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 00:05:53 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article >, L Sternn wrote:
>
>>>Again, what difference does it make? None.
>>
>> If it's still being driven, it hasn't been scrapped.
>
>A new car was still manufactured.
>
>> And of course, you can feel good about supporting your local auto
>> dealer and manufacturer by buying a new one.
>
>And consuming more materials more energy, negatively impacting the
>environment.
>

Can you quantify the harm to the environment?

Around 4/18/2005 7:14 PM, Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:09:12 -0700, Garth Almgren >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Around 4/18/2005 4:20 PM, L Sternn wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Some places allow motorcycles to use the the "diamond" lanes (what a
>>>funny thing to call them, but since motorcycles and hybrids are
>>>allowed, I guess HOV isn't entirely accurate).
>>
>>I think "HOV" works, at least in the case of motorcycles. On a
>>motorcycle, one rider will take up either 50% or 100% of the available
>>seating, which is certainly higher occupancy as a percentage than a 5+
>>passenger vehicle with only two people on board...
>
>
> By that logic Corvette, Porsche, and even Miata drivers should be able
> to use the HOV lanes.

I wouldn't have a problem with that...


That was just one possible explanation. It's all bureaucracy anyway, so
it doesn't need to make a whole lot of sense.


--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

In article >, L Sternn wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 00:05:53 -0500,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article >, L Sternn wrote:
>>
>>>>Again, what difference does it make? None.
>>>
>>> If it's still being driven, it hasn't been scrapped.
>>
>>A new car was still manufactured.
>>
>>> And of course, you can feel good about supporting your local auto
>>> dealer and manufacturer by buying a new one.
>>
>>And consuming more materials more energy, negatively impacting the
>>environment.
>>
>
> Can you quantify the harm to the environment?

No. But you can start where the iron ore is mined and oil taken from the
ground and work your way forward if you wish. All the material and the
manufacturing processes all represent some harm as environmentalists
define it.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 18:49:20 -0700, L Sternn wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 13:01:41 -0700, "C.H." >
> wrote:
>
>
>>>>> The lifespan of Japanese cars is only about 5 years?
>>>>
>>>>The lifespan that matters for manufacturers of japanese cars is about 5
>>>>years, because the Shakken (inspeciton agency) in Japan makes you junk
>>>>your car after five years anyway.
>>>>
>>> Then why is the average age of cars on Japanese roads twice that old?
>>
>>Yesterday you posted, that the average age was 5 years, how is that twice
>>as old as 5 years?
>>
> If you're not going to bother to read the cites I post, then I'll stop
> wasting my time.

How am I wasting your time? I am entitled to voicing my opinion, if you
don't like to read it and still are too stupid to just jump to the next
posting that's your problem.

> What's interesting is that it specifically said that the average age
> of a car in Japan is 9.?? years old.

IIRC that includes these little 360cc minicars, which supposedly don't
have to go through the Shakken and thus can stay on the road longer. And
as there is a very large population of these they drive up the average age.

>>> heh - we shall see. Cars aren't laptops
>>
>>The battery problem is the same.
>
> Actually, it's not. The difference is that the connectors and the
> space provided to put the battery in the laptop is very proprietary
> and very customized and it's not really worth the effort to rig
> something up, but you certainly could.

The same is true for the Prius.

> The power that they supply is not proprietary and is easily
> reproduced.

I want to see you hack together a battery for your Prius from a bunch of
car batteries

Chris