Who Says Cars Aren't an Investment?

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 19:32:12 -0700, L Sternn wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:48:08 -0700, "C.H." >
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:19:37 -0700, L Sternn wrote:
>>
>>> That would be pretty ****ing difficult,
>>
>>Calm down, you don't want to burst an artery.
>>
> Don't worry - I'm actually laughing as I type this.

Good for you, not many people are able to laugh at their own stupidity.

>>Then try to get a part for a '76 Accord or maybe for a '73 CVCC. Doesn't
>>change the fact that parts for old japanese cars are often unavailable or
>>very difficult to come by and expensive to boot. Even parts for new
>>japanese cars are ridiculously expensive.
>>
> And how many Accords did Honda make in 1976?

That doesn't matter for the question whether parts for old japanese cars
are available and affordable.

Chris

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 19:29:30 -0700, L Sternn wrote:

> "Perhaps they should ask Vancouver BC's Andrew Grant, the world's
> first Toyota Prius taxi cab driver. After three years of daily use his
> Prius had logged over 180,000 miles with only a handful of minor
> problems. Grant has now purchased a new-generation Prius and more of
> these remarkable vehicles are being used by cab owners willing to take
> a chance on the technology."

A cab also gives no bearing on how the battery fares over longer
timespans.

>>And the 'lifespan'
>>the japanese car manufacturers usually apply is about 5 years, because in
>>Japan you have to junk your car after 5 years if you don't want to perform
>>a total resto with exchange of most safety relevant parts, including the
>>complete brake system (yes, with lines).
>
> 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.

Thus the question 'will a part for my 15 year old car be available'
doesn't arise for these manufacturers. And indeed it is difficult to
locate parts even for early 90s japanese cars, let alone cars as old as
Brent's.

>>> If there's a market for them, they will be available.
>>
>>There is a market for parts for 20 year old Hondas. Yet the parts are
>>_very_ hard to come by or simply unavailable, which makes hacks necessary.
>>
>
> Whatever gets juice into the car. In 10-15 years, hybrid technology
> will have advanced enough that this should be trivial.

Try to buy a replacement battery for a 5 year old notebook. That's more or
less impossible, because it needs a certain type (form factor, voltage) of
battery. That laptop batteries are more advanced today than they were 5
years ago doesn't help you, because you simply don't get a battery that
fits. Same is going to happen with the Prius, more modern batteries are
going to be available, but they won't fit your old Prius.

>>The japanese auto makers want you to junk your car every 5 years and buy
>>a new one.
>
> They all do.

Unlike japanese cars US- and european manufacturers either offer parts for
old cars themselves or you can access a plentiful aftermarket. A fender
for a 1966 Chevy Impala? Choose between 10 offers from $80. A fender for
a 1982 Honda Accord? Not a chance.

>>They don't care about classic cars or people who don't want to
>>blow 30000 bucks by buying a new car every 5 years.
>
> You think Detroit does?

Apparently they provide parts longer and for less money than the Japanese.

>>Feel free to buy a Prius and come back in 10 years, when your dealer
>>told you that your battery is damaged and a new one costs $10000 instead
>>of the original 5000 because there are only a handful of them left.
>>
> Nah - I don't want to look "intellectual".

That's one thing you definitely don't have to worry about, even with a
Prius.

Chris

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 03:48:42 -0700, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 19:29:30 -0700, L Sternn wrote:
>
>> "Perhaps they should ask Vancouver BC's Andrew Grant, the world's
>> first Toyota Prius taxi cab driver. After three years of daily use his
>> Prius had logged over 180,000 miles with only a handful of minor
>> problems. Grant has now purchased a new-generation Prius and more of
>> these remarkable vehicles are being used by cab owners willing to take
>> a chance on the technology."
>
>A cab also gives no bearing on how the battery fares over longer
>timespans.
>

But 180,000 miles is the point you were questioning - This is only the
6th year the Prius has been on the road.

How many batteries have worn out?

Toyota says none - what say you?

>>>And the 'lifespan'
>>>the japanese car manufacturers usually apply is about 5 years, because in
>>>Japan you have to junk your car after 5 years if you don't want to perform
>>>a total resto with exchange of most safety relevant parts, including the
>>>complete brake system (yes, with lines).
>>
>> 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?

>Thus the question 'will a part for my 15 year old car be available'
>doesn't arise for these manufacturers. And indeed it is difficult to
>locate parts even for early 90s japanese cars, let alone cars as old as
>Brent's.
>
>>>> If there's a market for them, they will be available.
>>>
>>>There is a market for parts for 20 year old Hondas. Yet the parts are
>>>_very_ hard to come by or simply unavailable, which makes hacks necessary.
>>>
>>
>> Whatever gets juice into the car. In 10-15 years, hybrid technology
>> will have advanced enough that this should be trivial.
>
>Try to buy a replacement battery for a 5 year old notebook. That's more or
>less impossible, because it needs a certain type (form factor, voltage) of
>battery. That laptop batteries are more advanced today than they were 5
>years ago doesn't help you, because you simply don't get a battery that
>fits. Same is going to happen with the Prius, more modern batteries are
>going to be available, but they won't fit your old Prius.

heh - we shall see. Cars aren't laptops

>
>>>The japanese auto makers want you to junk your car every 5 years and buy
>>>a new one.
>>
>> They all do.
>
>Unlike japanese cars US- and european manufacturers either offer parts for
>old cars themselves or you can access a plentiful aftermarket. A fender
>for a 1966 Chevy Impala? Choose between 10 offers from $80. A fender for
>a 1982 Honda Accord? Not a chance.
>
>>>They don't care about classic cars or people who don't want to
>>>blow 30000 bucks by buying a new car every 5 years.
>>
>> You think Detroit does?
>
>Apparently they provide parts longer and for less money than the Japanese.
>
>>>Feel free to buy a Prius and come back in 10 years, when your dealer
>>>told you that your battery is damaged and a new one costs $10000 instead
>>>of the original 5000 because there are only a handful of them left.
>>>
>> Nah - I don't want to look "intellectual".
>
>That's one thing you definitely don't have to worry about, even with a
>Prius.
>

no personal attack, there?

bring some facts to the discussion next time


>Chris

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 03:40:38 -0700, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 19:32:12 -0700, L Sternn wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:48:08 -0700, "C.H." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:19:37 -0700, L Sternn wrote:
>>>
>>>> That would be pretty ****ing difficult,
>>>
>>>Calm down, you don't want to burst an artery.
>>>
>> Don't worry - I'm actually laughing as I type this.
>
>Good for you, not many people are able to laugh at their own stupidity.

No personal attack there either?

>
>>>Then try to get a part for a '76 Accord or maybe for a '73 CVCC. Doesn't
>>>change the fact that parts for old japanese cars are often unavailable or
>>>very difficult to come by and expensive to boot. Even parts for new
>>>japanese cars are ridiculously expensive.
>>>
>> And how many Accords did Honda make in 1976?
>
>That doesn't matter for the question whether parts for old japanese cars
>are available and affordable.
>

wrong.

>Chris

In article >, L Sternn wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:21:38 -0500,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article >, L Sternn wrote:
>>
>>>>I doubt most of the owners of these hybrids will keep their cars more
>>>>than 5 years before they seek out something new. Thusly they are consuming
>>>>resources at a far greater pace than I.
>>
>>> I've read that new car buyers (or leasers) get a new car on average
>>> once every 3 years.
>>
>>So I'm correct, no more than.
>
> But that's for ALL cars, not just hybrids.

So? Once again, I doubt that most owners of these hybrids will keep their
cars more than 5 years.

>>
>>> Perhaps you keep your vehicle longer, but if hybrid owners keep their
>>> cars 5 years, they're consuming at a slower pace.

>>I didn't write that, read it again.

> I wrote that - I thought you'd understand the simple concept that if
> they keep their car 5 years and the typical car is only owned for 3,
> they are consuming at a slower pace.

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

>>>>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. I
am trying to point out to you that there are many ways to minimize one's
impact on the environment. That the ways preached on TV by the
environmental movement are not the only way.

In article >, L Sternn wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:27:57 -0500,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article >, L Sternn wrote:
>>
>>> http://cars.about.com/cs/familysedan...id_explain.htm
>>>
>>> "Perhaps they should ask Vancouver BC's Andrew Grant, the world's
>>> first Toyota Prius taxi cab driver. After three years of daily use his
>>> Prius had logged over 180,000 miles with only a handful of minor
>>> problems. Grant has now purchased a new-generation Prius and more of
>>> these remarkable vehicles are being used by cab owners willing to take
>>> a chance on the technology."
>>>
>>> There's your real life example.
>>
>>Um, when you study batteries, and find out why this doesn't equate to 5-10
>>years of use, get back to us.

> We were discussing miles driven. He said 180,000 was only achieved
> under lab conditions.

> Elsewhere he claimed you'd have to replace the battery after 90,000
> miles.

Probably grabbed that number without the year estimate that goes with it.

> Toyota claims never to have had to replace a battery due to wear and
> tear.

This statement is essentially useless. It's like saying they never have
had to replace an engine due to wear and tear. Which is true as well. If
fails in warranty, it's a defect. If it fails from wear and tear it's
outside of warranty and they don't have to replace it.

In article >, C.H. wrote:

> That doesn't matter for the question whether parts for old japanese cars
> are available and affordable.

Mid 80s japanese cars aren't too bad parts wise now a days it seems.

In article >, L Sternn wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 03:48:42 -0700, "C.H." >
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 19:29:30 -0700, L Sternn wrote:
>>
>>> "Perhaps they should ask Vancouver BC's Andrew Grant, the world's
>>> first Toyota Prius taxi cab driver. After three years of daily use his
>>> Prius had logged over 180,000 miles with only a handful of minor
>>> problems. Grant has now purchased a new-generation Prius and more of
>>> these remarkable vehicles are being used by cab owners willing to take
>>> a chance on the technology."
>>
>>A cab also gives no bearing on how the battery fares over longer
>>timespans.
>>
>
> But 180,000 miles is the point you were questioning - This is only the
> 6th year the Prius has been on the road.

He dumped it as a cab at 180,000... hmm.. crown vic cabs have half of
that before they even become cabs.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:12:46 -0700, L Sternn > wrote:

>>, b) are custom made for this specific car and c) will
>>simply be unavailable 10-15 years from now.
>
>If there's a market for them, they will be available.

Right.
Talk to GM about that.
Thjey just pulled their electric car for the specific reason that you
tried to address.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

"C.H." > wrote in message
news
> > But you'll be paying for the increased price of gas, and also will be
> > emitting alot more carbon dioxide than the person driving the Prius.
>
> No, the person driving the Prius will have emitted a lot more carbon
> dioxide than my car will do for the rest of its lifespam just by having
> their Prius built.

OK... here you are full of crap. The energy to make a car can come from
renewable resources or resources that do not produce CO2 as waste products.
I also want proof that making a car uses so much energy . If your SUV gets
only 18 mpg, well, I can't see how driving it 12,000 miles a year wouldn't
use more energy than making it. A gallon of gasoline has about 41 kw/hr of
energy- most of it is wasted by a gasoline engine. I don't see how it
could possibly take more energy to make a new car than to drive it around.

>
> That _is_ puny. My car accelerates from 0 to 60 in 5 seconds and you are
> seriously recommending such a rolling roadblock as a replacement?

You obviously drive a sports car that exceeds the needs of almost all
drivers, realisticly. You do not need that kind of acceleration to drive a
car. If you need that kind of acceleration, you are driving wrong (likely
speeding to pass, rather than looking for openings).

> I guarantee you, if I drove a Prius the mileage would not even be close to
> 50mpg, simply because I dont just tap the accelerator scarefully (note
> the combination of scared and careful), which is necessary to even come
> into the ballpark of Toyota's extremely optimistic figures.

Prius was driven by professional drivers in the EPA tests, none of whom
tapped the accelerator scarefully. In the real world the Prius, at worst,
seems to get around 40-50 mpg on highways, and in the mid 30's in very cold
winter, as the cold saps the energy out of the batteries. Some people of
course get much better fuel economy.

>
> > 0-60 times are also not the best way to judge a car for on-the-road
> > driving. You need to look at passing speed, where torque is a big
> > factor. Hybrid cars have alot of torque because of the electric motors.
>
> You have no idea, what 'a lot of torque' is.

Rotational force to move a wheel, in this case.