thinking about buying a temporary car

"Dave Head" > wrote in message
...
> OK, but I live in the USA. So... I want a SUV.

The US will chaneg with time. Conservative estimates are that gasoline
will cost $3.50/gallon by 2012.

> They do if they live where it snows. Since we don't have models of cars
and
> trucks that are targeted just to the southern states, we get high off the
> ground trucks being sold in Texas, when they only take adavatage of the
high
> right height in Minneapolis and Detroit.

They would be far better off getting snow tires, AWD, or stability
control than an SUV if snow were an issue. Just look at Saab or Volvo.
Sweden gets alot of snow but you don't see them driving SUV's.

>
> Like them too. If I could have 2 cars, the one in the garage besides my
SUV
> would be something like a Subaru WRX.

Why do you only own one car? Growing up, my family always had two cars,
in case one of them broke down.

A local ad has Ford Explorers going on sale for 27,000 dollars. Are
people aware just how ridiculous that is? You could buy two cars for near
that price. An Explorer is nothing but a jacked up econobox with a gas
guzzling engine. You can even get econoboxes now days with alot of room,
like the Scion.

>
> No way. I remember telling a Detroit automotive engineer that there was
no way
> I was going to buy _any_ car that was slower than 10 seconds zero to 60 -
which
> was a problem for him because this was around the end of the 70's when the
> enviro-wackos were pushing Detroit to produce clean cars before it was
possible
> to do it reasonably, so all the cars were really slow at that time.

My Jetta turbodiesel is only rated as having a 12-14 second 0-60 time,
but I can tell you driving it, it doesn't feel like a slow car. It feels
alot more sporty than the hybrid cars I drove. It's not the greatest for
racing past people, but that is not my driving style, and I manage to drive
defensively without the need to outpass everybody.

> Life is a race. You only have so much time, and the least satisfying way
to
> spend it is driving in traffic. The sooner you get down the road and to
your
> destination, the sooner you can get out of the car. So, yeah, it _is_ a
race.

Drive something besides an SUV that's actually fun to drive, that's the
solution.

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:31:56 -0500, "Magnulus" > wrote:

>
>"Dave Head" > wrote in message
.. .
>> OK, but I live in the USA. So... I want a SUV.
>
> The US will chaneg with time. Conservative estimates are that gasoline
>will cost $3.50/gallon by 2012.

The market for fuel-efficient hybrid SUV's will be real good then.

>> They do if they live where it snows. Since we don't have models of cars
>and
>> trucks that are targeted just to the southern states, we get high off the
>> ground trucks being sold in Texas, when they only take adavatage of the
>high
>> right height in Minneapolis and Detroit.
>
> They would be far better off getting snow tires, AWD, or stability
>control than an SUV if snow were an issue.

The high-off-the-ground SUV's and trucks up north _do_ have 4 WD and snow
tires, a lot of 'em.

>Just look at Saab or Volvo.

Expensive, aren't they? Well, I guess a lotta SUV's are expensive too.
Anyway, Saabs and Volvos will get stuck in the snow a lot sooner than big high
SUV's and trucks, and don't have equivalent carrying capacity for getting your
deer out of the woods, either.

>Sweden gets alot of snow but you don't see them driving SUV's.

We have always liked big vehicles as a nation. An SUV is just a big Volvo
wagon...

>> Like them too. If I could have 2 cars, the one in the garage besides my
>SUV
>> would be something like a Subaru WRX.
>
>Why do you only own one car? Growing up, my family always had two cars,
>in case one of them broke down.

No family - I'm single. Can only drive 1 at a time, so don't need 2, other
than it'd be nice to have vehicles that serve different purposes. But with
just 1 of the vehicles I want costing $25K, 2 like that is unthinkably
extravagant. I wouldn't have $ left over to drive it.

> A local ad has Ford Explorers going on sale for 27,000 dollars. Are
>people aware just how ridiculous that is? You could buy two cars for near
>that price.

Not the car I want - the Subaru WRX. $25K.

> An Explorer is nothing but a jacked up econobox with a gas
>guzzling engine. You can even get econoboxes now days with alot of room,
>like the Scion.
>
>>
>> No way. I remember telling a Detroit automotive engineer that there was
>no way
>> I was going to buy _any_ car that was slower than 10 seconds zero to 60 -
>which
>> was a problem for him because this was around the end of the 70's when the
>> enviro-wackos were pushing Detroit to produce clean cars before it was
>possible
>> to do it reasonably, so all the cars were really slow at that time.
>
> My Jetta turbodiesel is only rated as having a 12-14 second 0-60 time,
>but I can tell you driving it, it doesn't feel like a slow car. It feels
>alot more sporty than the hybrid cars I drove. It's not the greatest for
>racing past people, but that is not my driving style, and I manage to drive
>defensively without the need to outpass everybody.

Glad you're happy with it, but I wouldn't be.

>> Life is a race. You only have so much time, and the least satisfying way
>to
>> spend it is driving in traffic. The sooner you get down the road and to
>your
>> destination, the sooner you can get out of the car. So, yeah, it _is_ a
>race.
>
>Drive something besides an SUV that's actually fun to drive, that's the
>solution.

It wouldn't matter if I was driving a Ferrarri if I was driving it on roads
that I drive every day for purposes of simply getting back and forth between
familiar places. The only way driving begins to be fun is on unfamiliar roads
for unusual purposes, or when driving at speeds and accelerations way outside
of what's legal. Since I don't much do that any more, nor have the opportunity
to do it around here because of traffic congestion, driving isn't a lotta fun -
its something to get over and done with ASAP.

Dave Head

>

"Dave Head" > wrote in message
...
> An 80 mile range is great for buzzing around town. The problem with that
is
> that few of us are rich enough to afford a buzz around town car and then
> another car to do stuff like visit grandma 600 miles away in Chicago.

Can't afford it? I guess you don't know what a used car is. You can
buy an 83 Crown Victoria for around 1200 dollars.

My grandparents had three cars. None of them were in great condition, but
they all ran. They weren't even close to being rich.

> The 280 mile range electric car has the additional disadvantage that it
usually
> takes a really long time to charge a dead battery. At the end of 280
miles, it
> could take 1 - 3 hours to be ready to go again.

So? The idea is you plug it in overnight.

They tried electric cars in California, and few people had problems with
the cars or the range. The only people that had problems with the cars were
GM. They never made enough of them for them to become very visible, GM
never wanted to build any of them in the first place, and they did their
best to sabotage the efforts of California's government . The electric car
was never given a fair chance.

>
> You've already got a tank full of fuel that, under certain conditions,
_can_
> explode,

Only true for gasoline engines. You could put a match out in diesel or
kerosene. Even for gas, I'd consider it much less explosive than hydrogen.

"Dave Head" > wrote in message
news
> The market for fuel-efficient hybrid SUV's will be real good then.
>

SUV's are going to be dead by then. They'll be replaced by station
wagons, hatchbacks, or "crossover" vehicles. There are big demographic
changes in the US that are going to render the SUV less attarctive.

> Expensive, aren't they? Well, I guess a lotta SUV's are expensive too.
> Anyway, Saabs and Volvos will get stuck in the snow a lot sooner than big
high
> SUV's and trucks, and don't have equivalent carrying capacity for getting
your
> deer out of the woods, either.

"Getting your deer out of the woods"? That is not something the average
American has to worry about.

> We have always liked big vehicles as a nation. An SUV is just a big Volvo
> wagon...

Not comparable at all. A Volvo handles alot better than an SUV.
There are very few SUV's with good handling characteristics of a car. Maybe
an exception would be an SUV like the Volkswagen Touareg. But it's also
incredibly overpriced and impractical. It does handle well, though.
Americans wouldn't know what good handling is if it hit them with it upside
the head. They like cars and trucks that wallow around, that you have to
steer just to go in a straight line.

> No family - I'm single. Can only drive 1 at a time, so don't need 2,
other
> than it'd be nice to have vehicles that serve different purposes. But
with
> just 1 of the vehicles I want costing $25K, 2 like that is unthinkably
> extravagant. I wouldn't have $ left over to drive it.

You know you can buy a WRX used? Or are you a sucker that will only buy a
new car?

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 12:20:00 -0500, "Magnulus" > wrote:

>
>"Dave Head" > wrote in message
>news
>> The market for fuel-efficient hybrid SUV's will be real good then.
>>
>
> SUV's are going to be dead by then.

Wanna bet? That's only 7 years, you know.

>They'll be replaced by station
>wagons,

Which, in the size Americans like 'em, are virtually illegal thanks to the US
Government's wacko environmental regulations.

>hatchbacks,

We have those now - they don't sell like SUVs, do they?

>or "crossover" vehicles.

Gonna invent something new?

>There are big demographic
>changes in the US that are going to render the SUV less attarctive.

Not in 7 years, they're not.

>> Expensive, aren't they? Well, I guess a lotta SUV's are expensive too.
>> Anyway, Saabs and Volvos will get stuck in the snow a lot sooner than big
>high
>> SUV's and trucks, and don't have equivalent carrying capacity for getting
>your
>> deer out of the woods, either.
>
> "Getting your deer out of the woods"? That is not something the average
>American has to worry about.

That's one of the reasons I bought the Jeep - and, BTW, there's _lotsa_
hunters. Other people also have stuff they wanna haul... which is why SUV's
are so popular.

>> We have always liked big vehicles as a nation. An SUV is just a big Volvo
>> wagon...
>
>Not comparable at all.

I know, but... Americans buy SUV's in preference to Volvo wagons a lot.

>A Volvo handles alot better than an SUV.

Americans don't much care about that, prolly 'cuz most of 'em don't have the
training or experience to take advantage of it.

>There are very few SUV's with good handling characteristics of a car.

Yeah... but it does depend on the car, too - there's plenty of _those_ that
suck, too.

> Maybe
>an exception would be an SUV like the Volkswagen Touareg. But it's also
>incredibly overpriced and impractical.

Way too many SUV's are overpriced. It just goes to show the supply and demand
at work in the SUV sales arena - they're expensive because they're popular.


>It does handle well, though.
>Americans wouldn't know what good handling is if it hit them with it upside
>the head.

Yep, a lot of 'em. People 'round here, in Virigina, absolutely panic when it
snows, 'cuz they know that they wouldn't have a clue about what to do if the
car got a little out of shape. No, they're not worried about getting stuck in
the snow. They're worried about skidding. Just skidding. They close the
schools around here with a few inches of snow on the road. If they did that
where I come from, everyone would be illiterate.

>They like cars and trucks that wallow around, that you have to
>steer just to go in a straight line.

Just about.

>> No family - I'm single. Can only drive 1 at a time, so don't need 2,
>other
>> than it'd be nice to have vehicles that serve different purposes. But
>with
>> just 1 of the vehicles I want costing $25K, 2 like that is unthinkably
>> extravagant. I wouldn't have $ left over to drive it.
>
> You know you can buy a WRX used?

Yep. But then it doesn't have the full possibility of a 100K mile warranty. I
just paid $2300 for repairs to the Jeep. One of the big advantages of a new
car is getting the bumper to bumper 100K mile warranty so when **** like that
happens, its covered. Wish I had enough $$$ to get a new car every 100K miles.
Guess I could if I got something lowball like a Dodge Neon, but don't wanna do
that. Anyway, a performance car like a WRX is a double risk when used, since
you dunno if the guy that had it beat the crap out of it, which is more likely
in such a car than maybe a VW beetle or even a Dodge Neon.

I've had people say that the 100K warranties aren't worth it, but I've got my
money back every time so far. Its always the transmission that does it. The
Mitsu Eclipse I had ate synchros every 40,000 miles or so. Got one fixed on
the regular warranty that went to 60,000 miles, next one on the 100K bumper to
bumper, then the last one at 120K or so I had to pay for. Then it stopped
happening, and I got 195,000 miles out of the car before it just got too big a
repair liability. Between that older Jeep, and the Eclipse, it was $600 to
repair something on each of them every month - $600 for the Jeep, then $600 for
the Mitsu, then $600 for the Jeep, ad nauseum. That's why I like to buy new
cars - put that "It breaks every other month" scenario much farther into the
future. Its also why I'm not wild about even having 2 cars - that's double the
repair expense. Only now, its $2300 a visit, it seems. This is the 2nd month
since that $2300 fiasco, and at least nothing else has happened, although I'm
suspicious of the water pump...

>Or are you a sucker that will only buy a
>new car?

There are distinct advantages. I bought this Jeep used, and it has been pretty
good except now its beginning to get expensive in the repair department. That
last $2300 was just power steering pump, catalytic converter, an exhaust
manifold, and a neutral safety switch. A neutral safety switch for that car
is an assembly that costs $327. Other stuff is just as nutty. They don't want
you to fix 'em, they want you to buy new ones. Its almost worth it... almost.
At least the ring and pinion gears aren't whining now, at 165,000 miles, like
they were in my previous Jeep Cherokee.
>
Dave Head

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 12:05:33 -0500, "Magnulus" > wrote:

>
>"Dave Head" > wrote in message
.. .
>> An 80 mile range is great for buzzing around town. The problem with that
>is
>> that few of us are rich enough to afford a buzz around town car and then
>> another car to do stuff like visit grandma 600 miles away in Chicago.
>
> Can't afford it? I guess you don't know what a used car is. You can
>buy an 83 Crown Victoria for around 1200 dollars.

You can't reliably drive it 600 miles each way to Chicago, either, without
expecting a mechanical problem. And, take it to the shop, it still costs $600
to drive it in the door - they don't discount their time and parts just 'cuz
its over 20 years old. Then, its gonna fail the state inspection because of
the holes in the body caused by rust, which they'll tell you will allow the
exhaust gases into the car and kill you.

> My grandparents had three cars. None of them were in great condition, but
>they all ran. They weren't even close to being rich.

Yeah, we had 2. One that was lucky to get back and forth to the next town, but
Dad was a mechanic and forced it. The other was pretty good. But we went on
vacation with the good one and still sometimes it puked a driveshaft in Salt
Lake City or somesuch.

>> The 280 mile range electric car has the additional disadvantage that it
>usually
>> takes a really long time to charge a dead battery. At the end of 280
>miles, it
>> could take 1 - 3 hours to be ready to go again.
>
> So? The idea is you plug it in overnight.

So? Now your not being realistic. If you're doing a 1000 mile trip, it'll
take you maybe 3 or 4 days. I can do a 1000 mile trip in my present car in 1
day. If you're gonna replace the internal combustion engine, you better do it
with something that is at least as good as the internal combustion engine.

> They tried electric cars in California, and few people had problems with
>the cars or the range. The only people that had problems with the cars were
>GM. They never made enough of them for them to become very visible, GM
>never wanted to build any of them in the first place, and they did their
>best to sabotage the efforts of California's government . The electric car
>was never given a fair chance.

The electric car was and still is a sales floor loser. People ain't gonna buy
'em until they get rid of their disadvantages.

>> You've already got a tank full of fuel that, under certain conditions,
>_can_
>> explode,
>
>Only true for gasoline engines.

What most of us use.

>You could put a match out in diesel or
>kerosene.

Diesel has its own problems - sometimes a tough start when the temp goes down
to -30, sometimes it just jells in the fuel line. We're prolly gonna have to
figure out diesel eventually, but even today, it'll still run rings around an
electric car in the desirablity department.

>Even for gas, I'd consider it much less explosive than hydrogen.

Well, it doesn't matter what's exploding, you're still gonna die if it happens
in your car. The hydrogen, if its leaking, will at least go _up_, while the
liquids will flow under the car and then maybe catch fire and burn it and you
to a crisp.

Dave Head

"Dave Head" > wrote in message
...
> Which, in the size Americans like 'em, are virtually illegal thanks to the
US
> Government's wacko environmental regulations.

Not illegal. The VW Passat has a wagon version that is a large midsize
car.

Most people don't want a wagon now days to handle like a pig. That's what
the old wagon were like.

>
> >hatchbacks,
>
> We have those now - they don't sell like SUVs, do they?

No, they don't sell like SUV's, but sales are picking up. I see alot of
Focus hatchbacks. It's a good sign. Europeans have always liked hatchbacks
better, because of their increased utility. So Americans are starting to
realize a trunk is alot of waste space.

>
> >or "crossover" vehicles.
>
> Gonna invent something new?

No, nothing new. You can get cars like the Pacific and Matrix that have
alot of room inside but they aren't SUV's.

>
> >There are big demographic
> >changes in the US that are going to render the SUV less attarctive.
>
> Not in 7 years, they're not.

Detroit is already having problems selling big cars like the Ford 500.
People are buying the smaller cars and wagons instead.
http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosins.../A01-90583.htm

> > "Getting your deer out of the woods"? That is not something the
average
> >American has to worry about.
>
> That's one of the reasons I bought the Jeep - and, BTW, there's _lotsa_
> hunters. Other people also have stuff they wanna haul... which is why
SUV's
> are so popular.

You are talking about a small minority, 5 percent of the US population
has ever hunted. People who hunt frequently are even a smaller percentage.

Minivans carry much stuff than the average SUV. My dad used to have a
Chrysler minivan, then he traded it in for a Ford Ranger a few years ago,
which I thought was a very stupid move. The Ford ranger carries alot less
stuff, it's RWD and doesn't handle as well. And you can only have two
people in it at a time.

>
> Americans don't much care about that, prolly 'cuz most of 'em don't have
the
> training or experience to take advantage of it.

You can take advantage of good handling every day. It means you don't
have to break as hard on every little turn, you don't have to worry about
flipping your car over, and you can stop faster. What's not to like?

> Way too many SUV's are overpriced. It just goes to show the supply and
demand
> at work in the SUV sales arena - they're expensive because they're
popular.

Cigarettes used to be popular, too. That doesn't mean anything. If you
market a product enough, people will buy it, regardless of the merit.

> Yep. But then it doesn't have the full possibility of a 100K mile
warranty. I
> just paid $2300 for repairs to the Jeep. One of the big advantages of a
new
> car is getting the bumper to bumper 100K mile warranty so when **** like
that
> happens, its covered.

But usually a car will break down after 100,000 miles. Most cars now
days will last that long, unless they have gross neglect (and I'm sure there
are alot of people who do that to a car). I think with alot of those
100,000 mile warranties, YOU end up paying more. And warranties never
cover routine wear parts, like oil, filters, break pads, or the clutch (if
it's manual). Another thing that helps: synthetic engine oil (the expensive
stuff, not the cheap stuff). My parents used Mobil 1 on their Chrysler and
it lasted 150,000 miles before the transmission went utterly bad and they
just decided to retire it. On most cars now days, the transmission is going
to die before the engine is even close to giving out. But Americans are
used to changing their oil either not at all or way too often, and they are
using crappy oil, then they wonder why 100,000 miles later their engine
starts burning alot of oil. If you go to Europe, people expect to pay 10
dollars for a quart of oil and they use the oil until the car tells them to
change it (some last almost 20,000 miles). I let the dealership put in
their oil (an overpriced Castrol Syntec 5w-40) in the engine while my Jetta
TDI is getting free changes, but once it's over I'm going to start using
Mobil Delvac 5w-40.

> That's why I like to buy new
> cars - put that "It breaks every other month" scenario much farther into
the
> future.

I'm not sure of the economics of that. Check out Car Talk (National
Public Radio car show). They seem to recommend repairing a car whenever
possible vs. buying a new car. The only way I could see buying a new car is
if the old car is totalled or broken down. Of course, if you want to cut
your expenses even more, you get a manual transmission used. You'll pay
less for it to buy, and there is less to go wrong. I don't drive a manual,
though, because I was thinking of resale value.

> Its also why I'm not wild about even having 2 cars - that's double the
> repair expense.

Only if you drive each car twice as much. Americans are putting way too
many miles on their cars, that's another thing that makes them expensive.
Decades ago people were putting less than half the miles on their cars they
do now. I myself have been trying to cut down on my driving alot. I mail
order alot of my stuff, because I've found driving halfway across town to
find something I need (a computer part), and they don't have it, is just a
waste of time, waste of gas, etc.

"Dave Head" > wrote in message
...
>
> OK, whatever you say. They've propelled this country to a level of world
> dominance, the businesses are not moving overseas in droves, there really
> aren't 38 million people living in poverty in this country, we have all
the
> refineries, nuclear power plants, power distribution and infrastucture we
need,
> and the balance of trade is in our favor. The only problem with that is
that
> none of it's true. And the environmentalists are largely at the bottom of
most
> of why it isn't. OK, maybe not the balance of trade thing...

Environmentalists aren't all responsable for those problems.
Environmentalist policies could actually create alot of jobs in this
country, it wouldn't necessarily hurt the economy. That's why I think it's
idiotic when both the Democrats and the Republicans said they wouldn't sign
the Kyoto treaty. It's just intellectual laziness, hypocrisy and dishonesty
to say that the Kyoto treaty would automatically harm American jobs. Some
of the government's tax policies, OTOH, have directly harmed American jobs
by letting corporations go overseas easily. That's hypocrisy.

> >>
> >>I don't think so. You get these people on the news all the time -
trying to
> >>make suburban living so unpalatable that crowding into big cities is the
only
> >>answer.

Suburban living already sucks on its own merits, they don't have to make
it unpalatable. Suburban sprawl coupled with mindless land developement
leads to traffic problems, pollution, infrastructure and education problems,
and so on. I see this all the time here in Florida. Americans are deathly
afraid of urban planning, afraid it's a "communist plot", even though it is
a better solution to the corrupt system we have here, where developers sit
on county comissions. It's like the fox guarding the henhouse. I for one
would like to see more "smart growth" and new-urbanism with a mixture of
commercial and residential close together, and even some light industry.

>
> OK, I couldn't find it either. Probably was one of the hairbrained ideas
even
> they couldn't sell, so it never really got built. I do remember the
proposal,
> tho - just not its source.

Smart developements don't necessarily have to be carless. But the idea is
you should be able to get around without having so much driving to do.

> >>you get cars costing incredible, unreasonable prices. $31K for a Subaru
> >>Inprezza WRX (Tki? - I forget the designation) - but in the past, we
used to
> >>have "muscle cars" that were affordable to teenagers with a new
construction
> >>job. My friend just down the block got one of those and came home in a
new
> >>Corvette. Not any more.

They have Mustangs now days, which still don't cost too much. And IMO,
the muscles cars were stupid. They had big engines in a car with
inadequate brakes and suspension. Real "bargain". The Subaru Imprezza,
OTOH, is a really good car. Very good performance of course, but it has the
brakes and suspension to back it up. You get what you pay for.

> They account for quite enough mischief, but it wouldn't be complete
without
> acknowledging their accomplices. But the cars _are_ high priced partly
> because of the excessive pollution regulations, and partly because of the
> excessive safety regulations.

"excessive safety regulations". No such thing as long as their are
idiots and drunks on the road.

"Dave Head" > wrote in message
...
> You can't reliably drive it 600 miles each way to Chicago, either, without
> expecting a mechanical problem. And, take it to the shop, it still costs
$600
> to drive it in the door - they don't discount their time and parts just
'cuz
> its over 20 years old.

My dad has an 83 Ford. It's in good shape except for the faux leather
roof, which needs replacing. He has driven it hundreds of miles without
problems. An old car doesn't necessarily mean an unreliable car. You need
to look at the condition of the engine and the transmission, those would be
the most costly to repair. In the case of my dad, he spent a few thousand
rebuilding the engine. But it was cheaper than buying a new car.

The only time you should buy a new car is if you are thoroughly sick of
the one you have, and a newer one would meet your needs better. It's almost
always cheaper to repair a car than to buy a new one. Of course, maybe some
cars are just junk, but you should be able to tell that before you buy it.

> So? Now your not being realistic. If you're doing a 1000 mile trip,
it'll
> take you maybe 3 or 4 days. I can do a 1000 mile trip in my present car
in 1
> day. If you're gonna replace the internal combustion engine, you better
do it
> with something that is at least as good as the internal combustion engine.

Electric cars are for commuting, not long distance trips. One solution a
guy did was have a trailer with a diesel generator; It recharged the car as
he drove on the long distance trips.

Nowhere is anybody saying that you will be forced to drive an electric
car if it doesn't meet your needs. But for many people, an electric car
would work fine to get them to work or pick up groceries. And they would
have been cheaper to buy too, except GM didn't want to increase the
production and get any economy of scale.

>
> The electric car was and still is a sales floor loser. People ain't gonna
buy
> 'em until they get rid of their disadvantages.

I don't think that's fair because everything has drawbacks and advantages
in one form or another. An electric car might not be right for you, but
it might be fine for somebody else. Fear, uncertainty, and doubt were what
killed the electric car, it had nothing to do with reality.

>
> >You could put a match out in diesel or
> >kerosene.
>
> Diesel has its own problems - sometimes a tough start when the temp goes
down
> to -30, sometimes it just jells in the fuel line.

Do you know what an engine block heater is? If you live way up north,
you should have one of those anyways, because when you start the car in
extreme cold, you are just causing alot of wear, pollution, and you loose
alot of fuel efficiency. It's even worse with a diesel because the engine
is much more fuel efficient, it won't warm itself from idling.

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 16:25:16 -0500, "Magnulus" > wrote:

>
>"Dave Head" > wrote in message
.. .
>> Which, in the size Americans like 'em, are virtually illegal thanks to the
>US
>> Government's wacko environmental regulations.
>
> Not illegal. The VW Passat has a wagon version that is a large midsize
>car.

Carry 9 people? Have a big V8? Those are the sorts of wagons Americans have
traditionally bought. Ford Country Squire. People did like those things, and
now buy the equivalent-capable vehicle, only now its called an SUV.

> Most people don't want a wagon now days to handle like a pig. That's what
>the old wagon were like.

Bring back a Ford Country Squire with a 390 CI V8 and carrying 9 people, I
think it'd sell.

>> >hatchbacks,
>>
>> We have those now - they don't sell like SUVs, do they?
>
> No, they don't sell like SUV's, but sales are picking up. I see alot of
>Focus hatchbacks. It's a good sign. Europeans have always liked hatchbacks
>better, because of their increased utility. So Americans are starting to
>realize a trunk is alot of waste space.

Well, I don't think people believe the trunk is wasted space. The big thing
seems to have always been a big trunk when you were buying a big car. People
bought it with the prospect of stuffing a bunch of luggage in there, and maybe
toys (beach umbrellas, folding chairs, picnic baskets, case of beer, etc.) for
the cross country vacation.

I think Europeans mostly like smaller cars 'cuz they have $5 a gallon gas.

>> >or "crossover" vehicles.
>>
>> Gonna invent something new?
>
> No, nothing new. You can get cars like the Pacific and Matrix that have
>alot of room inside but they aren't SUV's.

Don't know what a Pacific or a Matrix is - hard to search - Edmunds first wants
to know the make of the car.

>> >There are big demographic
>> >changes in the US that are going to render the SUV less attarctive.
>>
>> Not in 7 years, they're not.
>
> Detroit is already having problems selling big cars like the Ford 500.

I think they just came out with that. Its probably more of just a market flop
- not sure why.

>People are buying the smaller cars and wagons instead.
>http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosins.../A01-90583.htm

Well, the big cars are a victim of several things, including tougher fuel
economy requirements, according to the article. I give a lot more weight to
that. Make a land-yacht size car, and stick a 6 or a 4 cylinder engine in it
because of government regulations that don't allow you the 390 or the 427, then
sure, nobody's going to want it. Those cars were big _and_ powerful.

>> > "Getting your deer out of the woods"? That is not something the
>average
>> >American has to worry about.
>>
>> That's one of the reasons I bought the Jeep - and, BTW, there's _lotsa_
>> hunters. Other people also have stuff they wanna haul... which is why
>SUV's
>> are so popular.
>
> You are talking about a small minority, 5 percent of the US population
>has ever hunted. People who hunt frequently are even a smaller percentage.

About 45 million people in the US have hunted:

http://www.conservationforce.org/new...late.cfm?id=46

Percentage of the population is an uncertain number because you have to take
out the really young kids, and then there are the states where you have to be a
certain age that's a lot higher in some places than others. You have to be 14
in Michigan to hunt deer - I don't recall an age limit in some states - I just
found Missouri has a youth deer permit for ages 6 thru 15. 6? OK... that's a
real gamble to give a kid that age a firearm big enough to reliably kill a
deer, but whatever...

> Minivans carry much stuff than the average SUV. My dad used to have a
>Chrysler minivan, then he traded it in for a Ford Ranger a few years ago,
>which I thought was a very stupid move. The Ford ranger carries alot less
>stuff, it's RWD and doesn't handle as well. And you can only have two
>people in it at a time.

I don't like standard trucks myself - don't know why anyone would give up a
minivan for a truck unless they were going to be hauling "dirty" cargo, like
soil, fertilizer, deer (they bleed all over everything) so having a truck bed
you can hose down rather than a carpeted interior like a minivan might be an
advantage.

>> Americans don't much care about that, prolly 'cuz most of 'em don't have
>the
>> training or experience to take advantage of it.
>
> You can take advantage of good handling every day. It means you don't
>have to break as hard on every little turn, you don't have to worry about
>flipping your car over, and you can stop faster. What's not to like?

Most Americans won't push a car in a turn so as to take adavantage of the
better handling, as they _still_ realize that they don't have a clue about what
to do if it should wiggle.

>> Way too many SUV's are overpriced. It just goes to show the supply and
>demand
>> at work in the SUV sales arena - they're expensive because they're
>popular.
>
> Cigarettes used to be popular, too. That doesn't mean anything. If you
>market a product enough, people will buy it, regardless of the merit.

It seems that way, sometimes, doesn't it. But under that premise, there would
be no product failures - they would only have to advertise it harder to make it
a success. Of course we know that doesn't work.

>> Yep. But then it doesn't have the full possibility of a 100K mile
>warranty. I
>> just paid $2300 for repairs to the Jeep. One of the big advantages of a
>new
>> car is getting the bumper to bumper 100K mile warranty so when **** like
>that
>> happens, its covered.
>
> But usually a car will break down after 100,000 miles.

Except my damn Eclipse transmission... twice...

>Most cars now
>days will last that long, unless they have gross neglect (and I'm sure there
>are alot of people who do that to a car). I think with alot of those
>100,000 mile warranties, YOU end up paying more.

So far, I've made a profit each time.

>And warranties never
>cover routine wear parts, like oil, filters, break pads, or the clutch (if
>it's manual).

Yep. You expect those things to wear out, so there's no reason to assume there
was some fault that a warranty should take care of.

>Another thing that helps: synthetic engine oil (the expensive
>stuff, not the cheap stuff). My parents used Mobil 1 on their Chrysler and
>it lasted 150,000 miles before the transmission went utterly bad and they
>just decided to retire it. On most cars now days, the transmission is going
>to die before the engine is even close to giving out. But Americans are
>used to changing their oil either not at all or way too often, and they are
>using crappy oil, then they wonder why 100,000 miles later their engine
>starts burning alot of oil. If you go to Europe, people expect to pay 10
>dollars for a quart of oil and they use the oil until the car tells them to
>change it (some last almost 20,000 miles). I let the dealership put in
>their oil (an overpriced Castrol Syntec 5w-40) in the engine while my Jetta
>TDI is getting free changes, but once it's over I'm going to start using
>Mobil Delvac 5w-40.

Mobile 1 is cool stuff, OK. I used it exclusively for all my turbo cars
because it wouldn't "coke" inside the hot bearings of the turbocharger. It
didn't, either, although the Eclipse turbo failed at 27,000 miles. Just a
fluke, as the replacement lasted to almost 200,000 miles when I sold the car.

>> That's why I like to buy new
>> cars - put that "It breaks every other month" scenario much farther into
>the
>> future.
>
> I'm not sure of the economics of that. Check out Car Talk (National
>Public Radio car show). They seem to recommend repairing a car whenever
>possible vs. buying a new car. The only way I could see buying a new car is
>if the old car is totalled or broken down. Of course, if you want to cut
>your expenses even more, you get a manual transmission used. You'll pay
>less for it to buy, and there is less to go wrong. I don't drive a manual,
>though, because I was thinking of resale value.

Well, I've found more problems with manual transmissions than automatic. The
syncros in the Eclipse was one thing, and then of course the clutches only
seemd to last 80,000 miles. OTOH, nothing has gone wrong with my Jeep
automatic transmission, and nothing went wrong with the previous Jeeps
transmission other than torque converter bolts that worked loose ones - simply
tightened 'em, that's all it took. Made a heckuva racket, tho.

And repairing cars in addition to being expensive is a hassle if they decide to
die far from home. I had 2 1/2 days sliced out of my vacation when the Eclipse
transfer case lost all its oil and siezed. That was covered under a recall, so
it didn't cost anything, but it had screwed up my vacation anyway, at least a
little bit. I didn't get to spend the 2 days with my friend in Phoenix like I
planned.

>> Its also why I'm not wild about even having 2 cars - that's double the
>> repair expense.
>
> Only if you drive each car twice as much.

But that wasn't my experience toward the end of the lives of my previous Jeep
and my Eclipse.

>Americans are putting way too
>many miles on their cars, that's another thing that makes them expensive.

Its a big country, with lots more places to go. I got my Jeep used with 45,000
miles on it 3 1/2 years ago. Its got about 170,000 miles on it now. Figure
30-something thousand miles a year. That's the way its always been for me,
other than when I was servicing two way radios in the 70's, then I got over
40,000 miles a year on the odo.

I put miles on my car in an effort to have a good time. If I couldn't put that
many miles on the car, then I wouldn't have as much fun as I do now, because
everything else, transportation-wise, is more expensive or takes longer or
both. I have enough money to jump in the car and head for LaCrosse, Wisconson
for a Road Rally. If I couldn't drive the car, then flying is a bit more
expensive. Not much any more, tho, 'cuz gas prices have gone up and airline
fares have gone down.


>Decades ago people were putting less than half the miles on their cars they
>do now.

Not me - I was putting on more miles.

>I myself have been trying to cut down on my driving alot. I mail
>order alot of my stuff, because I've found driving halfway across town to
>find something I need (a computer part), and they don't have it, is just a
>waste of time, waste of gas, etc.

Across town would be nice. Guess it makes a difference how big your town is,
tho. I get to drive 20 miles just to get to town. But my bigger mileages come
from driving to other cities or other states. I guess I could use about 3
leased cars - those cars you can only put 12,000 or 15,000 miles on per year.
I could then maybe drive like I normally do, and divide the mileage up between
the 3 cars. Prolly still be short.

Dave Head