Chrysler group set to kill off its Dodge Stratus and Chrysler Sebringcoupes

"Steve" > wrote in message
...
> James C. Reeves wrote:
>
>
> I agree that they're very serviceable cars. I was just commenting on the
> fact that they're practically invisible on the roads... just like a Camry.
> An appliance, not an "interesting" car.
>
>

That is a true statement...relatively basic transportation. For some
reason, some people have a need to have their car define who they are. But
most people don't seem to have that type of emotional attachment to them.

James C. Reeves wrote:

> "Steve" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>James C. Reeves wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I don't know many perople that buy used cars, having had a unusual amount
>>>of bad luck buying other people's problems.
>>
>>I'm just the opposite- I don't know many people that buy NEW cars and then
>>lose half the value as they drive off the dealer lot. Buying a low-mileage
>>used car makes more sense now than ever before... and its ALWAYS made a
>>lot of sense.
>>
>
>
> Glad you've had good luck with it. But I usually keep my cars 10-15
> years...so want those puppies treated right from mile 5. Plus the
> depreciation hit isn't bad over that time period. I'm more interested in
> the more basic cars, not the high end ones anyway. But to each his own.
> Different things work for different people.
>
>
Keeping the car that long makes the difference. We bought my wife's '93
brand new in March of '93, and she's still driving it at 217,000 miles.
But if you do what most people do- replace every 3-5 years, then buying
new is very foolish. Most people I know who like to turn over cars every
couple of years buy the car at around 1 year old, or get a 'program' car
from a dealer which is not quite as painful as buying at full price. The
downside is that you don't get to pick every option.

James C. Reeves wrote:

> "Steve" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>James C. Reeves wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I don't know many perople that buy used cars, having had a unusual amount
>>>of bad luck buying other people's problems.
>>
>>I'm just the opposite- I don't know many people that buy NEW cars and then
>>lose half the value as they drive off the dealer lot. Buying a low-mileage
>>used car makes more sense now than ever before... and its ALWAYS made a
>>lot of sense.
>>
>
>
> Glad you've had good luck with it. But I usually keep my cars 10-15
> years...so want those puppies treated right from mile 5. Plus the
> depreciation hit isn't bad over that time period. I'm more interested in
> the more basic cars, not the high end ones anyway. But to each his own.
> Different things work for different people.
>
>
Keeping the car that long makes the difference. We bought my wife's '93
brand new in March of '93, and she's still driving it at 217,000 miles.
But if you do what most people do- replace every 3-5 years, then buying
new is very foolish. Most people I know who like to turn over cars every
couple of years buy the car at around 1 year old, or get a 'program' car
from a dealer which is not quite as painful as buying at full price. The
downside is that you don't get to pick every option.

James C. Reeves wrote:

> "Steve" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>James C. Reeves wrote:
>>
>>
>>I agree that they're very serviceable cars. I was just commenting on the
>>fact that they're practically invisible on the roads... just like a Camry.
>>An appliance, not an "interesting" car.
>>
>>
>
>
> That is a true statement...relatively basic transportation. For some
> reason, some people have a need to have their car define who they are. But
> most people don't seem to have that type of emotional attachment to them.

I don't buy that argument. Relatively few people let their car "define"
them. Its a cheap-shot at arm-chair psychoanalyzing- just like saying
that anyone who owns an old Muscle car must be going through a mid-life
crisis. No, its not about appearances, its about the MACHINE. To quote
the editor of Muscle Car Enthusiast magazine, "its ALWAYS been about the
machine, and middle age just happens to be when we can afford what we've
always wanted..."

Speaking for myself, I spend enough hours in the car, and I *enjoy*
both driving and maintaining cars enough, that I cannot and will not
settle for a "generic people mover."

James C. Reeves wrote:

> "Steve" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>James C. Reeves wrote:
>>
>>
>>I agree that they're very serviceable cars. I was just commenting on the
>>fact that they're practically invisible on the roads... just like a Camry.
>>An appliance, not an "interesting" car.
>>
>>
>
>
> That is a true statement...relatively basic transportation. For some
> reason, some people have a need to have their car define who they are. But
> most people don't seem to have that type of emotional attachment to them.

I don't buy that argument. Relatively few people let their car "define"
them. Its a cheap-shot at arm-chair psychoanalyzing- just like saying
that anyone who owns an old Muscle car must be going through a mid-life
crisis. No, its not about appearances, its about the MACHINE. To quote
the editor of Muscle Car Enthusiast magazine, "its ALWAYS been about the
machine, and middle age just happens to be when we can afford what we've
always wanted..."

Speaking for myself, I spend enough hours in the car, and I *enjoy*
both driving and maintaining cars enough, that I cannot and will not
settle for a "generic people mover."