http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Do not purchase a new Big 3 vehicle in 2009. - 22 messages, 7 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8da7acb0e572db51?hl=en
* Are name-brand low-energy fluorescent "Green" bulbs any brighter than store
brand? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/16514de0eabde21c?hl=en
* How to: Live on $12,000 a Year - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/5093baecae696c12?hl=en
* Your favorite free e-card? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8bf2062ff2236938?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Do not purchase a new Big 3 vehicle in 2009.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8da7acb0e572db51?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 22 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 12:37 pm
From: Alan Baker
In article <gi162g$pmt$3@news.motzarella.org>,
Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2008-12-13, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> > In article <gi0oue$jrh$1@news.motzarella.org>,
> > Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Final cost of a Malibu vs Accord, for example may be similar in price
> >> > off the lot. but the later will typically go 100k without significant
> >> > maintenance and last typically twice as long, making it half the cost in
> >> > the long run.
> >>
> >> How much of that is reality and how much of it is perception?
> >>
> >> Honda et al. have been very good at convincing buyers to actually TAKE
> >> CARE OF THEIR CARS. This makes a huge difference in the long run.
> >> Equally cared for cars (and the requirements for a Ford or GM product
> >> aren't significantly different than for Honda or Toyota) is what is
> >> required to make the comparison.
> >
> > No. "Honda et al" have been very good at producing cars that don't
> > *need* much care.
>
> Who said "much" for either case? It's either it gets done or it doesn't.
And Hondas ("et al") will be better if you treat each one the same.
Ignore the maintenance or do it, the japanese cars will be more reliable
than the american crap.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
== 2 of 22 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 12:44 pm
From: Brent
On 2008-12-13, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> In article <gi162g$pmt$3@news.motzarella.org>,
> Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2008-12-13, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>> > In article <gi0oue$jrh$1@news.motzarella.org>,
>> > Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Final cost of a Malibu vs Accord, for example may be similar in price
>> >> > off the lot. but the later will typically go 100k without significant
>> >> > maintenance and last typically twice as long, making it half the cost in
>> >> > the long run.
>> >>
>> >> How much of that is reality and how much of it is perception?
>> >>
>> >> Honda et al. have been very good at convincing buyers to actually TAKE
>> >> CARE OF THEIR CARS. This makes a huge difference in the long run.
>> >> Equally cared for cars (and the requirements for a Ford or GM product
>> >> aren't significantly different than for Honda or Toyota) is what is
>> >> required to make the comparison.
>> >
>> > No. "Honda et al" have been very good at producing cars that don't
>> > *need* much care.
>>
>> Who said "much" for either case? It's either it gets done or it doesn't.
>
> And Hondas ("et al") will be better if you treat each one the same.
>
> Ignore the maintenance or do it, the japanese cars will be more reliable
> than the american crap.
Some of us have reliablity from 'american crap' that parallels the
stories of the great hondas.... so I dunno.
And when Honda makes a V8 or inline 6 car with RWD, MT w/clutch I'll
consider one.
== 3 of 22 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 12:48 pm
From: Eeyore
Brent wrote:
> clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
> > What's to take care of? I have the Honda dealer do a servicing at
> > 30k, 60k and 105k miles, just doing my own oil changes in between.
>
> Exactly. Meanwhile the chevy owner has his car fail on the side of the
> road at 75K from things your honda dealer took care of. The chevy has
> it's water pump fail at 75K miles but your honda dealer put in a new one
> at 60K for you. The chevy is 'crap' and your honda is 'great'.
Well I had a European built GM (Vauxhall-Opel) that ran 180,000 mi before
scrapping. I got it at 60,000 mi and performed only routine maintenance on it (
I did have the cam belt changed - twice IIRC and had some new front discs /
rotors fitted plus the usual minor repairs). But not once did it fail at the
side of the road. And it was on its original water pump and all similar
ancillaries all that time too.
Interestingly GM was introducing its successor into the US market under the
Saturn brand as the Aura. You already had the Astra built by Opel as a Saturn.
So it's not just the Japanese that can do it and without having to resort to
changing lots of parts even.
Graham
p.s. I had several of that model. None were troublesome. They were also nice
cars to drive.
== 4 of 22 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 12:50 pm
From: clams_casino
Brent wrote:
>
>
>So if honda were to build accords but put chevy vega badges on them for
>GM it would be perceived as a hunk of crap. That pretty much parallels
>actual rebadged cars the big three sold that were designed and built by
>japanese manufacturers.
>
>
>
>
That's probably true. You have to agree that GM does not have all that
great a reputation for quality.
Even if GM was able to provide a vehicle with equal (or even improved)
quality as Honda, Toyota & Nissan, I suspect it will take generations
before they'll be able to reverse their generally accepted reputation.
IMO, they really need to cut capacity & focus on a few selected lines of
well made vehicles. It'll probably take several generations before
they'll be able to establish a reversal in reputation where in the mean
time, they'll probably have to buy their way back into the market via
pricing which ironically can never happen with their current overhead
costs. Chapter 11 appears to be their only way out of their downward
spiral.
== 5 of 22 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 12:50 pm
From: Alan Baker
In article <gi16re$6sr$1@news.motzarella.org>,
Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2008-12-13, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> > In article <gi162g$pmt$3@news.motzarella.org>,
> > Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2008-12-13, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> >> > In article <gi0oue$jrh$1@news.motzarella.org>,
> >> > Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Final cost of a Malibu vs Accord, for example may be similar in price
> >> >> > off the lot. but the later will typically go 100k without significant
> >> >> > maintenance and last typically twice as long, making it half the cost
> >> >> > in
> >> >> > the long run.
> >> >>
> >> >> How much of that is reality and how much of it is perception?
> >> >>
> >> >> Honda et al. have been very good at convincing buyers to actually TAKE
> >> >> CARE OF THEIR CARS. This makes a huge difference in the long run.
> >> >> Equally cared for cars (and the requirements for a Ford or GM product
> >> >> aren't significantly different than for Honda or Toyota) is what is
> >> >> required to make the comparison.
> >> >
> >> > No. "Honda et al" have been very good at producing cars that don't
> >> > *need* much care.
> >>
> >> Who said "much" for either case? It's either it gets done or it doesn't.
> >
> > And Hondas ("et al") will be better if you treat each one the same.
> >
> > Ignore the maintenance or do it, the japanese cars will be more reliable
> > than the american crap.
>
> Some of us have reliablity from 'american crap' that parallels the
> stories of the great hondas.... so I dunno.
Anecdotal evidence is useless.
>
> And when Honda makes a V8 or inline 6 car with RWD, MT w/clutch I'll
> consider one.
You're really stretching the matter to avoid reality, aren't you?
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
== 6 of 22 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 12:52 pm
From: Eeyore
lorad wrote:
> The reason that the asian cars are more competetive is that their
> governments provide their workers with universal health care (cha-
> ching).
Not sure that's true actually. Certainly for US made Hondas Nissans and
Toyotas. Anyway, nothing stopping the USA doing the same ! Universal
health care is a fraction of the cost of private btw.
Graham
== 7 of 22 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 12:56 pm
From: Eeyore
Brent wrote:
> clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
> > Not at all. In other words, there's really no way to know if today's
> > Malibus are equal to the quality of today's Accords without waiting 20
> > years.
>
> Neither car has been made for 20 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Accord
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Malibu
== 8 of 22 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 12:56 pm
From: clams_casino
Brent wrote:
>On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Not at all. In other words, there's really no way to know if today's
>>>>Malibus are equal to the quality of today's Accords without waiting 20
>>>>years.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Neither car has been made for 20 years.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>The intended point was that it will take many years before the true
>>quality of a car built today will be determined. Meanwhile, should I
>>invest in a brand that has a 10-20 year track record of being reliable
>>(Accords and Civics have been produced since at least 1990)? Or one
>>that has had a history of poor reliability. Hm - It'll be different
>>this time ... trust me.
>>
>>
>
>The point is that the track record of the model is irrelevant because
>its been replaced with new designs. The brand is a somewhat different
>story and the 'track record' of the brand is often perception rather
>than fact.
>
That may or may not be true, but why put out $30k for a vehicle that
promises to be different...... this time? The track record of the
manufacturer is what provides confidence to many buyers.
It's hard to find many disgruntled owners of civics & Accords. It's
much more common to find disgruntled Chevy owners (and GM in general vs.
Honda, Toyota, Nissan).
You may want to believe it's different this time, but too many have been
burnt with that perception to go back.
Reputation is critical for a majority of car buyers.
>There are still numerous oldsmobiles from GMs darkest time in
>the early 80s roaming the roads in the chicago area but I haven't seen a
>honda from that era in a very very long time, maybe a decade now.
>
>
>
>
== 9 of 22 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 12:57 pm
From: Eeyore
clams_casino wrote:
> the invasion of Iraq was not properly planned
It wasn't even justified ! Or do you still believe the lies ?
Graham
== 10 of 22 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 1:01 pm
From: clams_casino
Brent wrote:
>On 2008-12-13, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <gi0oue$jrh$1@news.motzarella.org>,
>> Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Final cost of a Malibu vs Accord, for example may be similar in price
>>>>off the lot. but the later will typically go 100k without significant
>>>>maintenance and last typically twice as long, making it half the cost in
>>>>the long run.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>How much of that is reality and how much of it is perception?
>>>
>>>Honda et al. have been very good at convincing buyers to actually TAKE
>>>CARE OF THEIR CARS. This makes a huge difference in the long run.
>>>Equally cared for cars (and the requirements for a Ford or GM product
>>>aren't significantly different than for Honda or Toyota) is what is
>>>required to make the comparison.
>>>
>>>
>>No. "Honda et al" have been very good at producing cars that don't
>>*need* much care.
>>
>>
>
>Who said "much" for either case? It's either it gets done or it doesn't.
>
>
>
>
You're assuming both use the same quality parts. I (and many others)
don't share that perception.
Yes, all gas pumps, alternators, water pumps, etc will eventually fail.
But, do they last 65k or 130k miles? It's been reported many times
that GM tends to use lower quality parts to make up for their higher
wage / benefits costs.
== 11 of 22 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 1:03 pm
From: Eeyore
Alan Baker wrote:
> Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > So if someone made a brand new design and called it 'vega' you would
> > think the name plate would bring rust and oil burning with it from the
> > past? What if GM partnered with honda and sold rebadged Accords as
> > vegas?
>
> If GM *built* this new Vega, I'd be very suspicious of its quality.
If GM survives, you'll be able to tell something very similar by comparing the
reliability of Saturn Auras with the previous model Opel Vectra.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_Aura
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opel_Vectra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2007-Saturn-Aura-XE.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Opel_Vectra_front_20070926.jpg
Graham
== 12 of 22 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 1:15 pm
From: Nate Nagel
Brent wrote:
> On 2008-12-13, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>> In article <gi162g$pmt$3@news.motzarella.org>,
>> Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2008-12-13, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>>>> In article <gi0oue$jrh$1@news.motzarella.org>,
>>>> Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Final cost of a Malibu vs Accord, for example may be similar in price
>>>>>> off the lot. but the later will typically go 100k without significant
>>>>>> maintenance and last typically twice as long, making it half the cost in
>>>>>> the long run.
>>>>> How much of that is reality and how much of it is perception?
>>>>>
>>>>> Honda et al. have been very good at convincing buyers to actually TAKE
>>>>> CARE OF THEIR CARS. This makes a huge difference in the long run.
>>>>> Equally cared for cars (and the requirements for a Ford or GM product
>>>>> aren't significantly different than for Honda or Toyota) is what is
>>>>> required to make the comparison.
>>>> No. "Honda et al" have been very good at producing cars that don't
>>>> *need* much care.
>>> Who said "much" for either case? It's either it gets done or it doesn't.
>> And Hondas ("et al") will be better if you treat each one the same.
>>
>> Ignore the maintenance or do it, the japanese cars will be more reliable
>> than the american crap.
>
> Some of us have reliablity from 'american crap' that parallels the
> stories of the great hondas.... so I dunno.
>
> And when Honda makes a V8 or inline 6 car with RWD, MT w/clutch I'll
> consider one.
>
>
Well, Toyota did (Supra) and it's near legend these days. In my mind
I'd rather have a Toyota than a Honda just based on reputation alone.
Those old Toyota sixes were really the spiritual successor to the
overly-stout American V-8 engines of the early 50's.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
== 13 of 22 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 1:20 pm
From: The Real Bev
lorad wrote:
> PS: For the rest of you foreign agents and economic traitors in this
> thread.. american cars are just fine.. they got 2 out of 3 of JD
> Powers top quality ratings. So please stop your hallucinigenic
> squawking.
Who answers Powers' surveys? I posit that the 'average user' figures
something is high-quality if it's nice-looking and lasts a year without
problems.
--
Cheers, Bev
==============================
All bleeding eventually stops.
== 14 of 22 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 1:17 pm
From: Nate Nagel
Eeyore wrote:
>
> Brent wrote:
>
>> clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Not at all. In other words, there's really no way to know if today's
>>> Malibus are equal to the quality of today's Accords without waiting 20
>>> years.
>> Neither car has been made for 20 years.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Accord
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Malibu
>
I think that he means "in their current form." Surely you aren't
equating the reliability of a G-body Malibu with the Opel-based cars
made today?
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
== 15 of 22 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 1:22 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote
> wismel@yahoo.com <wismel@yahoo.com> wrote
>> It's time to teach the Big 3 and their UAW co-conspirators* that the American
>> public does not need their products or companies as now constructed. Buy a
>> used vehicle or repair what you have. (You will save a lot of money).
>> *The Companies and the UAW agreed to these very expensive labor
>> agreement when they jointly felt they had the America public 'by the balls".
> The UAW's agreement with those three automakers is
> essentially irrelevant to a buyer's purchase decisions.
Nope, its what determined that they had to flog the steaming turds with wheels they have tried to flog.
> What a buyer goes by is what the car costs him and what the car is and has.
And its that stupid agreement that determines that with the products of the big 3,
because they cant make money selling what most buyers actually want to buy.
> How the automakers deal with their labor issues may change what the car offers and the price,
Corse it does, they choose to offer what they can make money selling with those labor corst.
> but a buyer isn't concerned about how the price of the car breaks down between
> labor, materials, shipping, and even taxes, he cares about the final cost to him.
They do care about what they get to choose from to buy tho.
> Now, the used car thing. A used car is something that one
> has to be very careful about because how good the car is
> becomes very dependent on the previous owner(s).
Wrong again. Few modern cars are destroyed by their owners, particularly with cars that arent too old.
> For knowledgable people who want to put the effort in, it can be big
> savings if they aren't concerned about getting exactly the car they want.
> Used car shopping takes a fair amount of time and effort that new car
> shopping doesn't. So it depends on how much one values his time.
And how much you value getting exactly what you want too.
== 16 of 22 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 1:29 pm
From: The Real Bev
Brent wrote:
> On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>> Brent wrote:
>>> On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not at all. In other words, there's really no way to know if today's
>>>> Malibus are equal to the quality of today's Accords without waiting 20
>>>> years.
>>>>
>>> Neither car has been made for 20 years.
>>
>> The intended point was that it will take many years before the true
>> quality of a car built today will be determined. Meanwhile, should I
>> invest in a brand that has a 10-20 year track record of being reliable
>> (Accords and Civics have been produced since at least 1990)? Or one
>> that has had a history of poor reliability. Hm - It'll be different
>> this time ... trust me.
>
> The point is that the track record of the model is irrelevant because
> its been replaced with new designs. The brand is a somewhat different
> story and the 'track record' of the brand is often perception rather
> than fact. There are still numerous oldsmobiles from GMs darkest time in
> the early 80s roaming the roads in the chicago area but I haven't seen a
> honda from that era in a very very long time, maybe a decade now.
My mom's '88 Eldorado has 58,000 miles on it right now. The dealer had
sold her new belts and hoses and an engine rebuild before it hit 45K.
The electric doorlock on the passenger side doesn't work. The
antenna-raising motor burned out. The heater core rotted through. The
leather seats are cracking. The AC has had serious service a couple of
times. There were other problems that she had to pay for in addition to
quarterly "automatic" servicing, I just don't want to look through her
receipts again -- I nearly cried the first time.
I'd call that piss poor and the blame is probably shared equally between
the corrupt dealer and the manufacturer. Yet another case of wallet rape.
--
Cheers, Bev
==============================
All bleeding eventually stops.
== 17 of 22 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 1:29 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote
> clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote
>> Final cost of a Malibu vs Accord, for example may be similar in price
>> off the lot. but the later will typically go 100k without significant maintenance
>> and last typically twice as long, making it half the cost in the long run.
> How much of that is reality and how much of it is perception?
Its all reality, tho you can certainly argue with his numbers.
> Honda et al. have been very good at convincing buyers to actually TAKE
> CARE OF THEIR CARS. This makes a huge difference in the long run.
Like hell it does with say the first 10 years with a properly designed car.
> Equally cared for cars (and the requirements for a Ford or
> GM product aren't significantly different than for Honda or
> Toyota) is what is required to make the comparison.
Wrong. What matters is the different result you get with the maintenance you will be providing.
> There is a huge perception difference with regards to a Honda or Chevy.
> An expensive bill to replace a timing belt is well worth it on the Honda,
> the Chevy is a POS for requiring the same timing belt change. The
> honda owner brings his car in to get the timing belt changed on time
> when the dealer sends a card. The Chevy owner ignores the timing
> belt and has the belt break on him on the highway well beyond the
> replacement interval.
Mindlessly superficial.
> Or maybe instead the waterpump goes out on the chevy at 85,000 miles,
> but the Honda had its waterpump replaced with the timing belt at 60,000
Wrong again.
> and doesn't have a failure on the road.
> Perception is the game these days
Like hell it is. The reality these days is that any decently designed car
will last for decades with no maintenance whatever apart from tyres etc.
> and GM still doesn't seem to understand that.
They make steaming turds with wheels that dont
last anything like as long as the imported products.
> Then again the media doesn't help either by acting like it is still
> 1968 and 99% of people drive domestic automobiles so they
> don't bother covering import recalls and problems for the most part.
Recalls are just a nuisance, not the same as having to pay for the repairs yourself.
== 18 of 22 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 1:36 pm
From: The Real Bev
Brent wrote:
> On 2008-12-13, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>> In article <gi162g$pmt$3@news.motzarella.org>,
>> Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On 2008-12-13, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>>>> In article <gi0oue$jrh$1@news.motzarella.org>,
>>>> Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Final cost of a Malibu vs Accord, for example may be similar in price
>>>>>> off the lot. but the later will typically go 100k without significant
>>>>>> maintenance and last typically twice as long, making it half the cost in
>>>>>> the long run.
>>>>> How much of that is reality and how much of it is perception?
>>>>>
>>>>> Honda et al. have been very good at convincing buyers to actually TAKE
>>>>> CARE OF THEIR CARS. This makes a huge difference in the long run.
>>>>> Equally cared for cars (and the requirements for a Ford or GM product
>>>>> aren't significantly different than for Honda or Toyota) is what is
>>>>> required to make the comparison.
>>>> No. "Honda et al" have been very good at producing cars that don't
>>>> *need* much care.
>>> Who said "much" for either case? It's either it gets done or it doesn't.
>> And Hondas ("et al") will be better if you treat each one the same.
>>
>> Ignore the maintenance or do it, the japanese cars will be more reliable
>> than the american crap.
>
> Some of us have reliablity from 'american crap' that parallels the
> stories of the great hondas.... so I dunno.
>
> And when Honda makes a V8 or inline 6 car with RWD, MT w/clutch I'll
> consider one.
How about a Toyota Land Cruiser? All I wanted to see was the specs, but
the site insisted on showing me a lot of flashcrap instead so I'm not
sure about the manual transmission or drive axle, but it has a V8.
--
Cheers, Bev
==============================
All bleeding eventually stops.
== 19 of 22 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 1:39 pm
From: Brent
On 2008-12-13, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> In article <gi16re$6sr$1@news.motzarella.org>,
> Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2008-12-13, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>> > In article <gi162g$pmt$3@news.motzarella.org>,
>> > Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2008-12-13, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>> >> > In article <gi0oue$jrh$1@news.motzarella.org>,
>> >> > Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Final cost of a Malibu vs Accord, for example may be similar in price
>> >> >> > off the lot. but the later will typically go 100k without significant
>> >> >> > maintenance and last typically twice as long, making it half the cost
>> >> >> > in
>> >> >> > the long run.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How much of that is reality and how much of it is perception?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Honda et al. have been very good at convincing buyers to actually TAKE
>> >> >> CARE OF THEIR CARS. This makes a huge difference in the long run.
>> >> >> Equally cared for cars (and the requirements for a Ford or GM product
>> >> >> aren't significantly different than for Honda or Toyota) is what is
>> >> >> required to make the comparison.
>> >> >
>> >> > No. "Honda et al" have been very good at producing cars that don't
>> >> > *need* much care.
>> >>
>> >> Who said "much" for either case? It's either it gets done or it doesn't.
>> >
>> > And Hondas ("et al") will be better if you treat each one the same.
>> >
>> > Ignore the maintenance or do it, the japanese cars will be more reliable
>> > than the american crap.
>>
>> Some of us have reliablity from 'american crap' that parallels the
>> stories of the great hondas.... so I dunno.
>
> Anecdotal evidence is useless.
except when it is for hondas obviously.
>> And when Honda makes a V8 or inline 6 car with RWD, MT w/clutch I'll
>> consider one.
> You're really stretching the matter to avoid reality, aren't you?
No, just pointing out that there are vehicle types your chosen makes
ignore.
== 20 of 22 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 1:40 pm
From: Brent
On 2008-12-13, Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote:
> Brent wrote:
>> On 2008-12-13, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>>> In article <gi162g$pmt$3@news.motzarella.org>,
>>> Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2008-12-13, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
>>>>> In article <gi0oue$jrh$1@news.motzarella.org>,
>>>>> Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Final cost of a Malibu vs Accord, for example may be similar in price
>>>>>>> off the lot. but the later will typically go 100k without significant
>>>>>>> maintenance and last typically twice as long, making it half the cost in
>>>>>>> the long run.
>>>>>> How much of that is reality and how much of it is perception?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Honda et al. have been very good at convincing buyers to actually TAKE
>>>>>> CARE OF THEIR CARS. This makes a huge difference in the long run.
>>>>>> Equally cared for cars (and the requirements for a Ford or GM product
>>>>>> aren't significantly different than for Honda or Toyota) is what is
>>>>>> required to make the comparison.
>>>>> No. "Honda et al" have been very good at producing cars that don't
>>>>> *need* much care.
>>>> Who said "much" for either case? It's either it gets done or it doesn't.
>>> And Hondas ("et al") will be better if you treat each one the same.
>>>
>>> Ignore the maintenance or do it, the japanese cars will be more reliable
>>> than the american crap.
>>
>> Some of us have reliablity from 'american crap' that parallels the
>> stories of the great hondas.... so I dunno.
>>
>> And when Honda makes a V8 or inline 6 car with RWD, MT w/clutch I'll
>> consider one.
>>
>>
>
> Well, Toyota did (Supra) and it's near legend these days. In my mind
> I'd rather have a Toyota than a Honda just based on reputation alone.
> Those old Toyota sixes were really the spiritual successor to the
> overly-stout American V-8 engines of the early 50's.
yes, I'd consider a I6 supra or an old I6 Zcar.
== 21 of 22 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 1:45 pm
From: Brent
On 2008-12-13, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Brent wrote:
>
>> clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Not at all. In other words, there's really no way to know if today's
>> > Malibus are equal to the quality of today's Accords without waiting 20
>> > years.
>>
>> Neither car has been made for 20 years.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Accord
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Malibu
So, where can I pick up a brand new malibu like the one in 'repo man'?
Oh wait, they aren't made any more. The current malibu has been in
production for what? a year? The name plate has been around for more
than 40 years, but the car we see today hasn't. Nor can one go buy a
new honda like they made back in the 70s or 80s either. They are
different cars now with the same name plate. In the case of GM VERY VERY
different cars. They don't even share the same drive wheels!
== 22 of 22 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 1:49 pm
From: Brent
On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
> Brent wrote:
>
>>On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Not at all. In other words, there's really no way to know if today's
>>>>>Malibus are equal to the quality of today's Accords without waiting 20
>>>>>years.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Neither car has been made for 20 years.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>The intended point was that it will take many years before the true
>>>quality of a car built today will be determined. Meanwhile, should I
>>>invest in a brand that has a 10-20 year track record of being reliable
>>>(Accords and Civics have been produced since at least 1990)? Or one
>>>that has had a history of poor reliability. Hm - It'll be different
>>>this time ... trust me.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>The point is that the track record of the model is irrelevant because
>>its been replaced with new designs. The brand is a somewhat different
>>story and the 'track record' of the brand is often perception rather
>>than fact.
>>
>
> That may or may not be true, but why put out $30k for a vehicle that
> promises to be different...... this time? The track record of the
> manufacturer is what provides confidence to many buyers.
Track record? What is the track record? It's a series of people's
perceptions. Try to get someone who got a honda lemon to buy one again.
> It's hard to find many disgruntled owners of civics & Accords.
http://www.google.com/search?q=accord+lemon
Rather easy actually.
> It's
> much more common to find disgruntled Chevy owners (and GM in general vs.
> Honda, Toyota, Nissan).
No, it would take the same couple of seconds.
> You may want to believe it's different this time, but too many have been
> burnt with that perception to go back.
My point is that perception is the driver. I see you're coming around.
> Reputation is critical for a majority of car buyers.
Reputation based on perceptions, not facts.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Are name-brand low-energy fluorescent "Green" bulbs any brighter than
store brand?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/16514de0eabde21c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 12:50 pm
From: LouB
Twice Retired wrote:
>
> "Macuser" <spamisaluncheon@meat.com> wrote in message
> news:%UQ0l.1386$c35.321@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>> I personally prefer the name brands because they produce light from a
>> warmer spectrum, which is closer in appearance to a luminscent bulb.
>> Cheapier fluorescents from the dollar store are ok for the night light
>> I have in the front window.
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://cashcuddler.com
>>
>> "Thrift is sexy."
>
> Throughout my home I have 72 CFL's of various wattages. Mixed brands,
> most are indies. Color temp varies from 2700K to 2900K, equal to
> incandescent. Have had 4 failures in 7 years, 2 outdoors and 2 in
> basement. I think vibration may have got the outdoor ones as they are
> post lights. The 2 in the basement are on 24/7 for general illumination
> for cats to find food, water, and litter boxes.
>
Interesting, thanks.
Lou
==============================================================================
TOPIC: How to: Live on $12,000 a Year
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/5093baecae696c12?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 1:15 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Salford1 <vectispete@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Makes sense.....Given the current climate!
Nope, if many are stupid enough to do that when it
isnt necessary, it will make that necessary for most.
> http://www.osawatch.com/2007/02/can_you_live_on.html
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Your favorite free e-card?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8bf2062ff2236938?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 1:46 pm
From: James
Have you found a really good one that you would recommend?
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment