2006 Honda Ridgeline - Invoice Price CAD

Kent Finnell wrote:

>
> I have to tell you, Alan, but this is America. Need is NOT the criteria,
> want is. You get what you want, your perceived need. Others can do the
> same. A 4 cyl. Accord may fit your needs/wants. But if a fellow has a wife
> and two high school linebackers he needs to transport, he may honestly need
> the V6. You don't get to dictate his needs or mine or any of the other 280
> million Americans. Frustrating, isn't it?

Where did I 'dictate' anything? I simply would have preferred that
Honda take the 4 cyl. approach with the hybrid and really try to get the
most out of the technology at the mpg level. Instead they are catering
to the performance "want". This makes a good business decision, but a
poor objective decision. What the world needs is much less oil consumption.

Fratration: you Americans in particular are gobbling up 1/4 of the
world's non-renewable oil resources to feed your petty "wants". There
is a bigger picture, but most Americans are blithely unwilling to face
up to it. Truly a large part of that 1/4 goes to legitimate needs. But
driving to a high rise office job in a large SUV is simple waste. If
gasoline were and endless resource, nobody would care. But that's not
the case, is it?
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/...ton_sha_of_tot

You had a great warning in the 70's ... and promptly forgot it.

You've killed over 2000 of your own soldiers so far, not to mention
those of other nations, civilian contractors, Iraqi civilians and so on.

All in the name of oil security. If the US would make the effort to
reduce consumption and promote true innovation in energy use with the
money wasted in an unwinnable Iraq, the US and the world would benefit
immensely. And those young men and women would have been spared an
early death would be able to enjoy the "American Dream" as much as you
get to do it.

Please remember when you tank up that American soldiers are dying for
your privilege to do so. Seems to be a deadly shame to waste a single drop.

>
> Companies build to the desires of their customers. Sometimes that gets them
> caught in a crack. Witness the current SUV bust. Now if Honda comes up
> with a Pilot V6 Hybrid, some of those current and former SUV owners will
> flock to it.
>
> Personally I've never needed or wanted a SUV or PU and an Accord coupe or
> sedan is probably as large as I'd go, L4 or V6, my choice, NOT your dictate.
> Right now I'd like a 2006 Civic Si and screw whatever you think I need.

It's not what "anyone" wants its what the world needs. On that note,
the Chinese economy is growing in huge leaps and bounds. And they too
have discovered the joy of the automobile... it's really going to get
much worse before it gets even slightly better.

Given the American trade deficit, personal debt, boomers retiring and
selling off over valuated homes, huge government debt and the dwindling
purchassing power of the US dollar, Americans at the individual level
will need to wake up or have a very rude awakening.

By the way, on a percap basis we are no better than Americans in oil
consumption. OTOH, we are overwhelmingly influenced by American
lifestyle (eg: big fast cars) and products (GM, Ford, Chrysler). OTOOH,
we have proven oil reserves second only to Saudi Arabia. But that's
great, we sell most of it to the US and further increase our trade
surplus with the US.

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Alan Browne wrote:
> Kent Finnell wrote:
>
>>
>> I have to tell you, Alan, but this is America. Need is NOT the
>> criteria, want is. You get what you want, your perceived need.
>> Others can do the same. A 4 cyl. Accord may fit your needs/wants.
>> But if a fellow has a wife and two high school linebackers he needs to
>> transport, he may honestly need the V6. You don't get to dictate his
>> needs or mine or any of the other 280 million Americans. Frustrating,
>> isn't it?
>
> Where did I 'dictate' anything? I simply would have preferred that
> Honda take the 4 cyl. approach with the hybrid and really try to get the
> most out of the technology at the mpg level. Instead they are catering
> to the performance "want". This makes a good business decision, but a
> poor objective decision. What the world needs is much less oil
> consumption.

theyre doing both. theres the civic hybrid, and the insight for economy,
and the accord hybrid for their little experiment into performance
applications. i dont notice people flocking to the accord, and i dont
notice any accords able to go in the carpool lane on the freeway.
>
> Fratration: you Americans in particular are gobbling up 1/4 of the
> world's non-renewable oil resources to feed your petty "wants". There
> is a bigger picture, but most Americans are blithely unwilling to face
> up to it. Truly a large part of that 1/4 goes to legitimate needs. But
> driving to a high rise office job in a large SUV is simple waste. If
> gasoline were and endless resource, nobody would care. But that's not
> the case, is it?
> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/...ton_sha_of_tot

and the only time people bitch or DO anything is when gas is $3/gal. my
primary commuting vehicle is one of these:

http://www.suzuki-gb.co.uk/model.asp?id=43

dont think i ever put more than $8/week into the tank, going to work and
running errands.

before that, i had two of these:

http://www.motorcycle.com/mo/mchonda/helix.html

and before that ive had at least one scooter going back to 1987.
>
> You had a great warning in the 70's ... and promptly forgot it.
>
> You've killed over 2000 of your own soldiers so far, not to mention
> those of other nations, civilian contractors, Iraqi civilians and so on.

i feel NO pity toward the merc^H^H^H "contractors". as for the soldiers?
i wonder how many would have signed up if theyd known our puppet in
chief was going to lead them to war.

SoCalMike wrote:

> i feel NO pity toward the merc^H^H^H "contractors". as for the soldiers?
> i wonder how many would have signed up if theyd known our puppet in
> chief was going to lead them to war.

Most of the contractors there are doing fairly mundane things like
driving trucks and running kitchens and laundry's. Nothing mercenary
about it, it frees soldiers up to soldier.

When you enlist to arms, you have to expect to be thrust in harms way.
OTOH, when you're elected to the most powerful post in the US, you're
not supposed to squander your nation's youth where other solutions would
do much better.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Alan Browne wrote:
> SoCalMike wrote:
>
>> i feel NO pity toward the merc^H^H^H "contractors". as for the
>> soldiers? i wonder how many would have signed up if theyd known our
>> puppet in chief was going to lead them to war.
>
> Most of the contractors there are doing fairly mundane things like
> driving trucks and running kitchens and laundry's. Nothing mercenary
> about it, it frees soldiers up to soldier.

true, and they get paid DAMN good money to do it. up to $100k/yr or
more, tax free. but they know their laundry or kitchen can be blown up
at a moments notice, or they could be kidnapped and have their heads
lopped off on al jazeera TV.
>
> When you enlist to arms, you have to expect to be thrust in harms way.
> OTOH, when you're elected to the most powerful post in the US, you're
> not supposed to squander your nation's youth where other solutions would
> do much better.

especially since he did everything he could to not serve himself. same
with chaney and rumsfeld as well. chickenhawks- the whole lot of em.