Who Needs a Hybrid???

ACAR wrote:
>
> Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> >
> > Tell me your total cost per mile...
> >
> > JT
>
> Tell me why I should accept your argument that cost/mile is the single
> most important aspect of driving.



Since when does a simple question indicate an argument?

JT
\

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>
>
> Since when does a simple question indicate an argument?
>
> JT
>
When you keep repeating it.

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article .com>,
> "ACAR" > wrote:
>
> > > Tell me your total cost per mile...
> > >
> > > JT
> >
> > Tell me why I should accept your argument that cost/mile is the single
> > most important aspect of driving.
>
> It is when you're talking about comparable cars.
>
>
nonsense.
luxury car buyers don't care about cost/mile;
nor do sports car buyers, off road vehicle buyers, tow vehicle buyers,
etc.
a large number of family car buyers put safety or comfort/convenience
ahead of cost/mile.

very few car buyers will actually work out cost/mile for vehicles under
consideration.

JT is trying to rationalize driving a ****box.

ACAR wrote:
>
> Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
> >
> >
> > Since when does a simple question indicate an argument?
> >
> > JT
> >
> When you keep repeating it.

You're not capable of answering it???

JT

ACAR wrote:
>
> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> > In article .com>,
> > "ACAR" > wrote:
> >
> > > > Tell me your total cost per mile...
> > > >
> > > > JT
> > >
> > > Tell me why I should accept your argument that cost/mile is the single
> > > most important aspect of driving.
> >
> > It is when you're talking about comparable cars.
> >
> >
> nonsense.
> luxury car buyers don't care about cost/mile;
> nor do sports car buyers, off road vehicle buyers, tow vehicle buyers,
> etc.
> a large number of family car buyers put safety or comfort/convenience
> ahead of cost/mile.
>
> very few car buyers will actually work out cost/mile for vehicles under
> consideration.
>
> JT is trying to rationalize driving a ****box.


Heh heh heh...

Just continue to float in your little fantasy world while I divert my
dicretionary spending to other wasteful practices such as traveling,
antique cars etc.

Yep, you're tossin' up a good contention thar...

JT

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>
> Just continue to float in your little fantasy world while I divert my
> dicretionary spending to other wasteful practices such as traveling,
> antique cars etc.
>
Apparently my little fantasy world takes into account those whose
resources are such that cost/mile doesn't necessarily impact
discretionary spending.

You know, those who can afford not to drive a ****box.

You are not being honest with the group because you are not counting
your labor hours in support of the old Civic as a cost.

"ACAR" > wrote
> You are not being honest with the group because you are
> not counting
> your labor hours in support of the old Civic as a cost.

Probably because those are not "labor hours" but rather
hours of joy. JT's Classic Civic pays for itself, given all
those hours of fun it offers.

That's one big reason why I keep my old '91 Civic: A new car
would be really boring. I wouldn't learn anything from it,
except how Americans are sucked into thinking that more
electronics necessarily means more convenience.

On 2006-09-13, ACAR > wrote:

> added safety features, structural improvements, much cleaner exhaust
> and comfort/convenience features. Sure the '83 is cheap to keep, but
> that doesn't make it a better car.

Does a buncha feelgood geegaws make it a better car? Electric
mirrors, power windows, entertainment centers, self dimming
headlights, seat warmers, rear window washer/wipers, yada yada. All
that crap adds weight and does nothing to improve perfomance. I'm not
saying one shouldn't have these things if they want them. That's
luxury. But, don't knock utility or suplant it with useless weight
adding crap. The reason old cars (including your porsche) got good
mileage is because they weren't humping around 800 lbs of frivolous
crap. My '87 Si (250K mi) still gets 35 mph. Why? It doesn't weigh
a ton! It only weighs a mere 2/3rds of a ton.

I will make a concession to structural improvements. That's value
added weight. I dread the possibility of ever getting in a serious
accident in my beloved hatchback, so I drive like an old lady. I'd
like the option of buying a car with good structural integrity, but no
power crap or luxury doodahs. Just good performance and economy. It's
entirely possible. Toyota is doing it. Why not Honda?

nb

On 2006-09-15, Elle > wrote:

> Probably because those are not "labor hours" but rather
> hours of joy. JT's Classic Civic pays for itself, given all
> those hours of fun it offers.

Bullcrap. The car is fun. Working on it is a PIA. Am I keeping my
'87 Si? Hell yes! ...unless I can find a '88-91 Si to replace it.

> That's one big reason why I keep my old '91 Civic: A new car
> would be really boring.

Testify!

> I wouldn't learn anything from it,
> except how Americans are sucked into thinking that more
> electronics necessarily means more convenience.

Thank you.

I do all the work on my Si because 1) I don't trust the scumsucking
dirtbags charging $70-100/hr, 2) I can. But, it *IS* a PIA! I'm a
big guy (ok, hefty) and getting to things in such a small car can be
difficult to say the least. Took me all day to replace the starter
and I lost 0.37lbs of hide and had to do the whole job by brail.
Hated every second of it.

Do I love my Si? OK, I'm selling my custom Ford Econoline van, my
seriously pumped Camero, my '68 BMW R60/2 project bike, and keeping only my HD
90" stroker and my Si. I'm saving the HD to trade for a '91 Si. Only
then will I give up my '87. Fun? Like Big Brother and the Holding
Company, it's Cheap Thrills!

nb

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 01:38:55 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire > wrote:




>AZ Nomad wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 16:33:20 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire > wrote:
>>
>> >AZ Nomad wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 02:15:53 GMT, Grumpy AuContraire > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >If someone needs power steering on a 1,900 lb car, they have a serious problem.
>> >>
>> >> It depends on the car. I had a '76 toyota corona 'wagon' w/out assist whose
>> >> steering wheel could only be turned while the car was rolling.
>> >>
>> >> Do you have some bizzare notion that a 3000 lb. car can absolutely need power
>> >> steering, but a 2000 lb. never needs it? It's only a 30% difference.
>>
>> >Why would one turn a steering wheel if one is not going anywhere?
>>
>> Parking.


>You still have to move the car to park...

Yes, but it is convenient to move the wheel before proceeding. Otherwise,
you drive in the wrong direction for a few feet.