"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message news:B4ydnQX8ksBC1PvVnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
> Pszemol wrote:
>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>> news:RcWdnaAvZ77uIPjVnZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>> one more thought - the later models you've been considering have what
>>> i consider to be a serious deficiency compared to your current vintage
>>> - lack of front sway bar. the 96-2000 for instance only has sway bars
>>> on the ex and si models, not the lower models.
>>>
>>> i discovered this while having to make an extreme evasive [defensive]
>>> maneuver to avoid a freeway accident in my [then] new 2000. damned
>>> thing nearly capsized. i was used to driving an 89 that has sway bars
>>> as standard, and that pretty much goes wherever you point it, no
>>> excessive body roll. the 2000, not only did you have to be careful on
>>> the transition between hard left/hard right, there was no "safety
>>> factor" in near-accident situations like i describe. i ended up
>>> retrofitting the 2000 and that dealt with the problem, but i would not
>>> feel comfortable with one of those vehicles in stock configuration,
>>> especially as the body is so much heavier and thus more susceptible.
>>
>> Talking about active safety - how about ABS?
>> Which model years/trims had it already installed, which not?
>
> do you know much about abs? did you know that it doesn't necessarily
> stop you any quicker, and can in fact /increase/ braking distances? if
> you have an abs system on your car, open the owners manual and read
> what it says about that.

Don't be such arrogant!
I know exactly how ABS works and what are its effects on driving/breaking.

In my opinion the car with ABS in general is safer than the one without one.
Buying older cars you loose this feature and some others, too.
It is buyer choice, of course, but I considered it worth mentioning
together with your coment about missing sway bars in newer model.

> abs is /fantastic/ for people like my grandmother who will do something
> like skid on the freeway, all 4 wheels locked, and sit there pressing
> the pedal as hard as she can while she has absolutely no control of the
> vehicle whatsoever. when i'm old enough to drive like her, maybe i'll
> consider abs. in the mean time, as long as i know about cadence braking
> and friction coefficients, i'm quite happy with standard brakes thanks.

Don't forget you are not talking about the car for yourself but for Elle.
She might be somebody's grandmother :-) Or - just a driver little
more educated in benefits of modern car safety systems than you...

>> Talking more about safety systems... how about air bags? Would you
>> prefer driving with 20 years old airbag or 8 years old one?
>
> i prefer to have /no/ airbag! if true driver safety were the concern of
> gub'mint, roll cages, helmets and 5-point harnesses would be mandatory,
> not airbags. just like in race cars.

This just tells me how uneducated/ignorant driver you are.

Also, again I have to remind you that the choice is not yours but hers.
It is her car we are talking about. It is her decision if she wants car
with air bags or a death trap without one :-)

>> Also, in case of unfortunate accident - how would you think 20 years
>> old body would perform compared to the 8 years old with no rust?
>
> mine's california and it has no rust. and 8 years in the rust belt is
> no guarantee of integrity if you want to be really pedantic.

I am not talking about cosmetic rust but undercariage rust, ball joints, etc.
Once again, I have to remind you that your advices are addressed to Elle.
Do you know where is she located? I do not recall her mentioning this.

 

"Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote
> Don't forget you are not talking about the car for
> yourself but for Elle.
> She might be somebody's grandmother :-) Or - just a driver
> little more educated in benefits of modern car safety
> systems than you...

Not to contradict you, but to get out my puny view: I have
been restricting my search to older cars partly (very small
part) because I do not want ABS. ABS is harder to maintain;
has more that can go wrong; and I do not see significant
advantage from a safety standpoint.

I have always had a car without ABS.

I would prefer airbags but I am not requiring them.

> I am not talking about cosmetic rust but undercariage
> rust, ball joints, etc.
> Once again, I have to remind you that your advices are
> addressed to Elle.

I think JBeam is recalling, correctly, that I am in the
southwest. No rust in general, though a few of the cars I
have seen are from up north and show rust.

I finally read the fine print on carfax.com's connection to
dealers: Every time a dealer looks up a vehicle history on
carfax, the lookup goes into their system as a car that
/might/ be traded in or just got sold. I think it would be
luck to run across a Honda through this approach. I really
do not trust the salespeople there to call me as soon as
another 92-95 Civic comes in. They deal in the here and now.
A phone call does not seem to be worth it to them.

 

Archival point: The 1990 Civic hatchback compared to a 91
Civic LX Sedan (my car) is lighter by around 150 lbs, and is
10-inches shorter. Ten inches is not small potatoes to me.
Can't find the height from the ground for the hatchback, but
it has seemed lower on the three or so hatches I have looked
at. Interior dimensions on the hatchback are mostly a bit
smaller than the sedan. I think the lack of power steering
on the hatch means one feels the road more. It is not as
responsive in feel.

I have also driven a few used sedans besides my own and
consistently felt much better in them compared to the
hatches.

No more, no less, just my opinion.

 

Pszemol wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:B4ydnQX8ksBC1PvVnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>> Pszemol wrote:
>>> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
>>> news:RcWdnaAvZ77uIPjVnZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>>> one more thought - the later models you've been considering have
>>>> what i consider to be a serious deficiency compared to your current
>>>> vintage - lack of front sway bar. the 96-2000 for instance only has
>>>> sway bars on the ex and si models, not the lower models.
>>>>
>>>> i discovered this while having to make an extreme evasive
>>>> [defensive] maneuver to avoid a freeway accident in my [then] new
>>>> 2000. damned thing nearly capsized. i was used to driving an 89
>>>> that has sway bars as standard, and that pretty much goes wherever
>>>> you point it, no excessive body roll. the 2000, not only did you
>>>> have to be careful on the transition between hard left/hard right,
>>>> there was no "safety factor" in near-accident situations like i
>>>> describe. i ended up retrofitting the 2000 and that dealt with the
>>>> problem, but i would not feel comfortable with one of those vehicles
>>>> in stock configuration, especially as the body is so much heavier
>>>> and thus more susceptible.
>>>
>>> Talking about active safety - how about ABS?
>>> Which model years/trims had it already installed, which not?
>>
>> do you know much about abs? did you know that it doesn't necessarily
>> stop you any quicker, and can in fact /increase/ braking distances?
>> if you have an abs system on your car, open the owners manual and read
>> what it says about that.
>
> Don't be such arrogant!

what's a "such arrogant"?


> I know exactly how ABS works and what are its effects on driving/breaking.

you know how it works??? i'd love to read your explanation!

btw, if you learned how to spell "b-r-a-k-i-n-g", you might be more
convincing.


>
> In my opinion the car with ABS in general is safer than the one without
> one.

what is your opinion based on exactly? it's not facts about braking
distances because abs is not necessarily better in that regard. you
/do/ know about abs systems, right?


> Buying older cars you loose this feature and some others, too.
> It is buyer choice, of course, but I considered it worth mentioning
> together with your coment about missing sway bars in newer model.
>
>> abs is /fantastic/ for people like my grandmother who will do
>> something like skid on the freeway, all 4 wheels locked, and sit there
>> pressing the pedal as hard as she can while she has absolutely no
>> control of the vehicle whatsoever. when i'm old enough to drive like
>> her, maybe i'll consider abs. in the mean time, as long as i know
>> about cadence braking and friction coefficients, i'm quite happy with
>> standard brakes thanks.
>
> Don't forget you are not talking about the car for yourself but for Elle.
> She might be somebody's grandmother :-) Or - just a driver little more
> educated in benefits of modern car safety systems than you...
>
>>> Talking more about safety systems... how about air bags? Would you
>>> prefer driving with 20 years old airbag or 8 years old one?
>>
>> i prefer to have /no/ airbag! if true driver safety were the concern
>> of gub'mint, roll cages, helmets and 5-point harnesses would be
>> mandatory, not airbags. just like in race cars.
>
> This just tells me how uneducated/ignorant driver you are.

buddy, helmets beat air bags every single time.


> Also, again I have to remind you that the choice is not yours but hers.
> It is her car we are talking about. It is her decision if she wants car
> with air bags or a death trap without one :-)

keep drinking the kool-aid.


>
>>> Also, in case of unfortunate accident - how would you think 20 years
>>> old body would perform compared to the 8 years old with no rust?
>>
>> mine's california and it has no rust. and 8 years in the rust belt is
>> no guarantee of integrity if you want to be really pedantic.
>
> I am not talking about cosmetic rust but undercariage rust, ball joints,
> etc.

i'm not talking cosmetic either - that's why i take the trouble to
specify "s-t-r-u-c-t-u-r-a-l" in the part you so carefully snipped but
didn't annotate.

> Once again, I have to remind you that your advices are addressed to Elle.
> Do you know where is she located? I do not recall her mentioning this.

then you've not been here very long. or you don't know how to use
google. or you're stupid and lazy.

 

Elle wrote:
> Archival point: The 1990 Civic hatchback compared to a 91
> Civic LX Sedan (my car) is lighter by around 150 lbs, and is
> 10-inches shorter. Ten inches is not small potatoes to me.
> Can't find the height from the ground for the hatchback, but
> it has seemed lower on the three or so hatches I have looked
> at. Interior dimensions on the hatchback are mostly a bit
> smaller than the sedan. I think the lack of power steering
> on the hatch means one feels the road more. It is not as
> responsive in feel.
>
> I have also driven a few used sedans besides my own and
> consistently felt much better in them compared to the
> hatches.
>
> No more, no less, just my opinion.

those 88-91 hatches must have had something wrong if they actually rode
lower. i know my hatch gets some heavy moving duties simply because i
can fit a lot of stuff in it, but the honda ride height spec for both is
the same at 150mm. wheel base for both is 2500mm, wheel track for both
is 1456mm.

all the other differences are simply cosmetic, i.e. length of the sedan
is 4232mm vs 3964mm for the hatch. width is 1674mm vs 1665 for the
hatch, and roof height is 1360mm vs 1333mm for the hatch. dx manual
sedan weighs 2147lbs vs 2088lbs for the hatch.

i think if you're feeling a difference it's simply the fact that you've
done the rear bushings on your car, and the others you've tried haven't
been so lucky. it does make a big change to the way these cars handle.

 

"Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote in news:8Ax9k.6547$i55.1367
@newsfe22.lga:

> Archival point: The 1990 Civic hatchback compared to a 91
> Civic LX Sedan (my car) is lighter by around 150 lbs, and is
> 10-inches shorter. Ten inches is not small potatoes to me.
> Can't find the height from the ground for the hatchback, but
> it has seemed lower on the three or so hatches I have looked
> at. Interior dimensions on the hatchback are mostly a bit
> smaller than the sedan.



I actually have a Honda shop manual for this vehicle. It was recently
purchased ($40 on eBay, including shipping) with funds donated for the
www.tegger.com/hondafaq Web site. Thanks very much to all those who have
contributed. Big or small, it all helps.

'88-'91 Civic dimensions are as follows...

Hatchback:
Width 66.3"
Track 57.1" front, 57.3" rear
Wheelbase 98.4"
Overall length 157.1"
Overall height 52.5"

Sedan:
Width 66.7"
Track 57.1" front, 57.3" rear
Wheelbase 98.4"
Overall length 168.8"
Overall height 53.5"

No curb weights are given in Honda shop manuals, just gross weights.

Assuming the diagrams are correctly scaled (not relative to each other,
just within each diagram), all of the 11.7" difference in overall length is
in the rear overhang. The fronts of both body styles appear to be
identical.

What I find interesting here is that the Integra of those same years (which
is Civic-based) has a 2" longer wheelbase in addition to 3.6" increased
length, sedan versus hatchback.


--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote
> i think if you're feeling a difference it's simply the
> fact that you've done the rear bushings on your car, and
> the others you've tried haven't been so lucky. it does
> make a big change to the way these cars handle.

I agree this is quite possible. (I know you think it's fact;
I am just expressing my own opinion.) For the record, on my
91 Civic, every single front lower arm bushing and all rear
arm bushings have been changed out. The front has almost new
OEM coils, too.

I am considering a 95 Civic DX with only 120k miles (two
owners, with much documentation of dealer maintenance) on it
that has a really good feel. It has no power steering but
the bushings may be better than the old hatches I have
tried. So my PS theory could be off. Also, I won't rule out
the ball joints (and more suspension) being older and less
well maintained on the hatchbacks I tried. IOW, overall worn
suspension, for one as you and I seem to agree, may be what
I am feeling.

Maybe the old hatches are also molested more than the
sedans. The younger crowd seems to prefer the hatches. The
sedans look like an old lady's car. The hatches, more like a
kid's. Not to deride those driving hatches and paying a
fraction of what the average driver pays for gas, though.
:-)

 

"Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote
> No curb weights are given in Honda shop manuals, just
> gross weights.

Edmunds.com has curb weights. Not saying they are right.
Just saying that's where I got my figures from. IIRC, at
least for my 91 Civic, the Edmunds curb weight and that on
my car's label match.

 

"Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote in newsny9k.2619$%q.2364
@newsfe24.lga:

> "Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote
>> No curb weights are given in Honda shop manuals, just
>> gross weights.
>
> Edmunds.com has curb weights. Not saying they are right.
> Just saying that's where I got my figures from. IIRC, at
> least for my 91 Civic, the Edmunds curb weight and that on
> my car's label match.
>
>


I've often wondered why curb weight isn't reported by Honda in its shop
manuals.

--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

"Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote
> I've often wondered why curb weight isn't
> reported by Honda in its shop manuals.

I see curb weight in at least one of the UK site's FS
manuals:
http://media.honda.co.uk/car/owner/m...sk301/3-14.pdf

 

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message news:LPydndNvWPZBO_vVnZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>>> Talking about active safety - how about ABS?
>>>> Which model years/trims had it already installed, which not?
>>>
>>> do you know much about abs? did you know that it doesn't necessarily
>>> stop you any quicker, and can in fact /increase/ braking distances?
>>> if you have an abs system on your car, open the owners manual and read
>>> what it says about that.
>>
>> Don't be such arrogant!
>
> what's a "such arrogant"?
>
>
>> I know exactly how ABS works and what are its effects on driving/breaking.
>
> you know how it works??? i'd love to read your explanation!

You are out of luck because you are not nice enough and you seem
to me to prefer staying with your ignorant point of view...

> btw, if you learned how to spell "b-r-a-k-i-n-g", you might be more
> convincing.

Is English your native language and you think everybody is the same as you?
Or that if somebody who makes some language mistakes
it is some indication of his lack of technical knowledge?
Don't be such an arrogant American who thinks that if somebody
does not speak or write perfect English his must be dumb in
everything else...

>> In my opinion the car with ABS in general is safer than the one without
>> one.
>
> what is your opinion based on exactly? it's not facts about braking
> distances because abs is not necessarily better in that regard. you
> /do/ know about abs systems, right?

Braking distance is not all what is important in car safety.
Do some reading and maybe you will learn what you are missing.

>> Buying older cars you loose this feature and some others, too.
>> It is buyer choice, of course, but I considered it worth mentioning
>> together with your coment about missing sway bars in newer model.
>>
>>> abs is /fantastic/ for people like my grandmother who will do
>>> something like skid on the freeway, all 4 wheels locked, and sit there
>>> pressing the pedal as hard as she can while she has absolutely no
>>> control of the vehicle whatsoever. when i'm old enough to drive like
>>> her, maybe i'll consider abs. in the mean time, as long as i know
>>> about cadence braking and friction coefficients, i'm quite happy with
>>> standard brakes thanks.
>>
>> Don't forget you are not talking about the car for yourself but for Elle.
>> She might be somebody's grandmother :-) Or - just a driver little more
>> educated in benefits of modern car safety systems than you...
>>
>>>> Talking more about safety systems... how about air bags? Would you
>>>> prefer driving with 20 years old airbag or 8 years old one?
>>>
>>> i prefer to have /no/ airbag! if true driver safety were the concern
>>> of gub'mint, roll cages, helmets and 5-point harnesses would be
>>> mandatory, not airbags. just like in race cars.
>>
>> This just tells me how uneducated/ignorant driver you are.
>
> buddy, helmets beat air bags every single time.

I am not your buddy.

>> Also, again I have to remind you that the choice is not yours but hers.
>> It is her car we are talking about. It is her decision if she wants car
>> with air bags or a death trap without one :-)
>
> keep drinking the kool-aid.
>
>
>>
>>>> Also, in case of unfortunate accident - how would you think 20 years
>>>> old body would perform compared to the 8 years old with no rust?
>>>
>>> mine's california and it has no rust. and 8 years in the rust belt is
>>> no guarantee of integrity if you want to be really pedantic.
>>
>> I am not talking about cosmetic rust but undercariage rust, ball joints,
>> etc.
>
> i'm not talking cosmetic either - that's why i take the trouble to
> specify "s-t-r-u-c-t-u-r-a-l" in the part you so carefully snipped but
> didn't annotate.

There will be no structural rust on 8 years old car but it is a good
chance that 20 years old civic will not be strong enough to crash safely.

>> Once again, I have to remind you that your advices are addressed to Elle.
>> Do you know where is she located? I do not recall her mentioning this.
>
> then you've not been here very long. or you don't know how to use
> google. or you're stupid and lazy.

I am here long enough to learn very well how arrogant and impolite you are.

 

"Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote in message news:Zjx9k.2613$oY2.433@newsfe21.lga...
> "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote
>> Don't forget you are not talking about the car for
>> yourself but for Elle.
>> She might be somebody's grandmother :-) Or - just a driver
>> little more educated in benefits of modern car safety
>> systems than you...
>
> Not to contradict you, but to get out my puny view: I have
> been restricting my search to older cars partly (very small
> part) because I do not want ABS. ABS is harder to maintain;
> has more that can go wrong; and I do not see significant
> advantage from a safety standpoint.
>
> I have always had a car without ABS.

Then how do you know you "prefer" car without ABS?
It is like saying I do not like chocolate icecream
without trying them :-)

To apreciate ABS you need to own a car with one.
Until you drive cars without it you do not know
what you are missing.

> I think JBeam is recalling, correctly, that I am in the
> southwest. No rust in general, though a few of the cars I
> have seen are from up north and show rust.

Texas? Phoenix?

> I finally read the fine print on carfax.com's connection to
> dealers: Every time a dealer looks up a vehicle history on
> carfax, the lookup goes into their system as a car that
> /might/ be traded in or just got sold. I think it would be
> luck to run across a Honda through this approach. I really
> do not trust the salespeople there to call me as soon as
> another 92-95 Civic comes in. They deal in the here and now.
> A phone call does not seem to be worth it to them.

I was talking about daily e-mail from carfax.com, not dealers.

 

"Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote in
news:n6z9k.5022$3q7.4125@newsfe15.lga:

> "Tegger" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote
>> I've often wondered why curb weight isn't
>> reported by Honda in its shop manuals.
>
> I see curb weight in at least one of the UK site's FS
> manuals:
> http://media.honda.co.uk/car/owner/m...Manual/62sk301
> /3-14.pdf
>
>
>


Interesting. I wonder if curb weight listings may be a European legal
requirement. Of particular and odd note here is the UK service manual's use
of the American spelling "curb" rather than the standard British spelling
of "kerb".

I notice our Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) appears to be called
"Max. Permissible Weight" over there.

Given the differences in powerplants, equipment and structure between
overseas and North America (and even between Canada and the US), I'd be
inclined to use curb weights as relative, comparative measures, not
absolute ones. You're doing that already, I know.



--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

"Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote
> Then how do you know you "prefer" car without ABS?

I prefer owning a car w/o ABS because I have (1) read the
reports of the additional effort required to work on brakes
w/ABS; (2) seen ABS parts fail on others' cars; (3) read
about how little advantage ABS is, especially for where I
live (little rain and snow). More complicated is undesirable
to me.

Your opinion of the better braking of ABS is noted. People
can google and see reports of how they are really not
notably superior especially for xyz situations and confirm
my opinion is shared by many.

 

Pszemol wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:LPydndNvWPZBO_vVnZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>>>> Talking about active safety - how about ABS?
>>>>> Which model years/trims had it already installed, which not?
>>>>
>>>> do you know much about abs? did you know that it doesn't
>>>> necessarily stop you any quicker, and can in fact /increase/ braking
>>>> distances? if you have an abs system on your car, open the owners
>>>> manual and read
>>>> what it says about that.
>>>
>>> Don't be such arrogant!
>>
>> what's a "such arrogant"?
>>
>>
>>> I know exactly how ABS works and what are its effects on
>>> driving/breaking.
>>
>> you know how it works??? i'd love to read your explanation!
>
> You are out of luck because you are not nice enough and you seem
> to me to prefer staying with your ignorant point of view...

oh, don't be a spoil-sport! tell us anyway!


>
>> btw, if you learned how to spell "b-r-a-k-i-n-g", you might be more
>> convincing.
>
> Is English your native language and you think everybody is the same as
> you? Or that if somebody who makes some language mistakes
> it is some indication of his lack of technical knowledge?
> Don't be such an arrogant American who thinks that if somebody
> does not speak or write perfect English his must be dumb in
> everything else...

honestly, i'm not as interested in your spelling as i am your ability to
have an opinion on something you don't seem to know anything about.


>
>>> In my opinion the car with ABS in general is safer than the one
>>> without one.
>>
>> what is your opinion based on exactly? it's not facts about braking
>> distances because abs is not necessarily better in that regard. you
>> /do/ know about abs systems, right?
>
> Braking distance is not all what is important in car safety.

eh? that's an incredibly bizarre statement! personally, i'd rather
avoid the accident than have one, and braking distance is a fundamental
component of that.


> Do some reading and maybe you will learn what you are missing.

i read extensively. you simply don't know what you don't know.


>
>>> Buying older cars you loose this feature and some others, too.
>>> It is buyer choice, of course, but I considered it worth mentioning
>>> together with your coment about missing sway bars in newer model.
>>>
>>>> abs is /fantastic/ for people like my grandmother who will do
>>>> something like skid on the freeway, all 4 wheels locked, and sit
>>>> there pressing the pedal as hard as she can while she has absolutely
>>>> no control of the vehicle whatsoever. when i'm old enough to drive
>>>> like her, maybe i'll consider abs. in the mean time, as long as i
>>>> know about cadence braking and friction coefficients, i'm quite
>>>> happy with standard brakes thanks.
>>>
>>> Don't forget you are not talking about the car for yourself but for
>>> Elle.
>>> She might be somebody's grandmother :-) Or - just a driver little
>>> more educated in benefits of modern car safety systems than you...
>>>
>>>>> Talking more about safety systems... how about air bags? Would you
>>>>> prefer driving with 20 years old airbag or 8 years old one?
>>>>
>>>> i prefer to have /no/ airbag! if true driver safety were the
>>>> concern of gub'mint, roll cages, helmets and 5-point harnesses would
>>>> be mandatory, not airbags. just like in race cars.
>>>
>>> This just tells me how uneducated/ignorant driver you are.
>>
>> buddy, helmets beat air bags every single time.
>
> I am not your buddy.

i'd be your buddy if a helmet saved your life!


>
>>> Also, again I have to remind you that the choice is not yours but hers.
>>> It is her car we are talking about. It is her decision if she wants car
>>> with air bags or a death trap without one :-)
>>
>> keep drinking the kool-aid.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>> Also, in case of unfortunate accident - how would you think 20 years
>>>>> old body would perform compared to the 8 years old with no rust?
>>>>
>>>> mine's california and it has no rust. and 8 years in the rust belt
>>>> is no guarantee of integrity if you want to be really pedantic.
>>>
>>> I am not talking about cosmetic rust but undercariage rust, ball
>>> joints, etc.
>>
>> i'm not talking cosmetic either - that's why i take the trouble to
>> specify "s-t-r-u-c-t-u-r-a-l" in the part you so carefully snipped but
>> didn't annotate.
>
> There will be no structural rust on 8 years old car

eh? have you ever been up north?


> but it is a good
> chance that 20 years old civic will not be strong enough to crash safely.

rubbish. my 19 year old california civic is completely rust free.


>
>>> Once again, I have to remind you that your advices are addressed to
>>> Elle.
>>> Do you know where is she located? I do not recall her mentioning this.
>>
>> then you've not been here very long. or you don't know how to use
>> google. or you're stupid and lazy.
>
> I am here long enough to learn very well how arrogant and impolite you are.

like i care!!!