On 2008-06-28, Pszemol <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote:
> 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 own a car with ABS. I live in the Northeast. I do find that it
comes in handy when driving on black ice, but if I lived in the South,
where snow and ice are rare, I'd prefer a car without it.



--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X

 

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 07:25:33 -0700, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>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.

WTF would you know? you live in california. THe biggest problem there
is rain after after 4 months without a drop onto oily pavement and
people driving into each other due to tailgating in fog at 80 mpg.

 

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message news:19adnevkOOlQU_vVnZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>> 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.

Read again what I have written. I did not say it is not important.
I am just saying it is not the only thing that matters.

>> 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.

of course. only you know it all.

>>> 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?

of course not, only you have been everywhere and know it all.
Everybody else is stupid compared to you, Majesty.

>> 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.

California again... Who is talking here about California besides you?
I was talking in general. Of course in places where rust is not an issue
structural rust will not be an issue. How hard is it to understand?

>>>> 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!!!

Exactly my point - you don't! And this is just the problem.

 

Pszemol wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:19adnevkOOlQU_vVnZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>>> 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.
>
> Read again what I have written. I did not say it is not important.
> I am just saying it is not the only thing that matters.

so wear a helmet!


>
>>> 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.
>
> of course. only you know it all.
>
>>>> 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?
>
> of course not, only you have been everywhere and know it all.
> Everybody else is stupid compared to you, Majesty.
>>> 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.
>
> California again... Who is talking here about California besides you?
> I was talking in general. Of course in places where rust is not an issue
> structural rust will not be an issue. How hard is it to understand?

how hard is it for you to stop ducking and diving? you made a blanket
condemnation of older vehicles on the premise of rust. i pointed out
that not only is it not that simple, but that /i/ have the privilege of
living in california where i get to own and drive a vehicle that doesn't
have that problem. so your bullshit blanket condemnation is wrong! or,
in your words, "How hard is it to understand?"


>
>>>>> 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!!!
>
> Exactly my point - you don't! And this is just the problem.

cry me a river.

 

AZ Nomad wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 07:25:33 -0700, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> WTF would you know? you live in california. THe biggest problem there
> is rain after after 4 months without a drop onto oily pavement and
> people driving into each other due to tailgating in fog at 80 mpg.
>

you contradict yourself.

 

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message news:9aadnQQNoaWSLPrVnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>>> rubbish. my 19 year old california civic is completely rust free.
>>
>> California again... Who is talking here about California besides you?
>> I was talking in general. Of course in places where rust is not an issue
>> structural rust will not be an issue. How hard is it to understand?
>
> how hard is it for you to stop ducking and diving? you made a blanket
> condemnation of older vehicles on the premise of rust. i pointed out
> that not only is it not that simple, but that /i/ have the privilege of
> living in california where i get to own and drive a vehicle that doesn't
> have that problem. so your bullshit blanket condemnation is wrong! or,
> in your words, "How hard is it to understand?"

Only reader lacking some screws in his head would assume
that my coment about rust would apply to car in California...

Also, I am really not sure why do you think a fact you live in California
is anyhow relevant to this discussion. Are we talking about new
car for you here? How many times are you going to mention
again YOUR location here?

>>>>>> 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!!!
>>
>> Exactly my point - you don't! And this is just the problem.
>
> cry me a river.

You are such a waste of my time...

 

"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message news:9aadnQcNoaUrLPrVnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
> AZ Nomad wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 07:25:33 -0700, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> WTF would you know? you live in california. THe biggest problem there
>> is rain after after 4 months without a drop onto oily pavement and
>> people driving into each other due to tailgating in fog at 80 mpg.
>
> you contradict yourself.

He just told you that you could benefit from ABS even without snow/ice in your area.

 

Pszemol wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote in message
> news:9aadnQcNoaUrLPrVnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t...
>> AZ Nomad wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 07:25:33 -0700, jim beam
>>> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> WTF would you know? you live in california. THe biggest problem there
>>> is rain after after 4 months without a drop onto oily pavement and
>>> people driving into each other due to tailgating in fog at 80 mpg.
>>
>> you contradict yourself.
>
> He just told you that you could benefit from ABS even without snow/ice
> in your area.
>

jeepers - how do the treacherous slippery oily pavement conditions we
get down here after the first few days of rain /possibly/ have anything
to do with treacherous slippery conditions of ice and snow?

 

Yesterday I found and purchased a 1993 Civic DX four door
sedan with 185k miles on it. I had actually been leaning
towards a newer car lately, but for one, finding a newer
used car in good condition with a clean title would cost a
lot more. I can afford more car, but fact is I wanted to
keep experimenting with older but great condition cars and
maybe save money.

I have computed the cost of owning and maintaining my 91
Civic (sans gasoline costs), and it comes to about $800 per
year. This is the initial purchase price plus oil changes,
timing belts, etc. divided by the number of years I have
owned it. It includes some high priced repairs from years
ago that I can now do myself, so I expect my yearly cost to
keep declining for some years.

On Craig's List, I did tire a little of all the multi-owner,
really often beat up and raised my sites (and budget). The
multi-owner part translates to an iffy maintenance history,
in my mind. Plus some of those owners seem to drive their
cars hard, because they know they will sell the car soon.

Here's why I ended up with the 93 Civic DX:

-- Single owner, as supported by Carfax (not 100% foolproof,
but I accept it for this car)
-- Everything under the hood works. The timing belt likely
needs replacement and could break tomorrow, but I factored
this into my price.
-- Fuel mileage better than most (all?) of the 95 and later
Civics that are most available.

The 95 Civic DX manual tranny could not be beat. A couple of
these crossed my radar. The problem was I found I really
liked power steering, and the 95 Civic DX manual tranny does
not have power steering. HX's are in short supply. By
contrast, the more fuel consuming EXs are abundant. The
coupes' small size started bothering me at some point, and I
went back to four-door sedans recently. <start agism and
sexism> More fitting for a woman my age, too.</end sexism
and agism>

One thing I am theorizing at this point is that the KBB
prices (private party and retail used) tend to reflect the
concept of one owner, so better car. The retail used cars
tend to be one owner. It makes a difference, from all I saw.
I ended up buying from a new car dealership that has just
started doing internet used car sales. I saw a new ad on
Friday and called Saturday. The sales pitch (if any) was
toned down compared to that to which I was used in regular
dealership sales departments. They still cajoled, behaving
like money should really--oh come on--not be an object. I
smiled and good humoredly quipped back that it was an
object, and "Here's why I need /this/ out-the-door price,
and why /you/ need this car off your lot... " I got a free
hot dog and two bottled waters out of the deal too. My local
advisor and I talked via cell phone during the
back-and-forth, and he said that lunch was just assumed to
be a part of the deal, so cut them no slack on the
out-the-door price we had planned, just because they'd fed
me. I was ready to walk away at all times. It is sure nice
having reliable wheels at one's disposal when buying used.
Anyway, working with the internet sales crew seemed
consistent with reports in the last few years here of
negotiating over the intenet for a car. The internet sales
departments are much less ridiculous as they try to make
their money. Knock-on-wood my new used car does not fall
apart in the next seven days.


My new used car sure drives nice. I have already tried it on
the highway for 40 miles or so. It is better aligned than my
91 Civic, or maybe the new 93 Civic has had some suspension
work. I found a better driving experience (compared to my
91) to be rare. Craig's List had a lot of cars that needed
the sort of work I do want to try some day, like CV joints
(that is, half shaft replacement) and a questionable A/C
system, but I wanted to try to start off with a fairly clean
history of maintenance. The value of this became clear as I
drove much newer, younger cars and compared the feel of
everything to my 91 Civic, the car I have owned and
maintained since 1991. My 91 Civic was way too often far
superior in feel, looks, and general condition.

I spent a little more, and I think I got a little more. If
this second Civic lasts five years, I will be quite happy
with the initial investment. We are looking at some serious
gas savings as well.

I did learn that autocheck.com is thought of as a wee bit
superior (and less expensive) than carfax.com, when it comes
to title checking.

I really do read all the posts to this and other threads. At
a minimum, they go into the "put 'em up on the shelf; take
'em down when you need 'em" category.

Forward with new experiences with the 93 Civic DX.

 

"Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote in message news:8Omek.27547$i55.22955@newsfe22.lga...
> Yesterday I found and purchased a 1993 Civic DX four door
> sedan with 185k miles on it.
> [..]
> I spent a little more, and I think I got a little more.

May I ask how much was it?
Thanks.

ps. good luck with your purchase!

 

"Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote
> "Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote
>> Yesterday I found and purchased a 1993 Civic DX four door
>> sedan with 185k miles on it.
>> [..]
>> I spent a little more, and I think I got a little more.
>
> May I ask how much was it?
> Thanks.
>
> ps. good luck with your purchase!

I paid $3400 out-the-door.

Excellent condition KBB private party is $2860 and retail
used is $4005.

The fuel mileage was a big factor in deciding whether to
purchase or not. From www.fueleconomy.gov city and highway
mpg (manual tranny only), and comparing to my 91 Civic:

93 Civic = 29 and 36 mpg laboratory; 6 actual drivers' lo
and hi = 33 and 45 mpg
91 Civic = 27 and 32 mpg laboratory; 7 actual drivers' lo
and hi = 27 and 39 mpg

 

"Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote in message news:mdJek.20482$%q.4865@newsfe24.lga...
> "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote
>> "Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote
>>> Yesterday I found and purchased a 1993 Civic DX four door
>>> sedan with 185k miles on it.
>>> [..]
>>> I spent a little more, and I think I got a little more.
>>
>> May I ask how much was it?
>> Thanks.
>>
>> ps. good luck with your purchase!
>
> I paid $3400 out-the-door.
>
> Excellent condition KBB private party is $2860 and retail
> used is $4005.

That is for me a lot of money for such an old car...
So there is still some hope for my 95 camry with 246k miles ;-)
Camrmax priced mine for $750 :-)

> The fuel mileage was a big factor in deciding whether to
> purchase or not. From www.fueleconomy.gov city and highway
> mpg (manual tranny only), and comparing to my 91 Civic:
>
> 93 Civic = 29 and 36 mpg laboratory; 6 actual drivers' lo
> and hi = 33 and 45 mpg
> 91 Civic = 27 and 32 mpg laboratory; 7 actual drivers' lo
> and hi = 27 and 39 mpg

I think fuel price for an average driver is kind of overrated.
It is not rational, it is just emotional - sticker shock effect.
Think about it - on average one can make - what? - 12000 a year?

Lets say you compare a car making 30mpg to a car making 35mpg.
12000/30 is 400 gallons. 12000/35 is 343 gallons. Difference
is 57 gallons. With todays price less than $5 per gallons it
is 57*5 = 285 dollars PER YEAR. 23 dollars per month...

Now let's do same math for a cars making 35mpg and with 40mpg.
12000/35 = 343 gallons, 12000/40 = 300 gallons, the diff: 43.
43 * 5 = 215 dollars PER YEAR. 18 dollars per month...

Is it really such a big deal to make a car purchase decisions based
mainly or solely on fuel consumption? I think sometimes we apply
too much value to higher mpg and we are ready to pay much too much
for a car with lower consumption compared to what the car is able
to save us on fuel cost...

The same applies to buying toyota prius and comparing it to - let's
say - toyota corolla or camry, but camry looks much bigger car...
The purchase price difference has to be compared to the amount
it is saved on gas between these two cars.

Of course one can speculate on future fuel prices - with the fuel
price per gallon, le'ts say $8, the situation would look different.
But we are still not there, yet :-)

 

"Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote
> Lets say you compare a car making 30mpg to a car making
> 35mpg.
> 12000/30 is 400 gallons. 12000/35 is 343 gallons.
> Difference
> is 57 gallons. With todays price less than $5 per gallons
> it
> is 57*5 = 285 dollars PER YEAR. 23 dollars per month...

~$20/month is something a lot of people do mind. That's a
nice lunch somewhere once a month. There's no point in
paying it, if it can be avoided. Twenty bucks here, twenty
there each month adds up.

 

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:28:41 -0700, Elle <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote:
>"Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote
>> Lets say you compare a car making 30mpg to a car making
>> 35mpg.
>> 12000/30 is 400 gallons. 12000/35 is 343 gallons.
>> Difference
>> is 57 gallons. With todays price less than $5 per gallons
>> it
>> is 57*5 = 285 dollars PER YEAR. 23 dollars per month...

>~$20/month is something a lot of people do mind. That's a
>nice lunch somewhere once a month. There's no point in
>paying it, if it can be avoided. Twenty bucks here, twenty
>there each month adds up.

Save it all up and you might be able to afford a new battery when the time
comes. The payback period for most hybrids is greater than the life of the
car. You'll have more money in your pocket if you simply get a standard
car. Better yet, get a one year old standard engine car. The difference
in cost will be more like $150/month.

 

"Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote in message news:zgKek.20378$oY2.1705@newsfe21.lga...
> "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote
>> Lets say you compare a car making 30mpg to a car making
>> 35mpg.
>> 12000/30 is 400 gallons. 12000/35 is 343 gallons.
>> Difference
>> is 57 gallons. With todays price less than $5 per gallons
>> it
>> is 57*5 = 285 dollars PER YEAR. 23 dollars per month...
>
> ~$20/month is something a lot of people do mind. That's a
> nice lunch somewhere once a month. There's no point in
> paying it, if it can be avoided. Twenty bucks here, twenty
> there each month adds up.

But if you pay a 1000 dollars more to save this $20 a month
it sounds silly. $20 a month is $240 a year, so spending
$1000 more (or maybe 5000 more in case of prius and other
hybrids) would not equalize after so many years that the
old car would not be worth this price difference...

Do you see my point?

Some people are so focused on milleage per gallon that
they forget the bigger picture and they overpay for
a car with a higher mileage much more than they save
on gas through the life of the car.