Michael Pardee wrote:
> "Elliot Richmond" <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote in message
> news:1f3q83p1vog835on65hq19emkelkm3r8v4@4ax.com...
>> Spousal unit wants a sedan (although she likes to haul around a bunch
>> of stuff, so I think a small, car-based multi-purpose vehicle would be
>> a good choice).
>>
>
> Darned troublesome spousal units. I thought there were supposed to be
> revisions and upgrades!
>
> Mike (whose spousal unit doesn't frequent these dark corners!)
>
>
>



Often, it may prove feasible to swap in the "spousal unit" rather than
the mode of transport...

JT

(No spousal unit to watch over me!)

 

"Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in message
news:yRcki.157551$Sa4.136909@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>
> Michael Pardee wrote:
>> "Elliot Richmond" <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote in message
>> news:1f3q83p1vog835on65hq19emkelkm3r8v4@4ax.com...
>>> Spousal unit wants a sedan (although she likes to haul around a bunch
>>> of stuff, so I think a small, car-based multi-purpose vehicle would be
>>> a good choice).
>>>
>>
>> Darned troublesome spousal units. I thought there were supposed to be
>> revisions and upgrades!
>>
>> Mike (whose spousal unit doesn't frequent these dark corners!)
>
>
>
> Often, it may prove feasible to swap in the "spousal unit" rather than the
> mode of transport...
>
> JT
>
> (No spousal unit to watch over me!)
>
>
Although the core charge can be exorbitant.

 

"Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in message
news:yRcki.157551$Sa4.136909@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>
> Michael Pardee wrote:
>> "Elliot Richmond" <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote in message
>> news:1f3q83p1vog835on65hq19emkelkm3r8v4@4ax.com...
>>> Spousal unit wants a sedan (although she likes to haul around a bunch
>>> of stuff, so I think a small, car-based multi-purpose vehicle would be
>>> a good choice).
>>>
>>
>> Darned troublesome spousal units. I thought there were supposed to be
>> revisions and upgrades!
>>
>> Mike (whose spousal unit doesn't frequent these dark corners!)
>
>
>
> Often, it may prove feasible to swap in the "spousal unit" rather than the
> mode of transport...
>
> JT
>
> (No spousal unit to watch over me!)
>
>
Although the core charge can be exorbitant.

 

"Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in message
news:yRcki.157551$Sa4.136909@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>
> Michael Pardee wrote:
>> "Elliot Richmond" <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote in message
>> news:1f3q83p1vog835on65hq19emkelkm3r8v4@4ax.com...
>>> Spousal unit wants a sedan (although she likes to haul around a bunch
>>> of stuff, so I think a small, car-based multi-purpose vehicle would be
>>> a good choice).
>>>
>>
>> Darned troublesome spousal units. I thought there were supposed to be
>> revisions and upgrades!
>>
>> Mike (whose spousal unit doesn't frequent these dark corners!)
>
>
>
> Often, it may prove feasible to swap in the "spousal unit" rather than the
> mode of transport...
>
> JT
>
> (No spousal unit to watch over me!)
>
>
Although the core charge can be exorbitant.

 

"Eric" <say.no@spam.now> wrote
> 100k miles is middle age for a well maintained Honda.
> They should go 250k
> miles or more. I currently have 253k miles on my '88
> Civic and I'm hoping
> to make to at least 300k or 350k miles (though more would
> be nice).

Hi Eric, is the oil consumption greater these days on your
88 Civic compared to say five-ten years ago? I am pretty
sure my 1991 Civic (197k miles) is consuming more oil these
days. At least, I find myself adding a 1/2 quart or so every
5k miles or so. I do not think this bad. Mileage remains
great at over 40 mpg. I still tend to think the rusting body
is going to give out before the engine does.

 

"Eric" <say.no@spam.now> wrote
> 100k miles is middle age for a well maintained Honda.
> They should go 250k
> miles or more. I currently have 253k miles on my '88
> Civic and I'm hoping
> to make to at least 300k or 350k miles (though more would
> be nice).

Hi Eric, is the oil consumption greater these days on your
88 Civic compared to say five-ten years ago? I am pretty
sure my 1991 Civic (197k miles) is consuming more oil these
days. At least, I find myself adding a 1/2 quart or so every
5k miles or so. I do not think this bad. Mileage remains
great at over 40 mpg. I still tend to think the rusting body
is going to give out before the engine does.

 

"Eric" <say.no@spam.now> wrote
> 100k miles is middle age for a well maintained Honda.
> They should go 250k
> miles or more. I currently have 253k miles on my '88
> Civic and I'm hoping
> to make to at least 300k or 350k miles (though more would
> be nice).

Hi Eric, is the oil consumption greater these days on your
88 Civic compared to say five-ten years ago? I am pretty
sure my 1991 Civic (197k miles) is consuming more oil these
days. At least, I find myself adding a 1/2 quart or so every
5k miles or so. I do not think this bad. Mileage remains
great at over 40 mpg. I still tend to think the rusting body
is going to give out before the engine does.

 

Michael Pardee wrote:
> "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in message
> news:yRcki.157551$Sa4.136909@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>>
>>Michael Pardee wrote:
>>
>>>"Elliot Richmond" <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote in message
>>>news:1f3q83p1vog835on65hq19emkelkm3r8v4@4ax.com ...
>>>
>>>>Spousal unit wants a sedan (although she likes to haul around a bunch
>>>>of stuff, so I think a small, car-based multi-purpose vehicle would be
>>>>a good choice).
>>>>
>>>
>>>Darned troublesome spousal units. I thought there were supposed to be
>>>revisions and upgrades!
>>>
>>>Mike (whose spousal unit doesn't frequent these dark corners!)
>>
>>
>>
>>Often, it may prove feasible to swap in the "spousal unit" rather than the
>>mode of transport...
>>
>>JT
>>
>>(No spousal unit to watch over me!)
>>
>>
>
> Although the core charge can be exorbitant.
>
>


Hmmmph!

Sacrifice the core, it ain't worth the effort to recyle...

Start fresh!!!

<G>

JT

 

Michael Pardee wrote:
> "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in message
> news:yRcki.157551$Sa4.136909@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>>
>>Michael Pardee wrote:
>>
>>>"Elliot Richmond" <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote in message
>>>news:1f3q83p1vog835on65hq19emkelkm3r8v4@4ax.com ...
>>>
>>>>Spousal unit wants a sedan (although she likes to haul around a bunch
>>>>of stuff, so I think a small, car-based multi-purpose vehicle would be
>>>>a good choice).
>>>>
>>>
>>>Darned troublesome spousal units. I thought there were supposed to be
>>>revisions and upgrades!
>>>
>>>Mike (whose spousal unit doesn't frequent these dark corners!)
>>
>>
>>
>>Often, it may prove feasible to swap in the "spousal unit" rather than the
>>mode of transport...
>>
>>JT
>>
>>(No spousal unit to watch over me!)
>>
>>
>
> Although the core charge can be exorbitant.
>
>


Hmmmph!

Sacrifice the core, it ain't worth the effort to recyle...

Start fresh!!!

<G>

JT

 

Michael Pardee wrote:
> "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in message
> news:yRcki.157551$Sa4.136909@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>>
>>Michael Pardee wrote:
>>
>>>"Elliot Richmond" <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote in message
>>>news:1f3q83p1vog835on65hq19emkelkm3r8v4@4ax.com ...
>>>
>>>>Spousal unit wants a sedan (although she likes to haul around a bunch
>>>>of stuff, so I think a small, car-based multi-purpose vehicle would be
>>>>a good choice).
>>>>
>>>
>>>Darned troublesome spousal units. I thought there were supposed to be
>>>revisions and upgrades!
>>>
>>>Mike (whose spousal unit doesn't frequent these dark corners!)
>>
>>
>>
>>Often, it may prove feasible to swap in the "spousal unit" rather than the
>>mode of transport...
>>
>>JT
>>
>>(No spousal unit to watch over me!)
>>
>>
>
> Although the core charge can be exorbitant.
>
>


Hmmmph!

Sacrifice the core, it ain't worth the effort to recyle...

Start fresh!!!

<G>

JT