Bob Ward wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 23:32:48 -0600, Tom Sherman
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Bob Ward wrote:
>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:20:13 -0600, Tom Sherman
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> The sensible point of having money is that it can make problems go away.
>>>>>>> The sensible USE of money means that the careful shopper can make
>>>>>>> problems go away without spending too much money.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> And having a car that needs $0.20/mile in repair costs above and beyond
>>>>>> scheduled maintenance is not a sensible use of money.
>>>>> You keep thinking that your needs should be appropriate for everyone.
>>>> Hey, if you do not need reliable transportation, good for you. Do not
>>>> project that to others.
>>> You keep wanting to project as fact that an older car cannot be
>>> reliable.
>> Depends on a lot of factors. But you will not convince me that the 15+
>> year old vehicles some go on and on about will be reliable without
>> anything short of a full rebuild, which is NOT economical.
>
> Why should I feel compelled to convince you of anything?
>
You are arguing with me on Usenet, no?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
Bob Ward wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 23:32:48 -0600, Tom Sherman
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Bob Ward wrote:
>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:20:13 -0600, Tom Sherman
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> The sensible point of having money is that it can make problems go away.
>>>>>>> The sensible USE of money means that the careful shopper can make
>>>>>>> problems go away without spending too much money.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> And having a car that needs $0.20/mile in repair costs above and beyond
>>>>>> scheduled maintenance is not a sensible use of money.
>>>>> You keep thinking that your needs should be appropriate for everyone.
>>>> Hey, if you do not need reliable transportation, good for you. Do not
>>>> project that to others.
>>> You keep wanting to project as fact that an older car cannot be
>>> reliable.
>> Depends on a lot of factors. But you will not convince me that the 15+
>> year old vehicles some go on and on about will be reliable without
>> anything short of a full rebuild, which is NOT economical.
>
> Why should I feel compelled to convince you of anything?
>
You are arguing with me on Usenet, no?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
Bob Ward wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 23:32:48 -0600, Tom Sherman
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Bob Ward wrote:
>>> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:20:13 -0600, Tom Sherman
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> The sensible point of having money is that it can make problems go away.
>>>>>>> The sensible USE of money means that the careful shopper can make
>>>>>>> problems go away without spending too much money.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> And having a car that needs $0.20/mile in repair costs above and beyond
>>>>>> scheduled maintenance is not a sensible use of money.
>>>>> You keep thinking that your needs should be appropriate for everyone.
>>>> Hey, if you do not need reliable transportation, good for you. Do not
>>>> project that to others.
>>> You keep wanting to project as fact that an older car cannot be
>>> reliable.
>> Depends on a lot of factors. But you will not convince me that the 15+
>> year old vehicles some go on and on about will be reliable without
>> anything short of a full rebuild, which is NOT economical.
>
> Why should I feel compelled to convince you of anything?
>
You are arguing with me on Usenet, no?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
Jerry Bauer wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 21:34:02 -0800, Tom Sherman wrote
> (in article <[email protected]>):
>
>> Opus the Penguin wrote:
>>> A while back the Corolla (now gone) had
>>> persistent problems with the cooling system. The mechanics never
>>> figured out what was up with that. But it didn't mean I couldn't get
>>> in the car and drive it for 120 miles. I just needed to make sure it
>>> was filled with water.
>>>
>> That would annoy me to no end.
>
> Plus, you'd get all wet.
If I need to carry water, I will take the 1-ton with the 400 gallon tank
in the bed, not a Corolla full of water.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
Jerry Bauer wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 21:34:02 -0800, Tom Sherman wrote
> (in article <[email protected]>):
>
>> Opus the Penguin wrote:
>>> A while back the Corolla (now gone) had
>>> persistent problems with the cooling system. The mechanics never
>>> figured out what was up with that. But it didn't mean I couldn't get
>>> in the car and drive it for 120 miles. I just needed to make sure it
>>> was filled with water.
>>>
>> That would annoy me to no end.
>
> Plus, you'd get all wet.
If I need to carry water, I will take the 1-ton with the 400 gallon tank
in the bed, not a Corolla full of water.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
Jerry Bauer wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 21:34:02 -0800, Tom Sherman wrote
> (in article <[email protected]>):
>
>> Opus the Penguin wrote:
>>> A while back the Corolla (now gone) had
>>> persistent problems with the cooling system. The mechanics never
>>> figured out what was up with that. But it didn't mean I couldn't get
>>> in the car and drive it for 120 miles. I just needed to make sure it
>>> was filled with water.
>>>
>> That would annoy me to no end.
>
> Plus, you'd get all wet.
If I need to carry water, I will take the 1-ton with the 400 gallon tank
in the bed, not a Corolla full of water.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 12:12:55 -0500, Lee Ayrton <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>You aren't presenting that `55 as a street rod, you present it as a
>"proper[ly] [maintained] and repair[ed]" vintage automobile that is in
>"better shape" as a result of that activity than a modern vehicle. You
>omitted the fact that it had been heavily modified, making it not a fair
>comparison.
But not claiming that it was a daily driver - just pointing out that
age is not a criteria for the disposition of a car in all cases, and
refuting the statement that insurance would never replace a loss for
other than book value.
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 12:12:55 -0500, Lee Ayrton <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>You aren't presenting that `55 as a street rod, you present it as a
>"proper[ly] [maintained] and repair[ed]" vintage automobile that is in
>"better shape" as a result of that activity than a modern vehicle. You
>omitted the fact that it had been heavily modified, making it not a fair
>comparison.
But not claiming that it was a daily driver - just pointing out that
age is not a criteria for the disposition of a car in all cases, and
refuting the statement that insurance would never replace a loss for
other than book value.
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 12:12:55 -0500, Lee Ayrton <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>You aren't presenting that `55 as a street rod, you present it as a
>"proper[ly] [maintained] and repair[ed]" vintage automobile that is in
>"better shape" as a result of that activity than a modern vehicle. You
>omitted the fact that it had been heavily modified, making it not a fair
>comparison.
But not claiming that it was a daily driver - just pointing out that
age is not a criteria for the disposition of a car in all cases, and
refuting the statement that insurance would never replace a loss for
other than book value.
Jerry Bauer wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 03:21:41 -0800, Tom Sherman wrote
> (in article <[email protected]>):
>
>
>> Do you live in an area where road salt is excessive? In the upper
>> Midwest, salt corrosion eventually causes problems with any vehicle that
>> is driven year around, and this extends beyond cosmetic body rust to
>> brakes, shift linkages, wheels, wheel bearings, suspension parts,
>> exhaust systems, etc.
>
> Well, there's your problem. You live in the wrong place!
Well, we do not have earthquakes, forest fires, landslides, hurricanes
or a water shortage here by the Great Lakes.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
Jerry Bauer wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 03:21:41 -0800, Tom Sherman wrote
> (in article <[email protected]>):
>
>
>> Do you live in an area where road salt is excessive? In the upper
>> Midwest, salt corrosion eventually causes problems with any vehicle that
>> is driven year around, and this extends beyond cosmetic body rust to
>> brakes, shift linkages, wheels, wheel bearings, suspension parts,
>> exhaust systems, etc.
>
> Well, there's your problem. You live in the wrong place!
Well, we do not have earthquakes, forest fires, landslides, hurricanes
or a water shortage here by the Great Lakes.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
Jerry Bauer wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 03:21:41 -0800, Tom Sherman wrote
> (in article <[email protected]>):
>
>
>> Do you live in an area where road salt is excessive? In the upper
>> Midwest, salt corrosion eventually causes problems with any vehicle that
>> is driven year around, and this extends beyond cosmetic body rust to
>> brakes, shift linkages, wheels, wheel bearings, suspension parts,
>> exhaust systems, etc.
>
> Well, there's your problem. You live in the wrong place!
Well, we do not have earthquakes, forest fires, landslides, hurricanes
or a water shortage here by the Great Lakes.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 09:22:42 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>About the only thing that pickups are better at than station wagons,
>that and odd sized loads. Of course by having a small trailer for those
>times you take out the trash, even that is possible without mussing the
>interior and you get much more enclosed space, kind of a good thing when
>you are zooming down the road at 65 mph in the rain.
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 09:22:42 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>About the only thing that pickups are better at than station wagons,
>that and odd sized loads. Of course by having a small trailer for those
>times you take out the trash, even that is possible without mussing the
>interior and you get much more enclosed space, kind of a good thing when
>you are zooming down the road at 65 mph in the rain.
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 09:22:42 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>About the only thing that pickups are better at than station wagons,
>that and odd sized loads. Of course by having a small trailer for those
>times you take out the trash, even that is possible without mussing the
>interior and you get much more enclosed space, kind of a good thing when
>you are zooming down the road at 65 mph in the rain.
Tom Sherman wrote:
> Jerry Bauer wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 03:21:41 -0800, Tom Sherman wrote
>> (in article <[email protected]>):
>>
>>
>>> Do you live in an area where road salt is excessive? In the upper
>>> Midwest, salt corrosion eventually causes problems with any vehicle that
>>> is driven year around, and this extends beyond cosmetic body rust to
>>> brakes, shift linkages, wheels, wheel bearings, suspension parts,
>>> exhaust systems, etc.
>>
>> Well, there's your problem. You live in the wrong place!
>
> Well, we do not have earthquakes, forest fires, landslides, hurricanes
> or a water shortage here by the Great Lakes.
Boring!
(For the record, I spent my first 34 years in salt-encrusted Michigan.)
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
Tom Sherman wrote:
> Jerry Bauer wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 03:21:41 -0800, Tom Sherman wrote
>> (in article <[email protected]>):
>>
>>
>>> Do you live in an area where road salt is excessive? In the upper
>>> Midwest, salt corrosion eventually causes problems with any vehicle that
>>> is driven year around, and this extends beyond cosmetic body rust to
>>> brakes, shift linkages, wheels, wheel bearings, suspension parts,
>>> exhaust systems, etc.
>>
>> Well, there's your problem. You live in the wrong place!
>
> Well, we do not have earthquakes, forest fires, landslides, hurricanes
> or a water shortage here by the Great Lakes.
Boring!
(For the record, I spent my first 34 years in salt-encrusted Michigan.)
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
Tom Sherman wrote:
> Jerry Bauer wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 03:21:41 -0800, Tom Sherman wrote
>> (in article <[email protected]>):
>>
>>
>>> Do you live in an area where road salt is excessive? In the upper
>>> Midwest, salt corrosion eventually causes problems with any vehicle that
>>> is driven year around, and this extends beyond cosmetic body rust to
>>> brakes, shift linkages, wheels, wheel bearings, suspension parts,
>>> exhaust systems, etc.
>>
>> Well, there's your problem. You live in the wrong place!
>
> Well, we do not have earthquakes, forest fires, landslides, hurricanes
> or a water shortage here by the Great Lakes.
Boring!
(For the record, I spent my first 34 years in salt-encrusted Michigan.)
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
Lee Ayrton wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, Bob Ward wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 05:39:10 -0600, Tom Sherman
>>> Bob Ward wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 09:35:47 -0500, Lee Ayrton <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> To be fair, that `55 required more routine maintenance when it was
>>>>> still
>>>>> new than cars manufactured in the past decade do now -- plugs,
>>>>> points and
>>>>> condensor, for example, which needed attention or replacement every
>>>>> few
>>>>> thousand miles while modern cars go tens of thousands of miles without
>>>>> needing tuning at all. The metalurgy behind bearings, rings, cylinder
>>>>> walls and other wear surfaces was not what it is today and those items
>>>>> were subject to much more wear then than in modern vehicles.
>>>>
>>>> That was true of the original engine - but the current power is a rat
>>>> motor (crate engine, I'm pretty sure) with a six-speed trans behind
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> It was pretty much a street racer for many years - no back seat, roll
>>>> cage and racing buckets installed, etc., but with age has come
>>>> enlightenment - this last year he installed A/C - it's just a toy,
>>>> now.
>>>>
>>> A toy is not a daily commuter/business travel vehicle.
>>
>> That was never stated, inferred, or implied.
>
> Well, Bob, let's see what you wrote farther up, in context:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.cecil-adams/msg/ff9571506f10cab0
> [begin quote -- attribution marks as in the original]------------------
>
>>> See, the trouble is, you're not driving an old-enough car.
>
>> Get much older and all the rubber parts start to go.
>
>> Late 1980s to early 1990s cars are to be avoided at all costs, due to
>> those stupid motorized seatbelts.
>
> Again - it all comes down to proper maintenance and repair. I have a
> friend who owns and drives a 1955 Chevy. He's owned the car for over
> forty years. I suspect it is in considerably better shape than the
> current disposable car you seem to be so proud of will be in five
> years.
>
> Since there is no "book value" on a 1955 Chevy, he has an agreed value
> policy that places its value at $45,000, and can provide independent
> appraisals and comparables to support it.
> [end quote]-------------------------------------------------------
>
> You aren't presenting that `55 as a street rod, you present it as a
> "proper[ly] [maintained] and repair[ed]" vintage automobile that is in
> "better shape" as a result of that activity than a modern vehicle. You
> omitted the fact that it had been heavily modified, making it not a fair
> comparison....
Indeed. I doubt even the most die-hard Chevy fanatic would claim that a
1995 Chevy would hold up to 40+ years of regular commuting use, with
just regular maintenance.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
Lee Ayrton wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, Bob Ward wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 05:39:10 -0600, Tom Sherman
>>> Bob Ward wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 09:35:47 -0500, Lee Ayrton <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> To be fair, that `55 required more routine maintenance when it was
>>>>> still
>>>>> new than cars manufactured in the past decade do now -- plugs,
>>>>> points and
>>>>> condensor, for example, which needed attention or replacement every
>>>>> few
>>>>> thousand miles while modern cars go tens of thousands of miles without
>>>>> needing tuning at all. The metalurgy behind bearings, rings, cylinder
>>>>> walls and other wear surfaces was not what it is today and those items
>>>>> were subject to much more wear then than in modern vehicles.
>>>>
>>>> That was true of the original engine - but the current power is a rat
>>>> motor (crate engine, I'm pretty sure) with a six-speed trans behind
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> It was pretty much a street racer for many years - no back seat, roll
>>>> cage and racing buckets installed, etc., but with age has come
>>>> enlightenment - this last year he installed A/C - it's just a toy,
>>>> now.
>>>>
>>> A toy is not a daily commuter/business travel vehicle.
>>
>> That was never stated, inferred, or implied.
>
> Well, Bob, let's see what you wrote farther up, in context:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.cecil-adams/msg/ff9571506f10cab0
> [begin quote -- attribution marks as in the original]------------------
>
>>> See, the trouble is, you're not driving an old-enough car.
>
>> Get much older and all the rubber parts start to go.
>
>> Late 1980s to early 1990s cars are to be avoided at all costs, due to
>> those stupid motorized seatbelts.
>
> Again - it all comes down to proper maintenance and repair. I have a
> friend who owns and drives a 1955 Chevy. He's owned the car for over
> forty years. I suspect it is in considerably better shape than the
> current disposable car you seem to be so proud of will be in five
> years.
>
> Since there is no "book value" on a 1955 Chevy, he has an agreed value
> policy that places its value at $45,000, and can provide independent
> appraisals and comparables to support it.
> [end quote]-------------------------------------------------------
>
> You aren't presenting that `55 as a street rod, you present it as a
> "proper[ly] [maintained] and repair[ed]" vintage automobile that is in
> "better shape" as a result of that activity than a modern vehicle. You
> omitted the fact that it had been heavily modified, making it not a fair
> comparison....
Indeed. I doubt even the most die-hard Chevy fanatic would claim that a
1995 Chevy would hold up to 40+ years of regular commuting use, with
just regular maintenance.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.
