Fat people? Less gas!

[Tom Sherman]

Greg Goss wrote:
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Greg Goss wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> [email protected] aka Huey Callison wrote:
>>>>> I drive an eight-year-old truck with 150,000 miles on it. It has failed
>>>>> to start one time - fuel pump went bad. $300 part and a couple hours of
>>>>> swearing later, and I'm still waiting for that next thing to go wrong.
>>>>> It's been six months. Other than that: two sets of tires, a brake job, a
>>>>> couple wiper blades, a light bulb or two, and regular oil changes - and
>>>>> those are all things you'd also have to do to a new car. So - explain to
>>>>> me how a new car helps me any more than what I have now?
>>>>>
>>>> Every used vehicle I have owned has required frequent and expensive
>>>> repairs. I refuse to gamble by going down that road again.
>>>>
>>>> I don't have time to screw around waiting for tow trucks, renting cars
>>>> while mine is fixed, waiting by the side of the road in West Grain
>>>> Elevator Iowa, taking calls from people wanting to know why the hell I
>>>> did not show up on time, etc.
>>> In 2000 I paid $3300 for a seven-year old car. In 2001 I paid $33,000
>>> for a new SUV. Other than the repairs required from dragging the
>>> Metro down the highway, the SUV cost us more in repairs than the Metro
>>> did. Much more.
>> Lesson - do not buy from manufacturers that make unreliable vehicles?
>
> The Metro has the initials "GM" and a Chev logo buried in the Geo
> planet logo. Wouldn't that advice chase me away from a GM?

The Geo Metro is a re-badged Suzuki.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
Tradition is the worst rational for action.

 

[Richard Evans]

Boron Elgar <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 02:23:43 -0600, Tom Sherman
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Lesson - do not buy from manufacturers that make unreliable vehicles?
>
>
>Lesson - you can get a good car or lemon from any manufacturer and in
>any model line.

Amen. From 1973 to 1998, I owned five Chevy pickups. The first was a
used CST, full size, 350-V8 with a four barrel. Most reliable vehicle
I ever owned. Sold me on Chevy's. Bought it with 60k on it, sold it
six years later with 120k, to a farmer who was still using it at 150k,
the last I heard.

I thereafter bought new: '79 Silverado, ' 81 LUV, '83 S-10, 86 S-10.

The '86 was, unfortunately, totaled a month before it was paid for, or
I'd probably still be driving it.

I took the insurance money and bought a new '89 Dakota convertible
pickup. Fun to drive but I had problems and traded for a new '92 Mazda
2300. That too was ultimately totaled, and I bought a used '94 Dakota.
That had more problems than my first Dakota. Traded it at 35k needing
a new timing chain, for a used '96 Dodge Ram (7k miles on it). More
problems (electrical and front end), so a year later I went back to
Chevy. I bought a new '98 S-10. It was such a lemon I traded it four
months later for a new '98 Ranger. Loved the ranger, fun to drive,
reliable. The Ranger was followed by my current '00 Mazda B-4000,
bought new in 2001. Mazda and Ranger share everything but the sheet
metal, but the Mazda has proven nowhere near as reliable as the
Ranger: Replace front disks and turn rotors at 35k, replace headlight
switch for $150, replace oil sender unit for another $150, and the
killer: replace BALL JOINTS at 45k. But, I'm closing in on retirement
and don't want a new car payment, so I keep it.

And those are just a handful of the hundred or so cars I've owned.
I've had new lemons, old lemons, sweet older rides, and limes that
aren't quite bitter enough to justify getting rid of.

 

[Greg Goss]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

>Greg Goss wrote:
>>> Lesson - do not buy from manufacturers that make unreliable vehicles?
>>
>> The Metro has the initials "GM" and a Chev logo buried in the Geo
>> planet logo. Wouldn't that advice chase me away from a GM?
>
>The Geo Metro is a re-badged Suzuki.

Which is why I bought it in the first place. It's a bit more complex
than merely "rebadged". Su designed the car and the factory for them,
but I think it was managed as a routine GM factory in Ontario in
operation. And, according to a local Su dealer, Suzuki never used the
1 litre engine that most of these were built with. Obviously, since
GM cannot build a reliable small engine to save their company, the 1
litre engine must be a Suzuki design, but if it was never used in the
Swift or the Forsa, it's not quite right to call it a "rebadged
Suzuki".

But the manufacturer was still GM, once Suzuki had built the factory
for them.

You're from the other side of this two-newsgroup discussion. AFCA is
proud of its nitpicking.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27

 

[Andrew Price]

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 23:02:37 -0700, Greg Goss <[email protected]> wrote:

>When my mother moved in 1992, downsizing her house, she used the
>change to buy a car. Her dealer had a bunch of essentially identical
>cars under both the "Tempo" and "Topaz" labels. I suggested that she
>ask her insurance agent. The Ford had MUCH lower insurance rates per
>year than the Mercury did.

Why?

 

[Greg Goss]

Andrew Price <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 23:02:37 -0700, Greg Goss <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>When my mother moved in 1992, downsizing her house, she used the
>>change to buy a car. Her dealer had a bunch of essentially identical
>>cars under both the "Tempo" and "Topaz" labels. I suggested that she
>>ask her insurance agent. The Ford had MUCH lower insurance rates per
>>year than the Mercury did.
>
>Why?

I don't have a clue. Perhaps Mercury owners need more rock chips and
other minor repairs made than Ford owners do? The Ford had amber rear
turn signals rather than the red ones in the Topaz. My fiancee at
the time thought that this was a significant safety issue. I'm not so
sure on that.

Mercury is not Pontiac, so I don't think we can say that the brand is
driven by maniacs. (an impression fostered by Pontiac's advertising
for several decades).

So I don't know why the difference in insurance. The pricing of these
off-rental (off lease? I don't remember) cars was slightly lower for
the Fords than the Mercuries. But the insurance rates were the
deciding factor in choosing which one.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27

 

[Greg Goss]

Richard Evans <[email protected]> wrote:

>I didn't say it was rock bottom, I said it was conservative. Of course
>some can get lower payments, especially if they stretch to 60-month
>financing. If you had a $300/month payment with zero interest you'd be
>paying $18k. The same for 48 months is $375. Are you trying to tell me
>that $18k is not at the lower spectrum of new car prices?

A year ago, I was shopping for a car. The finalists were two new
models and one no-longer-made model.

One of the finalists was the Suzuki Swift+. It doesn't get the gas
mileage I wanted, but the price difference could buy a lot of gas.

If you were willing to self-finance, the car was available for under
$12K plus taxes. And that was at a time when C$12K was worth about
US$11.

And I'm a lousy negotiator. If they were offering it to me for
$11,998, I'm sure someone else could have got it for $10,500.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27

 

[[email protected]]

On Nov 11, 10:51 am, Boron Elgar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Lesson - you can get a good car or lemon from any manufacturer and in
> any model line.
>
> The most unreliable cars ever owned in this household are a Toyota
> Camry, followed by a Honda Accord.
>
> Most reliable have been a Mercury Grand Marquis, two Ford Expeditions,
> A Chevy Silverado and a Nissan Murano.

But it does not follow that you should choose your car model at
random, without regard to reliability records. That would be like
saying "some people have fallen great heights and lived, so I'm going
skydiving without a parachute." It's smart to pay attention to
reliability data.

Again, I've found Consumer Reports survey data to be pretty
accurate.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Bob Ward]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 00:06:55 -0000, [email protected] wrote:

>On Nov 11, 10:51 am, Boron Elgar <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Lesson - you can get a good car or lemon from any manufacturer and in
>> any model line.
>>
>> The most unreliable cars ever owned in this household are a Toyota
>> Camry, followed by a Honda Accord.
>>
>> Most reliable have been a Mercury Grand Marquis, two Ford Expeditions,
>> A Chevy Silverado and a Nissan Murano.
>
>But it does not follow that you should choose your car model at
>random, without regard to reliability records. That would be like
>saying "some people have fallen great heights and lived, so I'm going
>skydiving without a parachute." It's smart to pay attention to
>reliability data.
>
>Again, I've found Consumer Reports survey data to be pretty
>accurate.
>
>- Frank Krygowski
>


.... or not... Suzuki Samurai was a hatchet job.

 

[Bob Ward]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 15:11:27 -0700, Greg Goss <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>If you were willing to self-finance, the car was available for under
>$12K plus taxes. And that was at a time when C$12K was worth about
>US$11.

I knew the ratio was bad at one time - but had no idea it was THAT
bad.

 

[Opus the Penguin]

Boron Elgar ([email protected]) wrote:

> Lesson - you can get a good car or lemon from any manufacturer and
> in any model line.
>
> The most unreliable cars ever owned in this household are a Toyota
> Camry, followed by a Honda Accord.
>
> Most reliable have been a Mercury Grand Marquis, two Ford
> Expeditions, A Chevy Silverado and a Nissan Murano.
>
> Gee, go figure.

That does seem to run counter to many people's experience--at least
on the Toyota and Honda being unreliable.

Our most unreliable car was my '79 Honda Accord. I should've check
Consumer Reports. They would've warned me about the brakes and the
possibility of blowing a head gasket.

Second most unreliable was an '87 Toyota Corolla, but it wasn't
particularly unreliable. It just had that problem with the cooling
system where the mechanics could never locate the leak. So we
replaced the thermostat, the radiator, hoses, you name it. It was one
of those infuriating single problems that we seemed to keep having
the car into the shop for.

The '86 Chevy Sprint was middling reliable. So was the '89 Ford
Escort. (Hand-me-down from Grandma. I wouldn't have bought it.)

The '86 Toyota Tercel was very reliable. The only time it ever
stranded anyone was when the timing belt broke at 100+k miles. (I
ended up doing something ethically questionable about that and I will
herewith confess. I picked up the stranded Mrs. Penguin and drove us
straight to AAA. I did not clarify with the agent whether the policy
covered pre-existing conditions. I suspect I would have been told
yes, but I decided to play it sneaky and not ask. I just drove to a
pay phone near our broken down car and called AAA for a tow truck. So
now my conscience nags me every so often when the weather changes.)

The '99 Altima has been quite reliable for the year and half we've
had it (from 125k to 145k miles).

The '94 Honda Civic has been super reliable for the three years we've
had it (from 65k to 120k miles). Not a problem to speak of except
what arose from hitting the deer, and you can hardly blame a car for
that.

Anecdotal though this all is, our experience has been basically what
Consumer Reports readers predicted. Except for the '87 Corolla and
the nagging unfixable problem.

--
Opus the Penguin
I'm not a lurker, but if I were, I would support you in email. -
Hactar

 

[Opus the Penguin]

Greg Goss ([email protected]) wrote:

> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Greg Goss wrote:
>>>> Lesson - do not buy from manufacturers that make unreliable
>>>> vehicles?
>>>
>>> The Metro has the initials "GM" and a Chev logo buried in the
>>> Geo planet logo. Wouldn't that advice chase me away from a GM?
>>
>>The Geo Metro is a re-badged Suzuki.
>
> Which is why I bought it in the first place. It's a bit more
> complex than merely "rebadged". Su designed the car and the
> factory for them, but I think it was managed as a routine GM
> factory in Ontario in operation. And, according to a local Su
> dealer, Suzuki never used the 1 litre engine that most of these
> were built with. Obviously, since GM cannot build a reliable
> small engine to save their company, the 1 litre engine must be a
> Suzuki design, but if it was never used in the Swift or the Forsa,
> it's not quite right to call it a "rebadged Suzuki".
>
> But the manufacturer was still GM, once Suzuki had built the
> factory for them.
>
> You're from the other side of this two-newsgroup discussion. AFCA
> is proud of its nitpicking.

I wouldn't say we're "proud" exactly. But we are competitive. Other
than that, you've made a fine post. Well, maybe not fine, but....

--
Opus the Penguin
I have to say, the combination of firearms, homemade booze, and Billy
Ray playing the bagpipes spells "fun" to me - Richard R. Hershberger

 

[[email protected]]

On Nov 11, 7:14 pm, Bob Ward <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 00:06:55 -0000, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
> >Again, I've found Consumer Reports survey data to be pretty
> >accurate.
>
> >- Frank Krygowski
>
> ... or not... Suzuki Samurai was a hatchet job.

You misread. I said their _survey_ data, not their editorializing.

Over the years, I've found many problems with their editorial
judgments. But the annual car issue reports the results of subscriber
surveys, with hundreds of thousands of people saying what's gone wrong
with their cars in the previous year. I find the data from those
surveys to be good information. It matched my experience, down to
specifying the parts of the car that would have trouble.

- Frank Krygowski