Re: Digital Cameras For Beginners: When All You Want To Do Is Take ?Pictures

[M-gineering]

still just me wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 03:16:28 -0000, "Clive George"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Ryan Cousineau" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:rcousine-FA12DA.17441718112007@[74.223.185.199.nw.nuvox.net]...
>
>>> VW diesels can be bought here, but I assume the size/price/fuel cost
>>> factors aren't quite as attractive as the Prius.
>> Your side of the pond, probably not.
>
> Over this side they're all smelly, loud, and underpowered.
>
>>

which brings us neatly round to the original assumption
--
/Marten

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> The SD800 IS is the Olympus XA of the twenty-first century. What
> self-respecting bicyclist of the twentieth century didn't own an Olympus
> XA (not the XA2 or XA4)?

Umm... me?

Olympus D-220L, Olympus D340, Olympus 450Z, Olympus D-40, Fuji 510 (the only
real dog in the bunch, chosen too quickly for a trip to Hawaii, based on its
28mm wide lens), Fuji F10, Fuji F30.

The nice thing about the Fuji F10/F30 is the high quality at high ISO
levels, allowing you to kick up the ISO as high as 800 and still get nice
shots. This is important for photos taken while riding because light may not
be optimal (think Tunitas Creek if you're in Northern California) yet you
still need a relatively-high shutter speed. The F10 unfortunately didn't
allow enough manual control; the F30 was basically the same camera with more
ability to dial things in.

The Canon SD800 & SD870 (which replaces it) probably have better optics than
the Fuji F10/30/40 series of cameras, but unfortunately get very noisy at
higher ISOs. The image stabilization will definitely help in that regard,
although that deals with shake, not movement of what you're photographing
(or your own movement, for that matter).

Of course, if you're sensible and not trying to get photos *while* riding, a
camera with effective IS is a wonderful thing.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"SMS ???. ?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> I think the Canon PowerShot SD800 IS has features that appeal to most
>> bicyclists. It has a large view screen, plus a view lense that comes
>> in handy in light where the viewer is hard to see. It's battery last
>> a long time between charges and the camera is smaller than most.
>> Beyond that, its advanced features are essentially in its background
>> and can be ignored by the beginner.
>
> Not just to bicyclists. In fact, it's the _only_ small camera on the
> market with:
>
> a) optical viewfinder
> b) wide-angle lens
> c) image-stabilization
> d) Li-Ion battery
>
> There are _no_ other small cameras on the market with these seemingly
> basic features. Almost no small cameras have a wide-angle lens, and the
> optical viewfinder has disappeared from most cameras.
>
> What this means is that the SD800 IS is sure to be discontinued very soon.
>
> The SD800 IS is the Olympus XA of the twenty-first century. What
> self-respecting bicyclist of the twentieth century didn't own an Olympus
> XA (not the XA2 or XA4)?
>

 

[Werehatrack]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 06:52:39 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> may
have said:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> M-gineering aka Marten Gerritsen wrote:
>> > Lou Holtman wrote:
>> > Thank god you drive one the right side of the road.
>> >>
>> >> Lou
>> >
>> > <asbestos> who cares, Merkin cars are shite anyhow </asbestos>
>>
>> The cars built in the US by Japanese companies are higher quality and a
>> better value than those made in Europe. Of course, many USians buy
>> expensive [1] European cars due to the "Heritage & Mystique®" factor.
>>
>> [1] The Europeans abandoned the inexpensive car market in the US, since
>> they were not able to compete.
>
>VW Rabbit starts at $15.5k.

It was **** the first time they stuck that badge on a car for the US
market, for all that it was fun to drive. From what I've seen looking
under the hood, the new "Rabbit" (still just a rebadged Golf) is not
all that much better by comparison to its contemporary competitors
than the original Rabbit was by comparison to the cars of that day.

BTW, I was working for VW dealers in the days of the original Rabbit.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[Werehatrack]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 22:08:11 +0100, Andrew Price <[email protected]> may
have said:

>On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 19:37:45 +0100, M-gineering
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> [1] The Europeans abandoned the inexpensive car market in the US, since
>>> they were not able to compete.
>>>
>>Funny you should say that, US brands abandoned the European (luxury)
>>market for the same reason
>
>Plus the fact that most American cars handle like a wheelbarrow full
>of water didn't help matters much, either.

Yeah, try pitching an unmodified early-'70s Detriot sled into a
serious curve at 90+. Pay your insurance premium first, though.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[Patrick Lamb]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 18:19:55 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
>
>The Canon SD800 & SD870 (which replaces it) probably have better optics than
>the Fuji F10/30/40 series of cameras, but unfortunately get very noisy at
>higher ISOs. The image stabilization will definitely help in that regard,
>although that deals with shake, not movement of what you're photographing
>(or your own movement, for that matter).
>
>Of course, if you're sensible and not trying to get photos *while* riding, a
>camera with effective IS is a wonderful thing.

After my last century, I've decided I'll take a camera on every big
ride. Stop in the middle of the monster climb, and people passing you
look at you like, "What's with that loser, stopping while I'm still
climbing?" Pull out the camera, grab a drink while it comes on, walk
around a little, and the same people voice things like, "That is a
(huff) nice view (puff)," and look like they're jealous. And of
course there's another view through the brush 20 yards up, so you just
hike up there while holding the camera high.

Pat

Email address works as is.

 

[still just me]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 16:05:37 -0600, Werehatrack
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>Plus the fact that most American cars handle like a wheelbarrow full
>>of water didn't help matters much, either.
>
>Yeah, try pitching an unmodified early-'70s Detriot sled into a
>serious curve at 90+. Pay your insurance premium first, though.

No arguments here. Many of us Americans were driving foreign cars for
years and/or modifying them to get good handling machines. You
couldn't make those POS American muscle cars handle well if your life
depended on it (oh... and it did!). The American luxury cars were even
worse. Fact is, many Americans still don't have a clue about handling
and they don't even know what they're missing.

 

[Tom Sherman]

"jim beam" wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> still just me wrote:
>>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 15:20:09 +0100, Jasper Janssen
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Note, though, that the optical viewfinder is mostly useless. It's tiny,
>>>> and my big nose gets in the way. Usable, just barely, in
>>>> emergencies. The
>>>> LCD is actually really good, and doesn't wash completely out under
>>>> anything except the very most difficult circumstances, and battery
>>>> life is
>>>> still awesome (compared to the 2AA and 4AA NiMH Olympuses I've used
>>>> before, for sure).
>>>
>>> A general comment though: For the OP' stated intent of "just take
>>> pictures", an optical viewfinder is fine. Shutting of the digital
>>> display is a major battery saving step.
>>
>> The feature that I really want in a camera is a hidden explosive
>> charge that can be remotely activated to blow the hell out of the
>> thief that steals it.
>>
>
> better yet - label with "property of tom sherman". that way, any
> would-be thief will stay away from an object that has no memory, can't
> focus, whines excessively, can't operate when upright, and never
> produces nothing of any value whatsoever.

Do not quit your day job, "jim".

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"the grinning buddy bear carries a fork." - g.d.

 

[Tom Sherman]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> M-gineering aka Marten Gerritsen wrote:
>>>>> Lou Holtman wrote:
>>>>> Thank god you drive one the right side of the road.
>>>>>> Lou
>>>>> <asbestos> who cares, Merkin cars are shite anyhow </asbestos>
>>>> The cars built in the US by Japanese companies are higher quality and a
>>>> better value than those made in Europe. Of course, many USians buy
>>>> expensive [1] European cars due to the "Heritage & Mystique®" factor.
>>>>
>>>> [1] The Europeans abandoned the inexpensive car market in the US, since
>>>> they were not able to compete.
>>> VW Rabbit starts at $15.5k.
>>>
>> Is VW making any money off of it, or is it a "loss leader"? The Golf
>> Mark 5 is reported to be an expensive car to build. Also, will it match
>> the Japanese transplants in quality and maintenance costs (it does have
>> significantly worse fuel consumption).
>
> IF VW was losing money on the Rabbit/Jetta/New Beetle platform (also
> used for the Audi A4), then they would be bankrupt.

I was referring specifically to the base model Rabbit at $15.5K USD as
the "loss leader". Most of the Rabbits at the local dealer are optioned
up to $18+K USD, and the Jetta and Audi A4 are considerably more
expensive than the Rabbit.

> In Canada, they sell the Mark 4 model (new) as the "City Golf" and "City
> Jetta" for less than the new versions.
>
> The Mark 6 will probably hit Europe in 2008.
>
> More to the point, if the Rabbit is a loss leader, then that rather
> grossly undercuts your theory that heritage and mystique is driving
> Americans to overpay for European cars.

Different markets. Except for the new Rabbit, VW has been trying to
position itself (in the US) as a near luxury brand, and not a "peoples
car" to compete with Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc. When I bought my 2005
Civic, a comparably equipped and similar size Jetta was several thousand
dollars more expensive.

> However, it is worth noting that none of the French marques or Fiat are
> currently represented in North America, and all tend to focus on
> mainstream "family" cars, as opposed to luxury or sports machines.

Except for VW, there are no non-luxury European marques sold in the US.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"the grinning buddy bear carries a fork." - g.d.

 

[Tom Sherman]

Werehatrack wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 06:52:39 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> may
> have said:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> M-gineering aka Marten Gerritsen wrote:
>>>> Lou Holtman wrote:
>>>> Thank god you drive one the right side of the road.
>>>>> Lou
>>>> <asbestos> who cares, Merkin cars are shite anyhow </asbestos>
>>> The cars built in the US by Japanese companies are higher quality and a
>>> better value than those made in Europe. Of course, many USians buy
>>> expensive [1] European cars due to the "Heritage & Mystique®" factor.
>>>
>>> [1] The Europeans abandoned the inexpensive car market in the US, since
>>> they were not able to compete.
>> VW Rabbit starts at $15.5k.
>
> It was **** the first time they stuck that badge on a car for the US
> market, for all that it was fun to drive. From what I've seen looking
> under the hood, the new "Rabbit" (still just a rebadged Golf) is not
> all that much better by comparison to its contemporary competitors
> than the original Rabbit was by comparison to the cars of that day.
>
> BTW, I was working for VW dealers in the days of the original Rabbit.
>
The competition was less in the days of the original Golf 1/Rabbit.
Except for the Honda Civic and Accord, what was better in term of
design, performance and quality at a comparable price?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"the grinning buddy bear carries a fork." - g.d.

 

[Tom Sherman]

M-gineering aka Marten Gerritsen wrote:
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> M-gineering aka Marten Gerritsen wrote:
>>> Lou Holtman wrote:
>>> Thank god you drive one the right side of the road.
>>>>
>>>> Lou
>>>
>>> <asbestos> who cares, Merkin cars are shite anyhow </asbestos>
>>
>> The cars built in the US by Japanese companies are higher quality and
>> a better value than those made in Europe. Of course, many USians buy
>> expensive [1] European cars due to the "Heritage & Mystique®" factor.
>>
>> [1] The Europeans abandoned the inexpensive car market in the US,
>> since they were not able to compete.
>>
> Funny you should say that, US brands abandoned the European (luxury)
> market for the same reason
>
The non-luxury European cars were not driven from the US market by
"Detroit" products, but vehicles produced in the US by Toyota, Honda,
Nissan, et al.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"the grinning buddy bear carries a fork." - g.d.

 

[still just me]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 04:24:33 -0600, Tom Sherman
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>> [1] The Europeans abandoned the inexpensive car market in the US,
>>> since they were not able to compete.
>>>
>> Funny you should say that, US brands abandoned the European (luxury)
>> market for the same reason
>>
>The non-luxury European cars were not driven from the US market by
>"Detroit" products, but vehicles produced in the US by Toyota, Honda,
>Nissan, et al.

Quality was terrible in the non-luxury Euro cars that were imported.

 

[Ben Micklem]

in article [email protected], Tom Sherman at
[email protected] wrote on 20/11/07 10:17:

> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>> IF VW was losing money on the Rabbit/Jetta/New Beetle platform (also
>> used for the Audi A4), then they would be bankrupt.
>
> I was referring specifically to the base model Rabbit at $15.5K USD as
> the "loss leader". Most of the Rabbits at the local dealer are optioned
> up to $18+K USD, and the Jetta and Audi A4 are considerably more
> expensive than the Rabbit.

The A4 is not based on the Golf platform, the A3 is. There is no VW that
shares the current Audi A4/A5 platform. An older A4 shared a platform with
the Passat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_A_platform

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_B_platform

 

[clare at snyder.on.ca]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 05:53:49 GMT, still just me
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 16:05:37 -0600, Werehatrack
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>Plus the fact that most American cars handle like a wheelbarrow full
>>>of water didn't help matters much, either.
>>
>>Yeah, try pitching an unmodified early-'70s Detriot sled into a
>>serious curve at 90+. Pay your insurance premium first, though.
>
>No arguments here. Many of us Americans were driving foreign cars for
>years and/or modifying them to get good handling machines. You
>couldn't make those POS American muscle cars handle well if your life
>depended on it (oh... and it did!). The American luxury cars were even
>worse. Fact is, many Americans still don't have a clue about handling
>and they don't even know what they're missing.

It WAS possible to make old American iron handle. It just took proper
sway bars, better springs and shocks, and the balls to try something
different where alignment specs were concerned.
My 1963 Valiant handled as well as my brother's 67 Rover TC. It was
lowered and stiffened - extra heavy duty shocks and sway bars, and
cornered like it was on rails. Negative camber helped . It was pretty
well neutral exibiting a bit of oversteer on trailing throttle or
braking IIRC. Ride was a bit harsh on C70-13 rubber. 200+ BHP to the
rear wheels through a 3 speed push button automatic from a warmed over
170 inch "leaning tower of power"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[A Muzi]

>>>> Plus the fact that most American cars handle like a wheelbarrow full
>>>> of water didn't help matters much, either.

>> Werehatrack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Yeah, try pitching an unmodified early-'70s Detriot sled into a
>>> serious curve at 90+. Pay your insurance premium first, though.

> still just me <[email protected]> wrote:
>> No arguments here. Many of us Americans were driving foreign cars for
>> years and/or modifying them to get good handling machines. You
>> couldn't make those POS American muscle cars handle well if your life
>> depended on it (oh... and it did!). The American luxury cars were even
>> worse. Fact is, many Americans still don't have a clue about handling
>> and they don't even know what they're missing.

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
> It WAS possible to make old American iron handle. It just took proper
> sway bars, better springs and shocks, and the balls to try something
> different where alignment specs were concerned.
> My 1963 Valiant handled as well as my brother's 67 Rover TC. It was
> lowered and stiffened - extra heavy duty shocks and sway bars, and
> cornered like it was on rails. Negative camber helped . It was pretty
> well neutral exibiting a bit of oversteer on trailing throttle or
> braking IIRC. Ride was a bit harsh on C70-13 rubber. 200+ BHP to the
> rear wheels through a 3 speed push button automatic from a warmed over
> 170 inch "leaning tower of power"

thanks for that warm nostalgic moment. mmmmmm . . . slant six...
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[clare at snyder.on.ca]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:44:28 -0600, A Muzi <[email protected]>
wrote:

>>>>> Plus the fact that most American cars handle like a wheelbarrow full
>>>>> of water didn't help matters much, either.
>
>>> Werehatrack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Yeah, try pitching an unmodified early-'70s Detriot sled into a
>>>> serious curve at 90+. Pay your insurance premium first, though.
>
>> still just me <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> No arguments here. Many of us Americans were driving foreign cars for
>>> years and/or modifying them to get good handling machines. You
>>> couldn't make those POS American muscle cars handle well if your life
>>> depended on it (oh... and it did!). The American luxury cars were even
>>> worse. Fact is, many Americans still don't have a clue about handling
>>> and they don't even know what they're missing.
>
>clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
>> It WAS possible to make old American iron handle. It just took proper
>> sway bars, better springs and shocks, and the balls to try something
>> different where alignment specs were concerned.
>> My 1963 Valiant handled as well as my brother's 67 Rover TC. It was
>> lowered and stiffened - extra heavy duty shocks and sway bars, and
>> cornered like it was on rails. Negative camber helped . It was pretty
>> well neutral exibiting a bit of oversteer on trailing throttle or
>> braking IIRC. Ride was a bit harsh on C70-13 rubber. 200+ BHP to the
>> rear wheels through a 3 speed push button automatic from a warmed over
>> 170 inch "leaning tower of power"
>
>thanks for that warm nostalgic moment. mmmmmm . . . slant six...
The 170 revved almost as well as a lot of today's Japanese iron. 6500
RPM was very common on that engine - the 225 was wound pretty tight at
5000. 1 inch of stroke seemed to make quite a bit of difference.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[still just me]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 14:05:43 -0500, clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:

>It WAS possible to make old American iron handle. It just took proper
>sway bars, better springs and shocks, and the balls to try something
>different where alignment specs were concerned.

Given enough time and money, you can make anything perform like you
want. My experience was that to make those tanks handle that you had
to turn them into harsh riding rails. The large motors (to haul around
those overweight ships at a reasonable rates) caused weight
displacement issues. Not to mention, the brakes sucked, the
transmissions shifted like a tractor, and the steering systems were
always way too slow. Again, enough money/time/parts and you could rn
them at Nascar... but they rode like it when you were done.

With foreign cars, I could get great handling with a reasonable ride
as well as acceptable braking, shifting, and power - for much less
investment in time and materials.

The only thing we couldn't get was any respect

 

[SMS 斯蒂文• 夏]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> The SD800 IS is the Olympus XA of the twenty-first century. What
>> self-respecting bicyclist of the twentieth century didn't own an Olympus
>> XA (not the XA2 or XA4)?
>
> Umm... me?
>
> Olympus D-220L, Olympus D340, Olympus 450Z, Olympus D-40, Fuji 510 (the only
> real dog in the bunch, chosen too quickly for a trip to Hawaii, based on its
> 28mm wide lens), Fuji F10, Fuji F30.

Right, but if you're old enough to remember film cameras, what were you
using at the end of the last century, especially in the 1980's? The
Olympus XA rangefinder was like the super-standard for cyclists and
backpackers due to its quality and small size and detachable flash
attachment.

> The Canon SD800 & SD870 (which replaces it) probably have better optics than
> the Fuji F10/30/40 series of cameras, but unfortunately get very noisy at
> higher ISOs. The image stabilization will definitely help in that regard,
> although that deals with shake, not movement of what you're photographing
> (or your own movement, for that matter).

The SD870 IS drops the viewfinder, and increases the pixel count, which
means more noise. For now, both are still up as current models on the
Canon Powershot site ("http://powershot.com") but I'm sure that the
SD800 IS will be gone soon. The reviews of the SD800 IS claim that noise
levels are acceptable up to ISO 400. One advantage of the Canon
Powershot line is the availability of the wireless flash, which will
allow you to shoot at lower ISO in some situations.

 

[Tom Sherman]

clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:44:28 -0600, A Muzi <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Plus the fact that most American cars handle like a wheelbarrow full
>>>>>> of water didn't help matters much, either.
>>>> Werehatrack <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Yeah, try pitching an unmodified early-'70s Detriot sled into a
>>>>> serious curve at 90+. Pay your insurance premium first, though.
>>> still just me <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> No arguments here. Many of us Americans were driving foreign cars for
>>>> years and/or modifying them to get good handling machines. You
>>>> couldn't make those POS American muscle cars handle well if your life
>>>> depended on it (oh... and it did!). The American luxury cars were even
>>>> worse. Fact is, many Americans still don't have a clue about handling
>>>> and they don't even know what they're missing.
>> clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
>>> It WAS possible to make old American iron handle. It just took proper
>>> sway bars, better springs and shocks, and the balls to try something
>>> different where alignment specs were concerned.
>>> My 1963 Valiant handled as well as my brother's 67 Rover TC. It was
>>> lowered and stiffened - extra heavy duty shocks and sway bars, and
>>> cornered like it was on rails. Negative camber helped . It was pretty
>>> well neutral exibiting a bit of oversteer on trailing throttle or
>>> braking IIRC. Ride was a bit harsh on C70-13 rubber. 200+ BHP to the
>>> rear wheels through a 3 speed push button automatic from a warmed over
>>> 170 inch "leaning tower of power"
>> thanks for that warm nostalgic moment. mmmmmm . . . slant six...
> The 170 revved almost as well as a lot of today's Japanese iron. 6500
> RPM was very common on that engine - the 225 was wound pretty tight at
> 5000. 1 inch of stroke seemed to make quite a bit of difference.
>
The "slant six" in the old (1972, I think) Plymouth Duster I drove for a
bit (not owned, however) did not produce high end power like the VTEC
engines in my last two Civics that pull hard all the way to the 7500 RPM
fuel cutoff. The Duster also had steering so over-boosted that it felt
like it was not connected to anything, brakes that barely stopped the
car, and handling that did not encourage turning corners. No wonder the
only things that kept "Detroit" in business were brand loyalty,
anti-Japanese prejudice, import quotas and government subsidies.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"the grinning buddy bear carries a fork." - g.d.

 

[Werehatrack]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 04:21:08 -0600, Tom Sherman
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Werehatrack wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 06:52:39 GMT, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]> may
>> have said:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> M-gineering aka Marten Gerritsen wrote:
>>>>> Lou Holtman wrote:
>>>>> Thank god you drive one the right side of the road.
>>>>>> Lou
>>>>> <asbestos> who cares, Merkin cars are shite anyhow </asbestos>
>>>> The cars built in the US by Japanese companies are higher quality and a
>>>> better value than those made in Europe. Of course, many USians buy
>>>> expensive [1] European cars due to the "Heritage & Mystique®" factor.
>>>>
>>>> [1] The Europeans abandoned the inexpensive car market in the US, since
>>>> they were not able to compete.
>>> VW Rabbit starts at $15.5k.
>>
>> It was **** the first time they stuck that badge on a car for the US
>> market, for all that it was fun to drive. From what I've seen looking
>> under the hood, the new "Rabbit" (still just a rebadged Golf) is not
>> all that much better by comparison to its contemporary competitors
>> than the original Rabbit was by comparison to the cars of that day.
>>
>> BTW, I was working for VW dealers in the days of the original Rabbit.
>>
>The competition was less in the days of the original Golf 1/Rabbit.
>Except for the Honda Civic and Accord, what was better in term of
>design, performance and quality at a comparable price?

At that time?
Any Subaru for quality and engineering.
Any low-end Toyota for most if not all of the list.

Today, I'd still favor the Subaru...but I drive a mid-'90s Escort.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[Tom Sherman]

Werehatrack wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 04:21:08 -0600, Tom Sherman
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Werehatrack wrote:
>>...
>>> It was **** the first time they stuck that badge on a car for the US
>>> market, for all that it was fun to drive. From what I've seen looking
>>> under the hood, the new "Rabbit" (still just a rebadged Golf) is not
>>> all that much better by comparison to its contemporary competitors
>>> than the original Rabbit was by comparison to the cars of that day.
>>>
>>> BTW, I was working for VW dealers in the days of the original Rabbit.
>>>
>> The competition was less in the days of the original Golf 1/Rabbit.
>> Except for the Honda Civic and Accord, what was better in term of
>> design, performance and quality at a comparable price?
>
> At that time?
> Any Subaru for quality and engineering.
> Any low-end Toyota for most if not all of the list.
>
> Today, I'd still favor the Subaru...but I drive a mid-'90s Escort.

The Toyota Corolla of that period may have been reliable and efficient,
but hardly was a paragon of styling, performance and handling.
Reliability would be the only reason to favor the Corolla over the Golf
1/Rabbit. Same for the Datsun F-10 and B-210.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful