Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Used car prices: UP
51 views
Skip to first unread message
HeyBub
Nov 9, 2012, 7:46:19 PM11/9/12
to
"The estimated 250,000 cars flooded by Superstorm Sandy on the East Coast
will drive up used-car prices, even as far away as California. The supply
shortage comes on the heels of an already tightened used-car market in the
wake of the recession, when new car sales dried up. Some experts say prices
could rise $700 to $1,000 on the typical used car in the short term.
Although those effects will be felt most acutely near the flood zone, the
increasingly digital and national market for used cars will spread the price
shocks widely."
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-autos-flooded-cars-20121109,0,244965.story
And watch out for cars that were flooded also on the market.
will drive up used-car prices, even as far away as California. The supply
shortage comes on the heels of an already tightened used-car market in the
wake of the recession, when new car sales dried up. Some experts say prices
could rise $700 to $1,000 on the typical used car in the short term.
Although those effects will be felt most acutely near the flood zone, the
increasingly digital and national market for used cars will spread the price
shocks widely."
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-autos-flooded-cars-20121109,0,244965.story
And watch out for cars that were flooded also on the market.
Ed Pawlowski
Nov 9, 2012, 10:37:10 PM11/9/12
to
On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 18:46:19 -0600, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:
I have no doubt of it. After Obama bought up all the clunkers, used
prices went up for a long time. I got good trades on my last two cars
because of it. The dealer sold them on his lot for top dollar, not to
auction. Buying new was easy the last couple of times and I just got
one a few months ago.
I recently read that used prices were moderating, but this will change
that.
wrote:
prices went up for a long time. I got good trades on my last two cars
because of it. The dealer sold them on his lot for top dollar, not to
auction. Buying new was easy the last couple of times and I just got
one a few months ago.
I recently read that used prices were moderating, but this will change
that.
Oren
Nov 9, 2012, 10:48:49 PM11/9/12
to
On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 18:46:19 -0600, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:
wrote:
>And watch out for cars that were flooded also on the market.
>
DON"T buy a used car from Larry the Lounge Lizard, dressed in a
>
Leisure suit.
harry
Nov 10, 2012, 4:45:15 AM11/10/12
to
On Nov 10, 3:37 am, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 18:46:19 -0600, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"The estimated 250,000 cars flooded by Superstorm Sandy on the East Coast
> >will drive up used-car prices, even as far away as California. The supply
> >shortage comes on the heels of an already tightened used-car market in the
> >wake of the recession, when new car sales dried up. Some experts say prices
> >could rise $700 to $1,000 on the typical used car in the short term.
> >Although those effects will be felt most acutely near the flood zone, the
> >increasingly digital and national market for used cars will spread the price
> >shocks widely."
>
> >http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-autos-flooded-cars-20121109,0,2...
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 18:46:19 -0600, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"The estimated 250,000 cars flooded by Superstorm Sandy on the East Coast
> >will drive up used-car prices, even as far away as California. The supply
> >shortage comes on the heels of an already tightened used-car market in the
> >wake of the recession, when new car sales dried up. Some experts say prices
> >could rise $700 to $1,000 on the typical used car in the short term.
> >Although those effects will be felt most acutely near the flood zone, the
> >increasingly digital and national market for used cars will spread the price
> >shocks widely."
>
>
> >And watch out for cars that were flooded also on the market.
>
> I have no doubt of it. After Obama bought up all the clunkers, used
> prices went up for a long time. I got good trades on my last two cars
> because of it. The dealer sold them on his lot for top dollar, not to
> auction. Buying new was easy the last couple of times and I just got
> one a few months ago.
>
> I recently read that used prices were moderating, but this will change
> that.
It will be your chance to buy a decent car.
> >And watch out for cars that were flooded also on the market.
>
> I have no doubt of it. After Obama bought up all the clunkers, used
> prices went up for a long time. I got good trades on my last two cars
> because of it. The dealer sold them on his lot for top dollar, not to
> auction. Buying new was easy the last couple of times and I just got
> one a few months ago.
>
> I recently read that used prices were moderating, but this will change
> that.
Stormin Mormon
Nov 10, 2012, 7:03:51 AM11/10/12
to
Same deal with real estate, and houses in the area? Undamaged housing with a
genrator should command good prices.
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Ed Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:moir98hjpjid6insa...@4ax.com...
genrator should command good prices.
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Ed Pawlowski" <e...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:moir98hjpjid6insa...@4ax.com...
Ed Pawlowski
Nov 10, 2012, 7:49:23 AM11/10/12
to
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 07:03:51 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
<cayoung61***spam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Same deal with real estate, and houses in the area? Undamaged housing with a
>genrator should command good prices.
>
>Christopher A. Young
It will be interesting to see how that shakes out, especially in
<cayoung61***spam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Same deal with real estate, and houses in the area? Undamaged housing with a
>genrator should command good prices.
>
>Christopher A. Young
Staten Island and New Jersey. Many of the shore homes on the barrier
islands are second homes so the people have a place to live. In a few
places, they are primary homes and the land is gone so no possibility
of rebuilding. Those families will want permanent housing, probably
inland like Kansas.
bob haller
Nov 10, 2012, 9:06:52 AM11/10/12
to
On Nov 10, 7:49 am, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 07:03:51 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
>
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 07:03:51 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
>
> <cayoung61***spambl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Same deal with real estate, and houses in the area? Undamaged housing with a
> >genrator should command good prices.
>
> >Christopher A. Young
>
> It will be interesting to see how that shakes out, especially in
> Staten Island and New Jersey. Many of the shore homes on the barrier
> islands are second homes so the people have a place to live. In a few
> places, they are primary homes and the land is gone so no possibility
> of rebuilding. Those families will want permanent housing, probably
> inland like Kansas.
homes in vulnerable areas shouldnt be rebuilt, and if rebuilt should
> >Same deal with real estate, and houses in the area? Undamaged housing with a
> >genrator should command good prices.
>
> >Christopher A. Young
>
> It will be interesting to see how that shakes out, especially in
> Staten Island and New Jersey. Many of the shore homes on the barrier
> islands are second homes so the people have a place to live. In a few
> places, they are primary homes and the land is gone so no possibility
> of rebuilding. Those families will want permanent housing, probably
> inland like Kansas.
never be elegible for flood insurance.
given predictions for higher sea levels its dumb to rebuild when you
know it will happen agan
Han
Nov 10, 2012, 9:12:31 AM11/10/12
to
bob haller <hal...@aol.com> wrote in
news:6a28b401-a222-46ac...@k20g2000vbj.googlegroups.com:
There will be disposable chicken coops masquerading as summer rentals ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
news:6a28b401-a222-46ac...@k20g2000vbj.googlegroups.com:
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
notbob
Nov 10, 2012, 10:42:38 AM11/10/12
to
On 2012-11-10, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 18:46:19 -0600, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 18:46:19 -0600, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
>>And watch out for cars that were flooded also on the market.
You can take that to the bank! ....well, the dirtbags can.
A few years back, there was an expose on "salvaged" cars --cars
condemned by insurance companies-- and how multiple Southern and
Central states had manipulated their registration laws to make it
impossible to NOT exploit this market by essentially "laundering"
titles between those states, thus allowing a car condemned in one
state --say for flooding (wet wiring - fire danger)-- to be legally
registered with a newer un-"salvage" title after selling the car into
another state. This with full complicity of state and federal
officials bought off by major insurance and auto industry dirtbags.
> I recently read that used prices were moderating, but this will change
> that.
political dupes of the power elite? Like Romney would have been one
Mitt different? Used EVERYTHING goes up when the economy goes down,
and the economy has been going down for 10 YEARS!! ...not jes when Oh
Bummer! took office. But, it pays --literally!-- to keep you rubes
fighting amongst yerselves. Dolts.
nb
--
Definition of objectivism:
"Eff you! I got mine."
http://www.nongmoproject.org/
Ed Pawlowski
Nov 10, 2012, 12:54:45 PM11/10/12
to
On 10 Nov 2012 15:42:38 GMT, notbob <not...@nothome.com> wrote:
>
>Obama, Obama, Obama! Gawd, don't you ppl ever get tired of being the
>political dupes of the power elite? Like Romney would have been one
>Mitt different? Used EVERYTHING goes up when the economy goes down,
>and the economy has been going down for 10 YEARS!! ...not jes when Oh
>Bummer! took office. But, it pays --literally!-- to keep you rubes
>fighting amongst yerselves. Dolts.
>
>nb
The cash for clunkers deal was an expensive abomination. No matter
>
>Obama, Obama, Obama! Gawd, don't you ppl ever get tired of being the
>political dupes of the power elite? Like Romney would have been one
>Mitt different? Used EVERYTHING goes up when the economy goes down,
>and the economy has been going down for 10 YEARS!! ...not jes when Oh
>Bummer! took office. But, it pays --literally!-- to keep you rubes
>fighting amongst yerselves. Dolts.
>
>nb
who decided to do it, more harm was done than help.
Maybe you were a wealthy teenager, but most of us were not. We bought
cars for $15, $25, and got them to run. They got us to school and
part time jobs and we took our dates to the drive-in.
Suddenly,a few years ago, the affordable cars for low income families
were gone, snatched up by the government under the guise of helping
people. Maybe it was old, maybe it was a gas guzzler, but that $8 and
hour worker was able to get to his job in it.
Vic Smith
Nov 10, 2012, 12:57:53 PM11/10/12
to
>Obama, Obama, Obama! Gawd, don't you ppl ever get tired of being the
>political dupes of the power elite? Like Romney would have been one
>Mitt different? Used EVERYTHING goes up when the economy goes down,
>and the economy has been going down for 10 YEARS!! ...not jes when Oh
>Bummer! took office. But, it pays --literally!-- to keep you rubes
>fighting amongst yerselves. Dolts.
>
>nb
Somebody's got to be the scapegoat.
>political dupes of the power elite? Like Romney would have been one
>Mitt different? Used EVERYTHING goes up when the economy goes down,
>and the economy has been going down for 10 YEARS!! ...not jes when Oh
>Bummer! took office. But, it pays --literally!-- to keep you rubes
>fighting amongst yerselves. Dolts.
>
>nb
Besides the new car sales being down because of the economy, improved
car quality and longevity play a big part. I only drive used so I do
occasional checks of the market for the cars I drive.
Used car prices have been getting "out of whack" for years now.
By that I mean a big jump in price relative to "average income."
Really started about 10 years ago for the cars I look at.
Reminds me of about '76 or '77 during one of those "energy crisis."
Bought my first V6 when my V8 got totaled.
I had paid $500 for the V8 and had to pay $1400 for the V6 in large
part because sixes were pulling a premium. Something like that.
I was in a hurry and needed a replacement car.
The upside is cars are better if you choose right. They can commonly
go +200k miles.
Watch out for those "flood" cars. Happens after every flood.
Carfax is your friend.
cl...@snyder.on.ca
Nov 10, 2012, 2:34:20 PM11/10/12
to
Many different data [oints to look at.
In 1969, when I bought my first car, a 10 year old car was junk - and
could be bought for $60 here in Ontario. Bought my 1961 mini for $60
and though I got a good deal. I likely spent another $60 by the time
I had it on the road. At that time a licenced mechanic made, mabee, $4
an hour - and as an apprentice I made $1.35 to start - so that was
60/1.35= 44.4 pre-tax hours of work.
Convert that to today's $10.75? minimum wage, and 44.4 hours is about
$477. An apprentice makes more than minimum wage - let's say $14 per
hour - and you are looking at close to $625.
A kid can still buy a fixable junker for $625 - but it is going to be
more than 10 years old.
I generally buy 10 year old cars in half decent condition - and pay
$5000 for them, more or less. In driveable condition.
You will generally pay a sizeable premium for a good small car - the
land yachts go cheaper - but if you don't put on many miles, the lower
cost more than ballances the lifetime fuel cost - and the bigger cars
often cost less to maintain over, say, 200,000 miles.
The Daring Dufas
Nov 10, 2012, 3:00:15 PM11/10/12
to
flooded out vehicles. ^_^
TDD
The Daring Dufas
Nov 10, 2012, 3:06:39 PM11/10/12
to
TDD
The Daring Dufas
Nov 10, 2012, 3:12:07 PM11/10/12
to
Clunkers or did it? It could have been a conspiracy because certain
people knew darn well what it would do to the market. It would be
very interesting to find out who made out like a bandit because of
the Cash For Clunkers program. ^_^
TDD
Vic Smith
Nov 10, 2012, 3:46:58 PM11/10/12
to
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 14:34:20 -0500, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>
>Many different data [oints to look at.
Yeah, and lots of apples and oranges. For instance, whether you can
>
>Many different data [oints to look at.
do repairs yourself or not.
And it seems you don't see as many with bad cosmetics for sale.
Like a creased fender or 2 can lower the price a lot but are easy to
replace.
Used cars look a lot better, don't know why. Maybe because I don't go
to lots any more.
>In 1969, when I bought my first car, a 10 year old car was junk - and
>could be bought for $60 here in Ontario. Bought my 1961 mini for $60
>and though I got a good deal. I likely spent another $60 by the time
>I had it on the road. At that time a licenced mechanic made, mabee, $4
>an hour - and as an apprentice I made $1.35 to start - so that was
>60/1.35= 44.4 pre-tax hours of work.
>
down. $25 bucks. The guy told me it was a smoker, but I didn't know
squat. First day she took it to work she got a ticket driving it on
the x-way. Junked it the next day. Man. that was stupid. And it was
hard to get a ticket for that in '68.
>Convert that to today's $10.75? minimum wage, and 44.4 hours is about
>$477. An apprentice makes more than minimum wage - let's say $14 per
>hour - and you are looking at close to $625.
>
>A kid can still buy a fixable junker for $625 - but it is going to be
>more than 10 years old.
>
>I generally buy 10 year old cars in half decent condition - and pay
>$5000 for them, more or less. In driveable condition.
>
>You will generally pay a sizeable premium for a good small car - the
>land yachts go cheaper - but if you don't put on many miles, the lower
>cost more than ballances the lifetime fuel cost - and the bigger cars
>often cost less to maintain over, say, 200,000 miles.
good condition.. Example is when I bought my '97 Lumina 8 years ago
the book was about $3k for that 8 year old car. Now the equivalent
8 year old replacement would be a 2005 Malibu. Book is about $5k.
Big jump.
cl...@snyder.on.ca
Nov 10, 2012, 4:15:09 PM11/10/12
to
quickly. The 2005 Malibu may have held a larger percentage of vale.
You want apples to apples take blue book of a 98 civic in 2005 and
current blue book for a 2005 civic.
Vic Smith
Nov 10, 2012, 5:05:34 PM11/10/12
to
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:15:09 -0500, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
> But the lumina was a POS to start with - so it lost value very
>quickly. The 2005 Malibu may have held a larger percentage of vale.
>You want apples to apples take blue book of a 98 civic in 2005 and
>current blue book for a 2005 civic.
>
Uh, nothing wrong with my Lumina. What's wrong with yours?
> But the lumina was a POS to start with - so it lost value very
>quickly. The 2005 Malibu may have held a larger percentage of vale.
>You want apples to apples take blue book of a 98 civic in 2005 and
>current blue book for a 2005 civic.
>
Part of doing well with used cars is knowing something about them.
So if you got burned, that's your fault.
I'm sure there's plenty or random know-nothings who will say the
Malibu is a POS, so that levels that nonsense noise out.
As I said, the Malibu is the equivalent of the Lumina.
Besides, even the Lumina prices haven't fallen as much as I would
expect for a car that hasn't been produced for a dozen years, and it's
clear to me that used car prices are "unusually" high.
Why would I look at Honda prices when I don't want Honda?
I don't get your logic here. Maybe you can explain.
You're welcome to post your own Honda benchmarks if you care to.
cl...@snyder.on.ca
Nov 10, 2012, 8:56:49 PM11/10/12
to
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:05:34 -0600, Vic Smith
<thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:15:09 -0500, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>
>
>> But the lumina was a POS to start with - so it lost value very
>>quickly. The 2005 Malibu may have held a larger percentage of vale.
>>You want apples to apples take blue book of a 98 civic in 2005 and
>>current blue book for a 2005 civic.
>>
>
>Uh, nothing wrong with my Lumina. What's wrong with yours?
>Part of doing well with used cars is knowing something about them.
>So if you got burned, that's your fault.
I knew enough to stay away - but I know lots of people who had them.
<thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:15:09 -0500, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>
>
>> But the lumina was a POS to start with - so it lost value very
>>quickly. The 2005 Malibu may have held a larger percentage of vale.
>>You want apples to apples take blue book of a 98 civic in 2005 and
>>current blue book for a 2005 civic.
>>
>
>Uh, nothing wrong with my Lumina. What's wrong with yours?
>Part of doing well with used cars is knowing something about them.
>So if you got burned, that's your fault.
I DID have a TransSport van - of all the used cars I've owned, perhaps
the most dissapointing. I happen to know quite a bit about used cars -
having been a mechanic for several decades.
>I'm sure there's plenty or random know-nothings who will say the
>Malibu is a POS, so that levels that nonsense noise out.
>As I said, the Malibu is the equivalent of the Lumina.
Which year Malibu?
>Malibu is a POS, so that levels that nonsense noise out.
>As I said, the Malibu is the equivalent of the Lumina.
>Besides, even the Lumina prices haven't fallen as much as I would
>expect for a car that hasn't been produced for a dozen years, and it's
>clear to me that used car prices are "unusually" high.
Based on what? Yes, in real dollars they are high - but as a
>expect for a car that hasn't been produced for a dozen years, and it's
>clear to me that used car prices are "unusually" high.
percentage of the original cost they are more reasonable.
>Why would I look at Honda prices when I don't want Honda?
>I don't get your logic here. Maybe you can explain.
>You're welcome to post your own Honda benchmarks if you care to.
OK. If you are too thisk to get "apples to apples" compare the 5 year
>I don't get your logic here. Maybe you can explain.
>You're welcome to post your own Honda benchmarks if you care to.
old value of a 1998 impala to the 5 year old value of a 2004 impala,
and a 2008 impala.
Comparing the comparative value of different generations of Malibu's
is not as good, because the different generations are totally
different cars with the same nameplate. The Lumina and the Malibu are
totally different vehicles as well.
As far as loosing value, the 2000 Lumina averages out at $3125. Only
$325 less for the 99, $125 less for the '98, $75 less for a '97, $50
less for a '96, the '95 is the same value as the '96, $50 less for the
earlier generation '94, $125 less for the '93, and $175 less($2125)
for the '92 - which is as far back as KBB goes.
That's the bottom end. $300 difference between bottom and top for the
'92, and no difference between top and bottom condition of a 2012.
Pretty much tells the story - Fully depreciatied at 12 years.
In comparison, a Ford Taurus ranges from $2400 for a 1990, to $5070
for a 2000.
Vic Smith
Nov 10, 2012, 11:34:48 PM11/10/12
to
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:56:49 -0500, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:05:34 -0600, Vic Smith
><thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:15:09 -0500, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>>
>>
>>> But the lumina was a POS to start with - so it lost value very
>>>quickly. The 2005 Malibu may have held a larger percentage of vale.
>>>You want apples to apples take blue book of a 98 civic in 2005 and
>>>current blue book for a 2005 civic.
>>>
>>
>>Uh, nothing wrong with my Lumina. What's wrong with yours?
>>Part of doing well with used cars is knowing something about them.
>>So if you got burned, that's your fault.
>
>I knew enough to stay away - but I know lots of people who had them.
>I DID have a TransSport van - of all the used cars I've owned, perhaps
>the most dissapointing. I happen to know quite a bit about used cars -
>having been a mechanic for several decades.
Wait a minute. You're not making sense. You say you were a mechanic,
>On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:05:34 -0600, Vic Smith
><thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:15:09 -0500, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>>
>>
>>> But the lumina was a POS to start with - so it lost value very
>>>quickly. The 2005 Malibu may have held a larger percentage of vale.
>>>You want apples to apples take blue book of a 98 civic in 2005 and
>>>current blue book for a 2005 civic.
>>>
>>
>>Uh, nothing wrong with my Lumina. What's wrong with yours?
>>Part of doing well with used cars is knowing something about them.
>>So if you got burned, that's your fault.
>
>I knew enough to stay away - but I know lots of people who had them.
>I DID have a TransSport van - of all the used cars I've owned, perhaps
>the most dissapointing. I happen to know quite a bit about used cars -
>having been a mechanic for several decades.
and know used cars, but you drove a TransSport and weren't happy with
it. How did that happen?
I haven't bought a used car anywhere close to "disappointing" in 40
years.
Besides, I have no idea what a TranSport has to do with a Lumina. The
TranSport is a mini-van. The Lumina is a sedan..
Maybe you can set up something for me to knock down.
I'll just tell you now I don't respect anything you've got to say to
me about used cars. I've got a better track record.
Reminds me of how you were telling me about the "only right way" to
wire an inverter. Didn't make sense for my application, but that
didn't stop you.
And besides all that, you trashed the '97 Lumina and now admit you
neither owned one or put a wrench to one.
A "real" professional mechanic who actually knows something about cars
says something like,, "expect to change the water pump at 60k miles,"
or "the original 3.8 and 3.1 intake manifold gaskets are known to
fail."
Not you. Just blindly call a car a POS. I know more than you ever
will about the cars I buy and drive, that's for sure. That's natural
because I wrench them myself, and it's something you should get used
to. You won't catch me telling you about your cars that I know
nothing about.
Watch your arrogance. Most folks don't like that.
>>I'm sure there's plenty or random know-nothings who will say the
>>Malibu is a POS, so that levels that nonsense noise out.
>>As I said, the Malibu is the equivalent of the Lumina.
> Which year Malibu?
>>Besides, even the Lumina prices haven't fallen as much as I would
>>expect for a car that hasn't been produced for a dozen years, and it's
>>clear to me that used car prices are "unusually" high.
>
>Based on what? Yes, in real dollars they are high - but as a
>percentage of the original cost they are more reasonable.
>>Why would I look at Honda prices when I don't want Honda?
>>I don't get your logic here. Maybe you can explain.
>>You're welcome to post your own Honda benchmarks if you care to.
>
>OK. If you are too thisk to get "apples to apples" compare the 5 year
>old value of a 1998 impala to the 5 year old value of a 2004 impala,
>and a 2008 impala.
>
>Comparing the comparative value of different generations of Malibu's
>is not as good, because the different generations are totally
>different cars with the same nameplate. The Lumina and the Malibu are
>totally different vehicles as well.
brand and size platforms. Chevy discontinued the "mid-size family
sedan" Celebrity, and replaced it with the Lumina. They discontinued
the Lumina and the replacement is the Malibu. It's the only sensible
way I know of to measure my used car costs, because that's how I roll.
I'll let Civic/Corolla, Accord/Camry folks use their own methods, but
despite keeping the same model names, their platform changes are more
extreme than the Chevy models I mentioned over the same time period.
So I disagree about who is being "thick" here about apples and
oranges.
> As far as loosing value, the 2000 Lumina averages out at $3125. Only
>$325 less for the 99, $125 less for the '98, $75 less for a '97, $50
>less for a '96, the '95 is the same value as the '96, $50 less for the
>earlier generation '94, $125 less for the '93, and $175 less($2125)
>for the '92 - which is as far back as KBB goes.
>
>That's the bottom end. $300 difference between bottom and top for the
>'92, and no difference between top and bottom condition of a 2012.
>
>Pretty much tells the story - Fully depreciatied at 12 years.
spot used to be 7-8. It's about to change to 3-6 because of the
changing prices as they relate to age and milage.
I thought I already told you the book on my '97 was about $3k when it
8 years old, not fully depreciated. The 2000 Lumina figure you give
is about the same for a 12 year old car. Get it?
Used car prices are UP.
>In comparison, a Ford Taurus ranges from $2400 for a 1990, to $5070
>for a 2000.
subject at hand.
Ed Pawlowski
Nov 11, 2012, 12:38:00 AM11/11/12
to
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 22:34:48 -0600, Vic Smith
<thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Besides, I have no idea what a TranSport has to do with a Lumina. The
>TranSport is a mini-van. The Lumina is a sedan..
Same vehicle, different sheet metal.
<thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Besides, I have no idea what a TranSport has to do with a Lumina. The
>TranSport is a mini-van. The Lumina is a sedan..
harry
Nov 11, 2012, 2:51:36 AM11/11/12
to
On Nov 10, 8:11 pm, The Daring Dufas <the-daring-du...@stinky-
The cars they make nowadays are a lot harder to fix.
Though they don't rust.
Though they don't rust.
Ed Pawlowski
Nov 11, 2012, 8:05:46 AM11/11/12
to
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 23:51:36 -0800 (PST), harry
<harry...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>The cars they make nowadays are a lot harder to fix.
>Though they don't rust.
They are harder to fix, but they need fixing a lot less. Used to be,
<harry...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>The cars they make nowadays are a lot harder to fix.
>Though they don't rust.
you cleaned the spark plugs every 5000 miles and replaced them at
10,000. Now, mot people will never have to change plugs more than one
time in the life of the car. They go 3X longer between oil changes,
4X longer for tires, many times longer for mufflers, etc.
harry
Nov 11, 2012, 10:13:36 AM11/11/12
to
On Nov 11, 1:05 pm, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 23:51:36 -0800 (PST), harry
>
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 23:51:36 -0800 (PST), harry
>
> <harry130...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >The cars they make nowadays are a lot harder to fix.
> >Though they don't rust.
>
> They are harder to fix, but they need fixing a lot less. Used to be,
> you cleaned the spark plugs every 5000 miles and replaced them at
> 10,000. Now, mot people will never have to change plugs more than one
> time in the life of the car. They go 3X longer between oil changes,
> 4X longer for tires, many times longer for mufflers, etc.
Belts last longer too.
>
> >The cars they make nowadays are a lot harder to fix.
> >Though they don't rust.
>
> They are harder to fix, but they need fixing a lot less. Used to be,
> you cleaned the spark plugs every 5000 miles and replaced them at
> 10,000. Now, mot people will never have to change plugs more than one
> time in the life of the car. They go 3X longer between oil changes,
> 4X longer for tires, many times longer for mufflers, etc.
notbob
Nov 11, 2012, 10:56:02 AM11/11/12
to
On 2012-11-10, Vic Smith <thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
> All true. In '68 I bought an old Chevy for my mom when her car broke
> down. $25 bucks.
I got one of those. A '60 Rambler American w/ new rebuilt engine,
> All true. In '68 I bought an old Chevy for my mom when her car broke
> down. $25 bucks.
flathead straight six, in '73. One of the best cars I ever owned.
Still ran to beat the band when I sold it 4 yrs later, but the front
end needed a total rebuild and I didn't know spit about front ends,
then. I shoulda learned. Ugly as spit, but great rolling stock.
Sucker would cruise effortlessly at 75 all day long.
I'm one of those weirdos. I see a car as merely a tool, not a
personal statement. I'll buy an ugly heap in a heartbeat. Some of my
faves were the 66' Plym Satellite for $400. Drove it 60 mi day for
four years. A Rusty ol' VW Rabbit diesel, also $400, which I drove 70
mi per day, for 5 yrs, getting 40mpg! Most comfortable car seats ever
invented. Later, a '76 Plym Sat for $600. One of those classic 70s
4-doors they trashed a million of on TV cops shows. This one in
mint condition. A great family car. Five years, 70 mi per day.
You can keep yer $20K-$40K new cars. I can buy a house fer that.
Vic Smith
Nov 11, 2012, 12:16:38 PM11/11/12
to
But you do. Nobody mentioned Lumina APV or mini-van.
And "sedan" was specified above.
I suspect you and Clare are the same type of "mechanic."
Ed Pawlowski
Nov 11, 2012, 2:37:13 PM11/11/12
to
On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 11:16:38 -0600, Vic Smith
drivetrain and the like are? Stylist go to great lengths to fool
people into thinking car makers offer a big line of cars, not just a
few. Worked for you.
Ever compare a Ford Contour and Jaguar? In the case of older Jags,
ever check the Chevy tranny in them?
<thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 00:38:00 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 22:34:48 -0600, Vic Smith
>><thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Besides, I have no idea what a TranSport has to do with a Lumina. The
>>>TranSport is a mini-van. The Lumina is a sedan..
>>
>>Same vehicle, different sheet metal.
>
>I don't know why you confuse a U-body mini-van with a W-body sedan.
>But you do. Nobody mentioned Lumina APV or mini-van.
>And "sedan" was specified above.
>I suspect you and Clare are the same type of "mechanic."
What do you think those bodies are sitting on? What do you think the
>On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 00:38:00 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 22:34:48 -0600, Vic Smith
>><thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Besides, I have no idea what a TranSport has to do with a Lumina. The
>>>TranSport is a mini-van. The Lumina is a sedan..
>>
>>Same vehicle, different sheet metal.
>
>I don't know why you confuse a U-body mini-van with a W-body sedan.
>But you do. Nobody mentioned Lumina APV or mini-van.
>And "sedan" was specified above.
>I suspect you and Clare are the same type of "mechanic."
drivetrain and the like are? Stylist go to great lengths to fool
people into thinking car makers offer a big line of cars, not just a
few. Worked for you.
Ever compare a Ford Contour and Jaguar? In the case of older Jags,
ever check the Chevy tranny in them?
Vic Smith
Nov 11, 2012, 3:07:21 PM11/11/12
to
BTW, the sheet metal you mentioned above?
The mini-vans had plastic body panels.
Next you'll be saying an F-150 is the same as a Taurus.
Get real. And quit digging with a teaspoon in competition with
somebody operating a backhoe.
What is you drive, Hyudai?
Stick to what you know.
notbob
Nov 11, 2012, 3:46:24 PM11/11/12
to
On 2012-11-11, Vic Smith <thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
> WTF? Now you say a Jag is a Chevy. When will it end?
"In May 1977, it was announced that automatic transmission version of
> WTF? Now you say a Jag is a Chevy. When will it end?
the twelve-cylinder cars would be fitted with a General Motors
three-speed THM 400 transmission in place of the British built
Borg-Warner units used hitherto."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_XJ
Go piss up a rope, dolt.
Vic Smith
Nov 11, 2012, 4:41:04 PM11/11/12
to
On 11 Nov 2012 20:46:24 GMT, notbob <not...@nothome.com> wrote:
>On 2012-11-11, Vic Smith <thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> WTF? Now you say a Jag is a Chevy. When will it end?
>
>"In May 1977, it was announced that automatic transmission version of
>the twelve-cylinder cars would be fitted with a General Motors
>three-speed THM 400 transmission in place of the British built
>Borg-Warner units used hitherto."
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_XJ
>
>Go piss up a rope, dolt.
>
Wow. Another one saying a Jaguar is really a Chevy - because he reads
>On 2012-11-11, Vic Smith <thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> WTF? Now you say a Jag is a Chevy. When will it end?
>
>"In May 1977, it was announced that automatic transmission version of
>the twelve-cylinder cars would be fitted with a General Motors
>three-speed THM 400 transmission in place of the British built
>Borg-Warner units used hitherto."
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_XJ
>
>Go piss up a rope, dolt.
>
in Wiki that Jag used a GM trans. Never expected to such stupid shit.
So it looks like it will never end.
But it's all good. Dopes are always part of the mix.
cl...@snyder.on.ca
Nov 11, 2012, 5:47:08 PM11/11/12
to
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 22:34:48 -0600, Vic Smith
Damn thing never did run what I would call well. The 17 foot travel
trailer we towed across north america behind a 3 liter Ford Aerostar
with no issues gave the 3.8 Pontiac fits. Put 3 O2 sensors in it -and
finally kept the CEL from coming on under normal driving - but still
could not tow the trailer. Sold the trailer.
Trip to Lakeland Florida from Ontario Canada the engine threw a code
and went into limp mode several times. Kept saying it was going lean.
Never gave an O2 sensor code. Third O2 sensor solved it. OEM parts.
The wiper motor went. Twice in 100,00km. The heater motor went bad.
The AC sprung leaks 3 times. Go over a bit of yough road surface at
under 1/4 tank and the engine would quit - drawing air because the
tank vibrated, aerating the gasoline. Had to bleed the fuel rail from
the schrader valve to get it going again. - so never let it get below
1/4 tank.
At 196000km on the AC DELCO crate engine it came apart on the highway
and I said good riddance.
That was the 3.8 -Generally known to be a pretty good engine: the 3.1
engines were known to be a lot worse.
was basically a Lumina station wagon. Same power train, and a lot of
other functional parts were also common to the sedan - including the
troublesome wiper motor and heater motor, and A/C parts.
I'll take a Ford or a Chrysler over ANY GM.
I generally buy my cars at 100,00km (60,000 miles) and about 10 years
old - for about $5000 to $6000 and drive them another10 years. Bough
my 2 aerostars a bit newer and paid a lot more for them, but the last
couple of Chryslers and the last 2 Ford cars have been to that
formula. Both Aerostars went over 240,000km. The 88 New Yorker went
over 240,000, and I sold it as a good looking and good running car.
The Mystique was 16 years old with low mileage and a lot of rust when
I scrapped it this summer. Only the second car I've ever owned that
went to scrap when I was finished with it - and it was still running
GREAT.
good ones - but they were NEVER known as a fantastic car. Granted the
'95 and newer (second generation) were a LOT better than the first
generation (90 to 94) disaster-mobiles. Parts fell off all over (the
interior was really crappy) and the ride and handling were awfull,
even by American manufacturer's standards. The 3.1 engine was anemic -
After 1995 the 3.8 had the long-standing intake problems, and the 3.4
was a time-bomb, but they were definitely a much better car
Talking about the interior, the seats were AWFULL.
So are new car prices, up untill the crash.
<thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:56:49 -0500, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:05:34 -0600, Vic Smith
>><thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:15:09 -0500, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> But the lumina was a POS to start with - so it lost value very
>>>>quickly. The 2005 Malibu may have held a larger percentage of vale.
>>>>You want apples to apples take blue book of a 98 civic in 2005 and
>>>>current blue book for a 2005 civic.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Uh, nothing wrong with my Lumina. What's wrong with yours?
>>>Part of doing well with used cars is knowing something about them.
>>>So if you got burned, that's your fault.
>>
>>I knew enough to stay away - but I know lots of people who had them.
>>I DID have a TransSport van - of all the used cars I've owned, perhaps
>>the most dissapointing. I happen to know quite a bit about used cars -
>>having been a mechanic for several decades.
>
>Wait a minute. You're not making sense. You say you were a mechanic,
>and know used cars, but you drove a TransSport and weren't happy with
>it. How did that happen?
>I haven't bought a used car anywhere close to "disappointing" in 40
>years.
It was a high mileage vehicle with a brand new crate engine in it.
>On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:56:49 -0500, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:05:34 -0600, Vic Smith
>><thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:15:09 -0500, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> But the lumina was a POS to start with - so it lost value very
>>>>quickly. The 2005 Malibu may have held a larger percentage of vale.
>>>>You want apples to apples take blue book of a 98 civic in 2005 and
>>>>current blue book for a 2005 civic.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Uh, nothing wrong with my Lumina. What's wrong with yours?
>>>Part of doing well with used cars is knowing something about them.
>>>So if you got burned, that's your fault.
>>
>>I knew enough to stay away - but I know lots of people who had them.
>>I DID have a TransSport van - of all the used cars I've owned, perhaps
>>the most dissapointing. I happen to know quite a bit about used cars -
>>having been a mechanic for several decades.
>
>Wait a minute. You're not making sense. You say you were a mechanic,
>and know used cars, but you drove a TransSport and weren't happy with
>it. How did that happen?
>I haven't bought a used car anywhere close to "disappointing" in 40
>years.
Damn thing never did run what I would call well. The 17 foot travel
trailer we towed across north america behind a 3 liter Ford Aerostar
with no issues gave the 3.8 Pontiac fits. Put 3 O2 sensors in it -and
finally kept the CEL from coming on under normal driving - but still
could not tow the trailer. Sold the trailer.
Trip to Lakeland Florida from Ontario Canada the engine threw a code
and went into limp mode several times. Kept saying it was going lean.
Never gave an O2 sensor code. Third O2 sensor solved it. OEM parts.
The wiper motor went. Twice in 100,00km. The heater motor went bad.
The AC sprung leaks 3 times. Go over a bit of yough road surface at
under 1/4 tank and the engine would quit - drawing air because the
tank vibrated, aerating the gasoline. Had to bleed the fuel rail from
the schrader valve to get it going again. - so never let it get below
1/4 tank.
At 196000km on the AC DELCO crate engine it came apart on the highway
and I said good riddance.
That was the 3.8 -Generally known to be a pretty good engine: the 3.1
engines were known to be a lot worse.
>Besides, I have no idea what a TranSport has to do with a Lumina. The
>TranSport is a mini-van. The Lumina is a sedan..
The TransSport was Pontiac's version of the Chevy Lumina APV - which
>TranSport is a mini-van. The Lumina is a sedan..
was basically a Lumina station wagon. Same power train, and a lot of
other functional parts were also common to the sedan - including the
troublesome wiper motor and heater motor, and A/C parts.
I'll take a Ford or a Chrysler over ANY GM.
I generally buy my cars at 100,00km (60,000 miles) and about 10 years
old - for about $5000 to $6000 and drive them another10 years. Bough
my 2 aerostars a bit newer and paid a lot more for them, but the last
couple of Chryslers and the last 2 Ford cars have been to that
formula. Both Aerostars went over 240,000km. The 88 New Yorker went
over 240,000, and I sold it as a good looking and good running car.
The Mystique was 16 years old with low mileage and a lot of rust when
I scrapped it this summer. Only the second car I've ever owned that
went to scrap when I was finished with it - and it was still running
GREAT.
>Maybe you can set up something for me to knock down.
>I'll just tell you now I don't respect anything you've got to say to
>me about used cars. I've got a better track record.
>Reminds me of how you were telling me about the "only right way" to
>wire an inverter. Didn't make sense for my application, but that
>didn't stop you.
>And besides all that, you trashed the '97 Lumina and now admit you
>neither owned one or put a wrench to one.
My step-mother had one - and my kid brother still has one.
>I'll just tell you now I don't respect anything you've got to say to
>me about used cars. I've got a better track record.
>Reminds me of how you were telling me about the "only right way" to
>wire an inverter. Didn't make sense for my application, but that
>didn't stop you.
>And besides all that, you trashed the '97 Lumina and now admit you
>neither owned one or put a wrench to one.
>A "real" professional mechanic who actually knows something about cars
>says something like,, "expect to change the water pump at 60k miles,"
>or "the original 3.8 and 3.1 intake manifold gaskets are known to
>fail."
>Not you. Just blindly call a car a POS. I know more than you ever
>will about the cars I buy and drive, that's for sure. That's natural
>because I wrench them myself, and it's something you should get used
>to. You won't catch me telling you about your cars that I know
>nothing about.
>Watch your arrogance. Most folks don't like that.
You know YOUR Lumina. Yes, they are cheap to buy used, and there are
>says something like,, "expect to change the water pump at 60k miles,"
>or "the original 3.8 and 3.1 intake manifold gaskets are known to
>fail."
>Not you. Just blindly call a car a POS. I know more than you ever
>will about the cars I buy and drive, that's for sure. That's natural
>because I wrench them myself, and it's something you should get used
>to. You won't catch me telling you about your cars that I know
>nothing about.
>Watch your arrogance. Most folks don't like that.
good ones - but they were NEVER known as a fantastic car. Granted the
'95 and newer (second generation) were a LOT better than the first
generation (90 to 94) disaster-mobiles. Parts fell off all over (the
interior was really crappy) and the ride and handling were awfull,
even by American manufacturer's standards. The 3.1 engine was anemic -
After 1995 the 3.8 had the long-standing intake problems, and the 3.4
was a time-bomb, but they were definitely a much better car
Talking about the interior, the seats were AWFULL.
cl...@snyder.on.ca
Nov 11, 2012, 5:54:11 PM11/11/12
to
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 23:51:36 -0800 (PST), harry
They DO still rust.
cl...@snyder.on.ca
Nov 11, 2012, 6:08:39 PM11/11/12
to
On 11 Nov 2012 15:56:02 GMT, notbob <not...@nothome.com> wrote:
>On 2012-11-10, Vic Smith <thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> All true. In '68 I bought an old Chevy for my mom when her car broke
>> down. $25 bucks.
>
>I got one of those. A '60 Rambler American w/ new rebuilt engine,
>flathead straight six, in '73. One of the best cars I ever owned.
>Still ran to beat the band when I sold it 4 yrs later, but the front
>end needed a total rebuild and I didn't know spit about front ends,
>then. I shoulda learned. Ugly as spit, but great rolling stock.
>Sucker would cruise effortlessly at 75 all day long.
And no ball joints - all pins and trunions - NOT a nice front end to
>On 2012-11-10, Vic Smith <thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> All true. In '68 I bought an old Chevy for my mom when her car broke
>> down. $25 bucks.
>
>I got one of those. A '60 Rambler American w/ new rebuilt engine,
>flathead straight six, in '73. One of the best cars I ever owned.
>Still ran to beat the band when I sold it 4 yrs later, but the front
>end needed a total rebuild and I didn't know spit about front ends,
>then. I shoulda learned. Ugly as spit, but great rolling stock.
>Sucker would cruise effortlessly at 75 all day long.
work on. Tough car though!!
>
>I'm one of those weirdos. I see a car as merely a tool, not a
>personal statement. I'll buy an ugly heap in a heartbeat. Some of my
>faves were the 66' Plym Satellite for $400. Drove it 60 mi day for
>four years. A Rusty ol' VW Rabbit diesel, also $400, which I drove 70
>mi per day, for 5 yrs, getting 40mpg! Most comfortable car seats ever
>invented. Later, a '76 Plym Sat for $600. One of those classic 70s
>4-doors they trashed a million of on TV cops shows. This one in
>mint condition. A great family car. Five years, 70 mi per day.
>
>You can keep yer $20K-$40K new cars. I can buy a house fer that.
>
>nb
I've owned over 26 cars and 5 motorcycles - only bought ONE new.
>I'm one of those weirdos. I see a car as merely a tool, not a
>personal statement. I'll buy an ugly heap in a heartbeat. Some of my
>faves were the 66' Plym Satellite for $400. Drove it 60 mi day for
>four years. A Rusty ol' VW Rabbit diesel, also $400, which I drove 70
>mi per day, for 5 yrs, getting 40mpg! Most comfortable car seats ever
>invented. Later, a '76 Plym Sat for $600. One of those classic 70s
>4-doors they trashed a million of on TV cops shows. This one in
>mint condition. A great family car. Five years, 70 mi per day.
>
>You can keep yer $20K-$40K new cars. I can buy a house fer that.
>
>nb
From $60 to $15000 for the used ones. Last 6 or so less than $6500
cl...@snyder.on.ca
Nov 11, 2012, 6:09:50 PM11/11/12
to
On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 11:16:38 -0600, Vic Smith
<thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 00:38:00 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 22:34:48 -0600, Vic Smith
>><thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Besides, I have no idea what a TranSport has to do with a Lumina. The
>>>TranSport is a mini-van. The Lumina is a sedan..
>>
>>Same vehicle, different sheet metal.
Or in the case of the MPV/TransSprt - PLASTIC.
>On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 00:38:00 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 22:34:48 -0600, Vic Smith
>><thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Besides, I have no idea what a TranSport has to do with a Lumina. The
>>>TranSport is a mini-van. The Lumina is a sedan..
>>
>>Same vehicle, different sheet metal.
cl...@snyder.on.ca
Nov 11, 2012, 6:30:15 PM11/11/12
to
On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 14:07:21 -0600, Vic Smith
Some Jags were Lincolns, some were Contours, and some (pre ford
days) WERE Jags. The "platforms" used today are used by many models
from the same manufacturer - which can cross not only models but
brands.
Same with engines. The "world" 2.4 is used by hyundai, mitsubishi
Chrysler,and Kia. A few yeara ago the V6 used by Peugot, Renault,
Citreon, DeLorean, and Volvo was all the same engine (Douvrin).
The Cadillac Caterra was an Opel - as is the current Malibu and some
of the last saturns. Also known as a Vauxhaul or Holden, depending
where you are.
The malibu Epsilon platform was used on the Opel Vectra and Signum,
the Pontiac G6, the Saturn Aura, etc.
Most of the smaller GMs share DNA with either Suzuki or Daewoo.
days) WERE Jags. The "platforms" used today are used by many models
from the same manufacturer - which can cross not only models but
brands.
Same with engines. The "world" 2.4 is used by hyundai, mitsubishi
Chrysler,and Kia. A few yeara ago the V6 used by Peugot, Renault,
Citreon, DeLorean, and Volvo was all the same engine (Douvrin).
The Cadillac Caterra was an Opel - as is the current Malibu and some
of the last saturns. Also known as a Vauxhaul or Holden, depending
where you are.
The malibu Epsilon platform was used on the Opel Vectra and Signum,
the Pontiac G6, the Saturn Aura, etc.
Most of the smaller GMs share DNA with either Suzuki or Daewoo.
cl...@snyder.on.ca
Nov 11, 2012, 6:32:15 PM11/11/12
to
not negate the fact that many "platforms" are shared between
"manufacturers"
The Daring Dufas
Nov 11, 2012, 7:42:26 PM11/11/12
to
TDD
Vic Smith
Nov 11, 2012, 8:18:47 PM11/11/12
to
On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 17:47:08 -0500, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>It was a high mileage vehicle with a brand new crate engine in it.
IOW, drivability and code-throwing means somebody did a butcher job.
>It was a high mileage vehicle with a brand new crate engine in it.
Hope you got it cheap
>
>At 196000km on the AC DELCO crate engine it came apart on the highway
>and I said good riddance.
>
with a reman. I had my mech put a GM V-8 crate engine in my son's
car. It was a Goodwrench, all new, 3 year, 100k mile GM warranty.
No problems at all. But he was a good mech. Wasn't cheap either.
>That was the 3.8 -Generally known to be a pretty good engine: the 3.1
>engines were known to be a lot worse.
>>Besides, I have no idea what a TranSport has to do with a Lumina. The
>>TranSport is a mini-van. The Lumina is a sedan..
>
>The TransSport was Pontiac's version of the Chevy Lumina APV - which
>was basically a Lumina station wagon. Same power train, and a lot of
>other functional parts were also common to the sedan - including the
>troublesome wiper motor and heater motor, and A/C parts.
>
your ass. The APV wiper motor is a different motor than on the sedan.
Jesus, what are those, 36' wiper arms on the TransPort/APV acres of
windshield?
And I looked up the motors to make sure I'm not bullshitting like you.
And the 3.8 A/C compressor isn't the same one on as a 3.1, which by
far is the most common sedan engine. The condenser and evap are
probably different too, but I'm not going to bother to look them up.
A van and a sedan have a lot of system design differences. I've owned
and torn down both. Damn, just look at the engine bays.
And I've wrenched both 3.1 and 3.8, addressing their main issues.
In sedans, not mini-vans.
>I'll take a Ford or a Chrysler over ANY GM.
>
first place? It's okay to be a GM hater here.
Nonsense doesn't fly.
>
>You know YOUR Lumina. Yes, they are cheap to buy used, and there are
>good ones - but they were NEVER known as a fantastic car.
It's a fucking mid-level Chevy. Isn't supposed to be "fantastic."
>You know YOUR Lumina. Yes, they are cheap to buy used, and there are
>good ones - but they were NEVER known as a fantastic car.
Even mine is only "great."
gregz
Nov 11, 2012, 9:28:34 PM11/11/12
to
$4450 which had my deducible already subtracted. Was a 2001 .
Just bought a 1998 olds 88 74k miles at $3k and 1999 outback for $5k 100k
miles, it was very clean, and had timing belt replacement already done.
Should be good for another 70k.
I don't think private sell vehicles will jump price much here. There was
a lot of good buys lately, over last summer. They must be buying new
vehicles, or downsizing.
Greg
gregz
Nov 11, 2012, 9:38:53 PM11/11/12
to
It's not my car, but unfortunately I could not for see all the problems,
including upper and lower head gaskets, brake lines, other stuff spending
$2 k and it's still a POS. Now the power steering leaking and transmission
lines. 177k miles. If it had new shocks, it would ride nice. Learning
experience.
Greg
Ed Pawlowski
Nov 11, 2012, 9:56:30 PM11/11/12
to
On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:30:15 -0500, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>Same with engines. The "world" 2.4 is used by hyundai, mitsubishi
>Chrysler,and Kia. A few yeara ago the V6 used by Peugot, Renault,
>Citreon, DeLorean, and Volvo was all the same engine (Douvrin).
>
I've not tracked down the origins, but I'm sure my 2.0 Turbo is shared
>Same with engines. The "world" 2.4 is used by hyundai, mitsubishi
>Chrysler,and Kia. A few yeara ago the V6 used by Peugot, Renault,
>Citreon, DeLorean, and Volvo was all the same engine (Douvrin).
>
by others too. Mitsubishi, Audi, and a few others have the same size.
Ed Pawlowski
Nov 11, 2012, 10:32:37 PM11/11/12
to
On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 14:07:21 -0600, Vic Smith
<thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>WTF? Now you say a Jag is a Chevy. When will it end?
No, you are making things up. I said the Jag used Chevy
<thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>WTF? Now you say a Jag is a Chevy. When will it end?
transmissions. That was before they ware bought by Ford.
>What is you drive, Hyudai?
>Stick to what you know.
You may want to check out the Sonata/Santa Fe and Elantra/Tucson
underpinnings. Pretty much the same idea as the Lumina/TranSport
family
harry
Nov 12, 2012, 4:07:13 AM11/12/12
to
engine was fitted to Jaguars and still is in some models.
The Buick 3500cc engine has been fitted (extensively modified)to
(Land) Rover for decades.
Many parts for cars are "off the shelf" and not specifically made for
any particular car or even make of car.
Shit American cars are well known to be just different bodywork fitted
to mechanics years old. This is why the US car industry is in
trouble. Lack of developement. Old technology. And the oil
companies.
Happens when accountants are put in charge of things instead of
engineers/enthusiasts.
harry
Nov 12, 2012, 4:21:02 AM11/12/12
to
On Nov 12, 12:42 am, The Daring Dufas <the-daring-du...@stinky-
even before that though.
finger.net> wrote:
> On 11/11/2012 5:32 PM, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 15:41:04 -0600, Vic Smith
> > <thismailautodele...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> On 11 Nov 2012 20:46:24 GMT, notbob <not...@nothome.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/11/2012 5:32 PM, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 15:41:04 -0600, Vic Smith
> > <thismailautodele...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> On 11 Nov 2012 20:46:24 GMT, notbob <not...@nothome.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On 2012-11-11, Vic Smith <thismailautodele...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> WTF? Now you say a Jag is a Chevy. When will it end?
>
> >>> "In May 1977, it was announced that automatic transmission version of
> >>> the twelve-cylinder cars would be fitted with a General Motors
> >>> three-speed THM 400 transmission in place of the British built
> >>> Borg-Warner units used hitherto."
>
> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_XJ
>
> >>> Go piss up a rope, dolt.
>
> >> Wow. Another one saying a Jaguar is really a Chevy - because he reads
> >> in Wiki that Jag used a GM trans. Never expected to such stupid shit.
> >> So it looks like it will never end.
> >> But it's all good. Dopes are always part of the mix.
>
> > Rolls used the Hydramatic too - doesn't make it a Chevy. BUT that does
> > not negate the fact that many "platforms" are shared between
> > "manufacturers"
>
> Na, now they're VW or BMW or is it the other way around? O_o
>
> TDD
Rolls Royce cars was sold off to BMW. I think the gearbox was German
>
> >>>> WTF? Now you say a Jag is a Chevy. When will it end?
>
> >>> "In May 1977, it was announced that automatic transmission version of
> >>> the twelve-cylinder cars would be fitted with a General Motors
> >>> three-speed THM 400 transmission in place of the British built
> >>> Borg-Warner units used hitherto."
>
> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_XJ
>
> >>> Go piss up a rope, dolt.
>
> >> Wow. Another one saying a Jaguar is really a Chevy - because he reads
> >> in Wiki that Jag used a GM trans. Never expected to such stupid shit.
> >> So it looks like it will never end.
> >> But it's all good. Dopes are always part of the mix.
>
> > Rolls used the Hydramatic too - doesn't make it a Chevy. BUT that does
> > not negate the fact that many "platforms" are shared between
> > "manufacturers"
>
> Na, now they're VW or BMW or is it the other way around? O_o
>
> TDD
even before that though.
harry
Nov 12, 2012, 4:23:12 AM11/12/12
to
The Daring Dufas
Nov 12, 2012, 6:17:23 AM11/12/12
to
sorts of machinations going on about BMW supplying V12 engines for
the big cars. O_o
TDD
Jim Elbrecht
Nov 12, 2012, 7:34:23 AM11/12/12
to
On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 22:32:37 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 14:07:21 -0600, Vic Smith
><thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
-snip-
>On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 14:07:21 -0600, Vic Smith
><thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>What is you drive, Hyudai?
>>Stick to what you know.
>
>Yes, a 2013 Sonata with the turbo engine. Nice car, and fast too.
A friend has a 2011 or 12 & I have long though it was a fine looking
>>Stick to what you know.
>
>Yes, a 2013 Sonata with the turbo engine. Nice car, and fast too.
car--- Then I saw a 2013-- Gotta give them credit for that one. I'm
a GM guy, but I hear the siren's song. . . . Hope my 2001 Impala is
nice to me for 4-5 more years.
Jim
cl...@snyder.on.ca
Nov 12, 2012, 12:20:05 PM11/12/12
to
their due dilligence. They got everything except the NAME. They can
NOT build Rolls Royce cars. That's whay they are all Bentleys. No
Rolls Royce cars being built any more - and very possibly never will
be.
cl...@snyder.on.ca
Nov 12, 2012, 12:36:01 PM11/12/12
to
On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 19:18:47 -0600, Vic Smith
<thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>I'll take a Ford or a Chrysler over ANY GM.
>>
>
>There you go! Why didn't you just say you're a brand fanboi in the
>first place? It's okay to be a GM hater here.
Not a fanboi.
<thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>I'll take a Ford or a Chrysler over ANY GM.
>>
>
>There you go! Why didn't you just say you're a brand fanboi in the
>first place? It's okay to be a GM hater here.
I've owned and driven just about all the majors -AMC, Chrysler, Ford,
GM, Toyota, Peugot, VW, Renault, Fiat- and worked on most of the
others - -including Jag, Rolls, Moscovitch, Lada, Nissan/Datsun,
Mitsubishi, etc
Right now, I find the Ford product to be the better vehicle. Years ago
I preferred Chrysler.
I'd rather be driving a Toyota, but the premium you pay for a good
used one is too high. Same for Honda. THEY are overpriced,
particularly on the used market.
For what the GM vehicles are, I think they are overpriced too - but
that's just my opinion.
I know to you that doesn't count - but your opinion and $2 bucks might
buy ME a small coffee
>Nonsense doesn't fly.
>>
>>You know YOUR Lumina. Yes, they are cheap to buy used, and there are
>>good ones - but they were NEVER known as a fantastic car.
>
>It's a fucking mid-level Chevy. Isn't supposed to be "fantastic."
>Even mine is only "great."
To each his own. The Lumina is a cheap car. Some decent ones from '95
>>
>>You know YOUR Lumina. Yes, they are cheap to buy used, and there are
>>good ones - but they were NEVER known as a fantastic car.
>
>It's a fucking mid-level Chevy. Isn't supposed to be "fantastic."
>Even mine is only "great."
up, but on the whole not considered a "desireable" car - as the price
reflects. GM killed off the name and brought back the Malibu moniker
because the Lumina name had been so badly sullied by the early years
they needed to retire it. You are not likely to see the Lumina name
plate revived - ever.
The Taurus is a mid-level Ford. Ford retired the Taurus name and went
with the "retro" Ford 500 nameplate - and had to bring back the Taurus
name to sell it (and yes, the early (generation 1) Taurus WAS a
pretty lousy car, in comparison).
cl...@snyder.on.ca
Nov 12, 2012, 12:39:26 PM11/12/12
to
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 02:28:34 +0000 (UTC), gregz <ze...@comcast.net>
wrote:
I'd have to agree - since the "rebound", as slow and mild as it has
been, more people ARE buying new cars - so more used are hitting the
market again - so at least untill the flood, used car prices were
softening a bit. Doesn't hurt that the new cars have been heavily
discounted - and even the MSRP has dropped in many cases.
wrote:
been, more people ARE buying new cars - so more used are hitting the
market again - so at least untill the flood, used car prices were
softening a bit. Doesn't hurt that the new cars have been heavily
discounted - and even the MSRP has dropped in many cases.
cl...@snyder.on.ca
Nov 12, 2012, 12:44:53 PM11/12/12
to
same engine. Even Pontiac, Buick, Chevy and Olds used to have their
own totally separate 350 (and 400 I believe) and checy had both BBC
and SBC 400 engines at the same time.
Of course today there is a LOT more cross-polination than there was
back then. The "world engine" DOES come in many different
displacements - shared among the same players. Audi and Mits do not
share. Mits does share with Chrysler, Hyundai/Kia ( and possiblya
couple of others)
cl...@snyder.on.ca
Nov 12, 2012, 12:48:09 PM11/12/12
to
notbob
Nov 12, 2012, 1:18:25 PM11/12/12
to
On 2012-11-12, cl...@snyder.on.ca <cl...@snyder.on.ca> wrote:
> Of course today there is a LOT more cross-polination than there was
> back then.
There were plenty, even back then. My parent's '64 Saab was powered by a Ford V4.
> Of course today there is a LOT more cross-polination than there was
> back then.
Perhaps not a factory offering, but Jag XJ's with small block Chevy
engines are a common mod in CA. So much so, you can shop for one.
Ford made Anglia's in UK starting in the late 30s. Opel was a German
subsidary of GM... yada yada....
cl...@snyder.on.ca
Nov 12, 2012, 1:30:30 PM11/12/12
to
Looks like VW bought the Bentley and Rolls manufacturing rights etc
but not the Rolls name - as I stated - BUT, the Rolls name was
"licenced" to BMW - so BMW can build a car and call it a Rolls, but
they cannot build the old rolls - while VW can build the old Rolls,
but has to sell it as a Bentley.
What a screwed up sale that was.
Rolls was devided into Rolls PLC and Rolls Motors. back in 1973.
Renamed Bentley Motors it was sold to VW in 1998. Bentleys were using
BMW engines at that time - and BMW and VW battled for what was then
still known as Rolls Royce Motors - VW won - but did not get the
Rolls Royce name, and now operates as Bentley Motors. Rolls Royce
PLC licenced the Rolls Royce name to BMW who then formed RollsRoyce
Motor Cars as a wholly owned subsidiary
cl...@snyder.on.ca
Nov 12, 2012, 1:48:59 PM11/12/12
to
On 12 Nov 2012 18:18:25 GMT, notbob <not...@nothome.com> wrote:
>On 2012-11-12, cl...@snyder.on.ca <cl...@snyder.on.ca> wrote:
>
>> Of course today there is a LOT more cross-polination than there was
>> back then.
>
>There were plenty, even back then. My parent's '64 Saab was powered by a Ford V4.
>Perhaps not a factory offering, but Jag XJ's with small block Chevy
>engines are a common mod in CA. So much so, you can shop for one.
>Ford made Anglia's in UK starting in the late 30s. Opel was a German
>subsidary of GM... yada yada....
>
>nb
Anglia was to Ford UK what Galaxy or Fairlane was to Ford North
>On 2012-11-12, cl...@snyder.on.ca <cl...@snyder.on.ca> wrote:
>
>> Of course today there is a LOT more cross-polination than there was
>> back then.
>
>There were plenty, even back then. My parent's '64 Saab was powered by a Ford V4.
>Perhaps not a factory offering, but Jag XJ's with small block Chevy
>engines are a common mod in CA. So much so, you can shop for one.
>Ford made Anglia's in UK starting in the late 30s. Opel was a German
>subsidary of GM... yada yada....
>
>nb
America.
Also known as the ford "Pop", for Popular, it was the 2 door car,
while the Ford 4 door Pop was called a Prefect.
Opel Was GM Germany - and Vauxhaull became GM Great Britain - Taunus
was Ford's German arm, and Rootes (singer, sunbeam, humber,) became
Chrysler's british arm, with Simca the french Chrysler
Australia had Holden as GM Australia until it (I believe) separated
off into it's own company - stilll closely allied with GM.
GM bought the bankrupt Daewoo in Korea - and owned the majority of
Japan's Isuzu. Not sure what the current status of Isuzu is.
Ford has cross polinated with both Mitsubishi and Mazda over the years
- and mitsubishi also with Chrysler.
Nissan and Renault are basically the same company today.
Over the years, designs crossed from one "division" to the other -
with the Chevette being one of the first "world cars" built and sold
as a Vauxhaul in GB, an Opel in Gemany and a Chev in North America (as
well as a Pontiac Acadian or T1000 in Canada) while the Vauxhaul HC
(while not a "world car) was sold as a Pontiac Firenza in Canada -.
The sunbeam (rootes)was sold in north america as a plymouth cricket
and Plymouth Arrow for a year or so, and then the Mitsubishi colt was
sold as both a Dodge Colt and a Plymouth Cricket as well as a Dodge
Challenger and a Plymouth Sapporro.
Vic Smith
Nov 12, 2012, 2:23:10 PM11/12/12
to
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:36:01 -0500, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 19:18:47 -0600, Vic Smith
><thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>>I'll take a Ford or a Chrysler over ANY GM.
>>>
>>
>>There you go! Why didn't you just say you're a brand fanboi in the
>>first place? It's okay to be a GM hater here.
>
>Not a fanboi.
>I've owned and driven just about all the majors -AMC, Chrysler, Ford,
>GM, Toyota, Peugot, VW, Renault, Fiat- and worked on most of the
>others - -including Jag, Rolls, Moscovitch, Lada, Nissan/Datsun,
>Mitsubishi, etc
>
>Right now, I find the Ford product to be the better vehicle. Years ago
>I preferred Chrysler.
See, that's silly to me. Saying any used car brand is "better"
>On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 19:18:47 -0600, Vic Smith
><thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>>I'll take a Ford or a Chrysler over ANY GM.
>>>
>>
>>There you go! Why didn't you just say you're a brand fanboi in the
>>first place? It's okay to be a GM hater here.
>
>Not a fanboi.
>I've owned and driven just about all the majors -AMC, Chrysler, Ford,
>GM, Toyota, Peugot, VW, Renault, Fiat- and worked on most of the
>others - -including Jag, Rolls, Moscovitch, Lada, Nissan/Datsun,
>Mitsubishi, etc
>
>Right now, I find the Ford product to be the better vehicle. Years ago
>I preferred Chrysler.
without talking about year, model, engine, trans, and cost. Then, you
have to add wrenching capability.
I would never recommend a car without knowing all that.
The only exception I make is for women on a tight budget whose car I
won't be maintaining.
I just tell them to get a new Corolla.
>I'd rather be driving a Toyota, but the premium you pay for a good
>used one is too high. Same for Honda. THEY are overpriced,
>particularly on the used market.
>For what the GM vehicles are, I think they are overpriced too - but
>that's just my opinion.
>
>I know to you that doesn't count - but your opinion and $2 bucks might
>buy ME a small coffee
>>Nonsense doesn't fly.
>>>
>>>You know YOUR Lumina. Yes, they are cheap to buy used, and there are
>>>good ones - but they were NEVER known as a fantastic car.
>>
>>It's a fucking mid-level Chevy. Isn't supposed to be "fantastic."
>>Even mine is only "great."
>
>
>To each his own. The Lumina is a cheap car. Some decent ones from '95
>up, but on the whole not considered a "desireable" car - as the price
>reflects. GM killed off the name and brought back the Malibu moniker
>because the Lumina name had been so badly sullied by the early years
>they needed to retire it. You are not likely to see the Lumina name
>plate revived - ever.
>
>The Taurus is a mid-level Ford. Ford retired the Taurus name and went
>with the "retro" Ford 500 nameplate - and had to bring back the Taurus
>name to sell it (and yes, the early (generation 1) Taurus WAS a
>pretty lousy car, in comparison).
you. If you have it in your head you don't like a car, it will never
satisfy you. Sometimes you have good reason, sometimes it's just in
your head. I like it that a car like the Lumina is "cheap" in your
head. Because of that and millions of other similar heads, I got it
cheap.
One of my brothers is a GM hater, so he bought a used Taurus, couple
years old, old of warranty. Trans failed. He had it fixed.
So he buys another similar Taurus for his wife. Trans failed.
Cost him thousands. Made Luminas cheaper to buy.
It's all good to me, and to my brother. He still buys Fords.
And I'm not knocking Fords. The AXOD "incidents" were "unfortunate."
I just happen to have concentrated on GM as my used car of choice.
Been good to me. I've studied them Next will probably be a used
Malibu with a 2.4. There will be no "surprises" if I can help it.
Remember, you're wealthier than me, if what you spend on cars is an
indication.
So I have a different perspective.
cl...@snyder.on.ca
Nov 12, 2012, 4:08:59 PM11/12/12
to
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 13:23:10 -0600, Vic Smith
Same thing I liked about the 1972 Pontiac Firenza (Vauxhaul HC 2300
Magnum) The old saying was "any F'renza yours aint no friends o'mine"
- I bought the thing dirt cheap - I drove the wheels off it, lent it
to my best man to drive to seminary while his Lotus Cortina was torn
apart, then gave it to my wife, and then passed it on to a friend of
hers - virtually trouble free, and the parts that WERE needed were
dirt cheap - because NOBODY wanted a Firenza. Friend ended up
scrapping it in about 1992 when the steering rack gave trouble and
parts were too hard to find - and it still looked and ran as well as
when I bought it in 1979 for $75.00
>One of my brothers is a GM hater, so he bought a used Taurus, couple
>years old, old of warranty. Trans failed. He had it fixed.
>So he buys another similar Taurus for his wife. Trans failed.
>Cost him thousands. Made Luminas cheaper to buy.
>It's all good to me, and to my brother. He still buys Fords.
>And I'm not knocking Fords. The AXOD "incidents" were "unfortunate."
>I just happen to have concentrated on GM as my used car of choice.
>Been good to me. I've studied them Next will probably be a used
>Malibu with a 2.4. There will be no "surprises" if I can help it.
>Remember, you're wealthier than me, if what you spend on cars is an
>indication.
>So I have a different perspective.
>
I buy $5000 cars and drive them 10 years, on average - with very
little spent on service and repairs (other than regular oil changes)
Car cost, $500 per year. Service cost, less than $500 per year over
the last 20 years - not counting that Pontiac. Even averaging in that
pontiac it's not much higher -I paid as much , including the engine
and transmission, as I generally pay for a car - and the repairs while
I owned it were not TERRIBLY expensive - just extremely irritating. It
just didn't last as long as average (or expected). And there are
always 2 cars on the go. Mine and my wife's (which my #1 daughter
also drives when she is "in country") Second daughter owns her own
cars - on car #3 - $2000 Colt, then $5000 Neon, then a brand new Honda
Civic. (over 300,000km in 12 year period) - and she only buys and
drives standard. trans cars.
When I bought the TransSport, I was really prepared to like it. After
a Ford Aerostar, who couldn't like a plastic/fiberglass/rustproof
body?? ( the body rust was the only thing I really did NOT like on
either of my 2 Aerostars) It was loaded - leather seats and all - and
it did ride less like a truck than the Aerostar. It also had a lot
less room in it than the long Aerostars. But it never lived up to my
expectations. The fact that the steel UNDER the plastic body still
rusted didn't help either - - - . The Aerostars got tough looking, but
remained solid. The TransSport stayed looking pretty, but I had to
weld the underbody/frame. Dispite it's problems I LIKED the damned
thing. It was just the "worst" vehicle I had ever owned here in North
America. (gave me the most problems - ) I guess I'd been spoiled by
all the (many) other cars I'd owned before.
The 1967 Peugeot and the 1949 VW I owned and drove in Zambia in the
seventies gave more trouble, and were over-all worse cars - but they
were BEAT when I bought them - as was my first car - a 1961 Mini with
$196,000 miles that I bought for $60. There were no expectations to
the contrary with either of those 3. They were all 3 virtually theft
proof.
I replaced the Pontiac with a PT Cruiser. Similar mission. Less power
with the 2.4L 4 cyl. Less space. Not a whole lot better gas mileage.
Virtually trouble free. I liked it too, but I got tired of it, and
since I was using it more as a truck than as a car recently, and we
had just replaced my wife's car, I kept my eyes open for a nice
compact pickup - and bought myself a Ford Ranger - sold the PT to a
neighbour.
Magnum) The old saying was "any F'renza yours aint no friends o'mine"
- I bought the thing dirt cheap - I drove the wheels off it, lent it
to my best man to drive to seminary while his Lotus Cortina was torn
apart, then gave it to my wife, and then passed it on to a friend of
hers - virtually trouble free, and the parts that WERE needed were
dirt cheap - because NOBODY wanted a Firenza. Friend ended up
scrapping it in about 1992 when the steering rack gave trouble and
parts were too hard to find - and it still looked and ran as well as
when I bought it in 1979 for $75.00
>One of my brothers is a GM hater, so he bought a used Taurus, couple
>years old, old of warranty. Trans failed. He had it fixed.
>So he buys another similar Taurus for his wife. Trans failed.
>Cost him thousands. Made Luminas cheaper to buy.
>It's all good to me, and to my brother. He still buys Fords.
>And I'm not knocking Fords. The AXOD "incidents" were "unfortunate."
>I just happen to have concentrated on GM as my used car of choice.
>Been good to me. I've studied them Next will probably be a used
>Malibu with a 2.4. There will be no "surprises" if I can help it.
>Remember, you're wealthier than me, if what you spend on cars is an
>indication.
>So I have a different perspective.
>
little spent on service and repairs (other than regular oil changes)
Car cost, $500 per year. Service cost, less than $500 per year over
the last 20 years - not counting that Pontiac. Even averaging in that
pontiac it's not much higher -I paid as much , including the engine
and transmission, as I generally pay for a car - and the repairs while
I owned it were not TERRIBLY expensive - just extremely irritating. It
just didn't last as long as average (or expected). And there are
always 2 cars on the go. Mine and my wife's (which my #1 daughter
also drives when she is "in country") Second daughter owns her own
cars - on car #3 - $2000 Colt, then $5000 Neon, then a brand new Honda
Civic. (over 300,000km in 12 year period) - and she only buys and
drives standard. trans cars.
When I bought the TransSport, I was really prepared to like it. After
a Ford Aerostar, who couldn't like a plastic/fiberglass/rustproof
body?? ( the body rust was the only thing I really did NOT like on
either of my 2 Aerostars) It was loaded - leather seats and all - and
it did ride less like a truck than the Aerostar. It also had a lot
less room in it than the long Aerostars. But it never lived up to my
expectations. The fact that the steel UNDER the plastic body still
rusted didn't help either - - - . The Aerostars got tough looking, but
remained solid. The TransSport stayed looking pretty, but I had to
weld the underbody/frame. Dispite it's problems I LIKED the damned
thing. It was just the "worst" vehicle I had ever owned here in North
America. (gave me the most problems - ) I guess I'd been spoiled by
all the (many) other cars I'd owned before.
The 1967 Peugeot and the 1949 VW I owned and drove in Zambia in the
seventies gave more trouble, and were over-all worse cars - but they
were BEAT when I bought them - as was my first car - a 1961 Mini with
$196,000 miles that I bought for $60. There were no expectations to
the contrary with either of those 3. They were all 3 virtually theft
proof.
I replaced the Pontiac with a PT Cruiser. Similar mission. Less power
with the 2.4L 4 cyl. Less space. Not a whole lot better gas mileage.
Virtually trouble free. I liked it too, but I got tired of it, and
since I was using it more as a truck than as a car recently, and we
had just replaced my wife's car, I kept my eyes open for a nice
compact pickup - and bought myself a Ford Ranger - sold the PT to a
neighbour.
Ed Pawlowski
Nov 12, 2012, 11:13:01 PM11/12/12
to
On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 07:34:23 -0500, Jim Elbrecht <elbr...@email.com>
to crap in my driveway. When thing started going bad after two years
(but more than 36k miles) GM was no help. They wanted to give me a few
bucks off a new car.
Heated seat (they wanted $672 to replace it), transmission, power
windows, heat and AC, brake lines, wheel bearings, steering wheel
controls, bunch of other stuff in five years. I finally just gave it
away. No more GM here.
I'm on my third trouble free Hyundai.
wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 22:32:37 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 14:07:21 -0600, Vic Smith
>><thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>-snip-
>>>What is you drive, Hyudai?
>>>Stick to what you know.
>>
>>Yes, a 2013 Sonata with the turbo engine. Nice car, and fast too.
>
>A friend has a 2011 or 12 & I have long though it was a fine looking
>car--- Then I saw a 2013-- Gotta give them credit for that one. I'm
>a GM guy, but I hear the siren's song. . . . Hope my 2001 Impala is
>nice to me for 4-5 more years.
>
>Jim
I drove mostly GM for many years. The last one, 2001 LebSabre, turned
>On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 22:32:37 -0500, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 14:07:21 -0600, Vic Smith
>><thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>-snip-
>>>What is you drive, Hyudai?
>>>Stick to what you know.
>>
>>Yes, a 2013 Sonata with the turbo engine. Nice car, and fast too.
>
>A friend has a 2011 or 12 & I have long though it was a fine looking
>car--- Then I saw a 2013-- Gotta give them credit for that one. I'm
>a GM guy, but I hear the siren's song. . . . Hope my 2001 Impala is
>nice to me for 4-5 more years.
>
>Jim
to crap in my driveway. When thing started going bad after two years
(but more than 36k miles) GM was no help. They wanted to give me a few
bucks off a new car.
Heated seat (they wanted $672 to replace it), transmission, power
windows, heat and AC, brake lines, wheel bearings, steering wheel
controls, bunch of other stuff in five years. I finally just gave it
away. No more GM here.
I'm on my third trouble free Hyundai.
k...@att.bizzz
Nov 16, 2012, 8:30:05 PM11/16/12
to
notbob
Nov 16, 2012, 9:05:10 PM11/16/12
to
On 2012-11-17, k...@att.bizzz <k...@att.bizzz> wrote:
>> So what killed the British car industry????
>
> British engineering prowess.
The same thing that almost killed the US auto industry, namely upper
>> So what killed the British car industry????
>
> British engineering prowess.
mgt awarding themselves ever more $$$$ while failing to upgrade their
own product and mfg processes. Harley would have died too if the
brand didn't have such a legacy and middle class geezers hadn't come
outta the woodwork in droves to relive their too-poor youth. Plus,
the Brit govt wasn't so stupid as to bail out the failing Brit
car/motocycle industry at its citizens expense.
cl...@snyder.on.ca
Nov 16, 2012, 9:40:31 PM11/16/12
to
cl...@snyder.on.ca
Nov 16, 2012, 9:41:22 PM11/16/12
to
On 17 Nov 2012 02:05:10 GMT, notbob <not...@nothome.com> wrote:
>On 2012-11-17, k...@att.bizzz <k...@att.bizzz> wrote:
>
>>> So what killed the British car industry????
>>
>> British engineering prowess.
>
>The same thing that almost killed the US auto industry, namely upper
>mgt awarding themselves ever more $$$$ while failing to upgrade their
>own product and mfg processes. Harley would have died too if the
>brand didn't have such a legacy and middle class geezers hadn't come
>outta the woodwork in droves to relive their too-poor youth. Plus,
>the Brit govt wasn't so stupid as to bail out the failing Brit
>car/motocycle industry at its citizens expense.
>
>nb
Short sighted as usual.
>On 2012-11-17, k...@att.bizzz <k...@att.bizzz> wrote:
>
>>> So what killed the British car industry????
>>
>> British engineering prowess.
>
>The same thing that almost killed the US auto industry, namely upper
>mgt awarding themselves ever more $$$$ while failing to upgrade their
>own product and mfg processes. Harley would have died too if the
>brand didn't have such a legacy and middle class geezers hadn't come
>outta the woodwork in droves to relive their too-poor youth. Plus,
>the Brit govt wasn't so stupid as to bail out the failing Brit
>car/motocycle industry at its citizens expense.
>
>nb
(PeteCresswell)
Nov 17, 2012, 8:52:33 AM11/17/12
to
Per k...@att.bizzz:
>British engineering prowess.
"British Rustproofing: Oil Seals".
--
Pete Cresswell
>British engineering prowess.
"British Rustproofing: Oil Seals".
--
Pete Cresswell
0 new messages