You are not frugal if......
William Souden
internet access. Find a company offering two or all three at a combo rate.
You pay for travelers checks. Better to get them free at AAA or, even
better, use a debit card on trips.
You pay 25 cents a gallon more at a brand name station than at no name
place across the street.
You pay an extra fee for concert and sporting events which have you go
to Will Call when you can print the tickets at home.
clams_casino
>
>
> You pay 25 cents a gallon more at a brand name station than at no
> name place across the street.
>
At best, I've seen a 10 cent spread in recent years - more commonly it's
perhaps a few cents to a nickel. Since my CC rebates 3% at branded
stations, usually it's cheaper for me to pay the higher price at the
branded station vs. the no brand (including discount store) stations.
Dave
"clams_casino" <PeterG...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote in message
news:VZGdk.27405$i55....@newsfe22.lga...
That must be a recent development. One company I worked for required us to
fuel at certain stations for a 5 cent rebate on the company credit cards,
even though nearby stations were often 10 to 25 cents cheaper. -Dave
hchi...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> You ,as an individual. pay more than $100 for landline,cell and
>internet access. Find a company offering two or all three at a combo rate.
Heh. Try living in the country. If you want any semblance of
broadband at home, you have one option - satellite. Satellite works
lousy for VOIP, so a land line is a requirement if you happen to be in
an area like I am, where cell phones don't work. A trip to a free
wifi spot twenty miles away costs too much, and eliminates that as a
money-saving option.
Seerialmom
> You ,as an individual. pay more than $100 for landline,cell and
> internet access. Find a company offering two or all three at a combo rate.
Details on who currently provides all 3 for the price you're
referencing, please.
> You pay for travelers checks. Better to get them free at AAA or, even
> better, use a debit card on trips.
Wrong: AAA has partnered with Travelex** to offer Traveler Cheques.
Never has traveling to Europe been easier. American Express Euro and
Pounds Traveler Cheques are accepted in 12 European nations. US
Traveler cheques are also available. Please note a $9.95 handling fee
for US Travelers Cheques purchases
> You pay 25 cents a gallon more at a brand name station than at no name
> place across the street.
My coworker swears that his car runs better on "name
brand"...personally I think he's smokin' crack. However if my car
develops the sludges because I didn't use Chevron with Techron...I
might change my tune.
> You pay an extra fee for concert and sporting events which have you go
> to Will Call when you can print the tickets at home.
What if you're being frugal by not having the expense of a computer
and the ink for a printer?
clams_casino
>
>
>My coworker swears that his car runs better on "name
>brand"...personally I think he's smokin' crack. However if my car
>develops the sludges because I didn't use Chevron with Techron...I
>might change my tune.
>
>
>
>
A few years back, I analyzed about 150k miles of driving and found that
the gas from brand names (Shell, Exxon, Amoco, Chevron, BP, etc)
averaged about 0.3 miles/gallon higher than the so-called off brands
(Pilot, Hess, Murphy, Racetrack, etc), but once I considered the fact
that more "off Brand" gasoline was purchased locally vs. more use of
"brand name" gas on out-of-state interstate trips where the relatively
small increase in mileage was likely due simply because of the higher
amount of interstate driving using the branded gas.
George Grapman
> On Jul 10, 8:00 pm, William Souden <sou...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> You ,as an individual. pay more than $100 for landline,cell and
>> internet access. Find a company offering two or all three at a combo rate.
>
> Details on who currently provides all 3 for the price you're
> referencing, please.
I can not speak for the OP but I get my DSL and cell from AT&T for a
combined $45 a month. With a home office most of my cell usage is
incoming calls as I use a separate land line for outgoing calls. That
line is unlimited service from IDT for $35 a month. I assume that the
poster is not including the various fees that even those of us who work
in telecom do not always understand.
>
>> You pay for travelers checks. Better to get them free at AAA or, even
>> better, use a debit card on trips.
>
> Wrong: AAA has partnered with Travelex** to offer Traveler Cheques.
> Never has traveling to Europe been easier. American Express Euro and
> Pounds Traveler Cheques are accepted in 12 European nations. US
> Traveler cheques are also available. Please note a $9.95 handling fee
> for US Travelers Cheques purchases
I do not think I have purchased travelers checks since I first got a
debit card. When traveling I rarely carry more than $40 on me. If I need
cash I numerous options:
Go to any chain store,buy one item and get cash back.
My credit union is linked to network of other credit unions as well as
the 7/11 network with no fees for using their ATMs.
>
>> You pay 25 cents a gallon more at a brand name station than at no name
>> place across the street.
>
> My coworker swears that his car runs better on "name
> brand"...personally I think he's smokin' crack. However if my car
> develops the sludges because I didn't use Chevron with Techron...I
> might change my tune.
>
>> You pay an extra fee for concert and sporting events which have you go
>> to Will Call when you can print the tickets at home.
>
> What if you're being frugal by not having the expense of a computer
> and the ink for a printer?
I guess it is on a case by case basis. By the way, one should be wary
of buying computer generated tickets from an unknown person as they
could easily print multiple tickets but only the first one scanned at
the gate will be valid.
Reminds me of a dumb thief years ago when I has weekend season
tickets for the A's. Season tickets were laminated and had a totally
different look than individual game tickets. Someone in our section had
never gotten their season tickets (this was in the days before there
were scanned). The team issued replacements. One day someone showed up
with the originals. The usher called security. The person claimed the
got them at the box office a few weeks ago. They were arrested and later
convicted of mail theft.
Seerialmom
wrote:
That would make sense. His argument was probably more about octane
level, but if I believed either Shell or Chevron...my poor engine is
clogging up like the arteries of someone who eats too much fat :)
Seerialmom
about 8 years ago, but I also used my debit card. I think the
original point of Traveler's Cheques was that back before debit cards
were around people wrote personal checks. Outside of your local area
many businesses wouldn't take a personal check from out of towners,
Traveler's Cheques were the alternative (plus you didn't have to carry
a big roll of dough).
Dave
> > You pay 25 cents a gallon more at a brand name station than at no
> > name place across the street.
>
> My coworker swears that his car runs better on "name
> brand"...personally I think he's smokin' crack. However if my car
> develops the sludges because I didn't use Chevron with Techron...I
> might change my tune.
Depends on what name brand your coworker is using. The only difference
I noticed is that I owned one car (a Suzuki) that ran noticeably better
and got better fuel economy if I filled it at any Shell station. It
wasn't a fluke, but a repeated occurrence until I noticed a pattern.
The pattern was, if I filled up at Shell, my MPG calculated at my NEXT
fill-up would be higher. And while the tank was full of mostly Shell,
the car ran noticeably smoother.
OTOH, it is a well-known fact that most fuel comes from the same
refineries. So in many cases, the brand name stuff could be the EXACT
SAME product sold at the no-name place across the street. -Dave
Seerialmom
Is it also possible that the pump was either more precise (not sure if
you've seen the reports, but some are way of) or it could just be
better. Personally I think this sounds like something for the
Mythbusters or Top Gear:)
Bay Area Holdout
getting the Texting Package. As for Internet, you didn't define dial-up or
DSL or DSL at what speed. Dial-up and lowest speed DSL are the cheapest but
because I have three Internet Users I found the slightly faster package was
required. Another $5 a month but we get free access to there Wi-Fi access
which is pretty widepread as well.
We still have a landline but minimum package. I hate the mandatory long
distance access if you have a landline but we get the barest minimum for
that and use Calling Cards.
2) Travellers Checks are free as part of our banking package but overseas
I've found the service fees and rate of exchange eats alot away, so I tend
to use credit cards for bigger meals and hotels and purchases even though
you get a rate of exchange applied there as well...no easy solution I've
been able to find so far for that.
3) Never had the gunk in the gas issues of the "off brands" and I fugure
with the all the Air Quality Controls issues in gas blending they have to be
close to the same formula or the state would be all over them.
If we get to the the typical "four corners, four gas stations" when
travelling the Interstate I do the math on the 3% rebate we get on ALL gas
purchases from AMEX. If the cents delta is small and the line is shorter, I
go to the name brand to get back on the road sooner.
And yes, I pay off my CC balance in full every month, I haven't paid CC
interest since the late '80's when the income tax deduction for it went
away. My rule, if I don't have the cash, I don't buy it.
4) We just don't do the ticket thing for some time now. Too expensive in
almost all cases.
I'll add one.......
You are not frugal if you stay at motels and don't use a AAA or AARP or
other card for discounts AND don't use the brands travel card for
points(sometimes you get free papers and room upgrades too) for free rooms
or cash cards for gas or resturants.
Jeff
>>> You pay 25 cents a gallon more at a brand name station than at no
>>> name place across the street.
>> My coworker swears that his car runs better on "name
>> brand"...personally I think he's smokin' crack. However if my car
>> develops the sludges because I didn't use Chevron with Techron...I
>> might change my tune.
>
> Depends on what name brand your coworker is using. The only difference
> I noticed is that I owned one car (a Suzuki) that ran noticeably better
> and got better fuel economy if I filled it at any Shell station. It
> wasn't a fluke, but a repeated occurrence until I noticed a pattern.
> The pattern was, if I filled up at Shell, my MPG calculated at my NEXT
> fill-up would be higher. And while the tank was full of mostly Shell,
> the car ran noticeably smoother.
I have a friend who unknowingly ran her Volvo on 3 cylinders.
It ran particularly poorly on Racetrack, OK on the name brand, and got
better mileage.
Obviously it needed all the performance it could get with the missing
cylinder and the offbrand didn't have it.
Seems to me that some gasolines may indeed be better, but under
ordinary usage, it isn't noticeable.
I wonder if you can tell how much ethanol a particular gas has.
Ethanol has a lower energy content and 10% Ethanol gives about 3% less
mileage.
Jeff
George Grapman
remember when buying them was part of pre-trip excitement. The matching
signature thing made it fairly easy but in later years more and more
places required ID.
Once I had some American Express checks lost/stolen. I called them
and a few hours later I got replacements at a local office.
val189
> You ,as an individual. pay more than $100 for landline,cell and
> internet access. Find a company offering two or all three at a combo rate.
Hmm...monthly phone, cell and internet = a little over a hundred.
> You pay for travelers checks. Better to get them free at AAA or, even
> better, use a debit card on trips.
Haven't bought em in ten years. Cash, credit cards and debit cards
are what I tote outta town.
>
> You pay 25 cents a gallon more at a brand name station than at no name
> place across the street.
I go for convenience - I won't cross a busy highway to save a few
cents, which is about what it amounts to now.
val189
this month on a savings account I rarely use. I was told that one
year with no activity will incur the fee, so I promptly requested that
they close it out. Oh sure, I lose the ATM feature but I can live
without it. (Have other bank accounts with debit and ATM privileges.)
Must remember to destroy that card.....
Also not frugal is to let money accumulate in a low interest account.
I still know ppl who have over a hundred thou sitting in checking.
Seerialmom
Worse than getting a fee slapped on your account, how about those
states that have the account marked as "abandoned" and you have to
reclaim it from the state treasurer?
See answers here (for our Canadian friends and others outside of the
US, your terms may be different):
sarge137
> You ,as an individual. pay more than $100 for landline,cell and
> internet access. Find a company offering two or all three at a combo rate.
I pay just over $150.00 (regular price not introductory) for which I
get:
1. Landline telephone service, w/caller ID, call forwarding, and
voice mail..
2. TWO cell phones.
3. 550 mins/mo combined on the cell phones, and unlimited domestic
long distance on all three.
4. 1.3Mb/s DSL internet access.
5. DirecTV Choice Extra package (pretty much everything except movie
channels) w/HD & DVR.
1, 4, and 5 are bundled with my local phone company.
2 and 3 are a combination of two special packages with Sprint that
I've had for years.
My wife uses her cell phone for work and gets a $40 monthly allowance
from her employer.
> You pay for travelers checks. Better to get them free at AAA or, even
> better, use a debit card on trips.
Haven't used checks travelers checks, or checks of any kind for that
matter, in twenty years. When I travel I carry a debit card, a credit
card, and less than than $100.00 cash for incidentals. I don't
travel internationally anymore so I don't worry about currency
conversion.
> You pay 25 cents a gallon more at a brand name station than at no name
> place across the street.
Except for a few stations near the interstate, which locals don't go
near, there isn't a ten cent difference in price at any gas station
within a ten mile radius of where I live. I have no brand preference
or loyalty, so I buy gas where I am when I need it.
> You pay an extra fee for concert and sporting events which have you go
> to Will Call when you can print the tickets at home.
None of the venues in my area make service charges for tickets unless
you want them mailed. Pick'em up at will call on or before the date
of the event and there' s no service charge. I always buy event
tickets directly from the venue, by phone or on-line, never from an
agency or broker. If they can only be had that way, I don't go.
Nicik Name
"William Souden" <sou...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:30Adk.17488$Ri....@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
> You ,as an individual. pay more than $100 for landline,cell and
> internet access. Find a company offering two or all three at a combo rate.
>
> You pay for travelers checks. Better to get them free at AAA or, even
> better, use a debit card on trips.
>
> You pay 25 cents a gallon more at a brand name station than at no name
> place across the street.
I have a Shell at 4.539 here with a no name no where near..........
Gordon
news:t3Qdk.14112$89....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com:
> I'll add one.......
>
> You are not frugal if you stay at motels and don't use a AAA or AARP
> or other card for discounts AND don't use the brands travel card for
> points(sometimes you get free papers and room upgrades too) for free
> rooms or cash cards for gas or resturants.
>
>
Last time I travaled across country I was able to get some great
discounts just by asking for them. Usually I motel will quote the
"rack rate" if you just walk up and ask. Your next question should
be "Are you offering any discounts tonight?". That usually got me
the AAA rate.
George Grapman
corporate rate is. Once every few years they actually ask for a business
card.
If you are dealing with an owner/manager ,are not overly tired , you
know there are other motels in the area and the quoted price is too high
simply say,thank you" and walk out. Many times you will hear,"wait",
followed by explanations of forgot we had a cancellation/have a smaller
room/are you paying cash?
Dennis
> I wonder if you can tell how much ethanol a particular gas has.
>Ethanol has a lower energy content and 10% Ethanol gives about 3% less
>mileage.
I see about a 5% reduction in mileage on 10% ethanol. 1998 Toyota
Corolla, 1.8L, manual transmission, ~80/20 highway/city.
Dennis (evil)
--
What government gives, it must first take away.
Dennis
>On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 10:10:13 -0700, in misc.consumers.frugal-living Dennis
><dg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:23:41 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder if you can tell how much ethanol a particular gas has.
>>>Ethanol has a lower energy content and 10% Ethanol gives about 3% less
>>>mileage.
>>
>>I see about a 5% reduction in mileage on 10% ethanol. 1998 Toyota
>>Corolla, 1.8L, manual transmission, ~80/20 highway/city.
>>
>>
>>Dennis (evil)
>
>
>I think everything in some states is 10% ethonol now.
It was just mandated for my area at the beginning of this year, so I
have pretty good before and after data to compare.
clams_casino
>
>
>
>In actuality ethanol causes even more pollution then fossil fuel and it makes
>food more expensive. ONly a good deal if you are a big agribusiness owner.
>
>
While there is no doubt that the highly subsidized ethanol from corn has
greatly enriched Archer Daniels Midland's coffers, the overall increased
price of corn has many many farmers, at the expense of most everyone
else. I question if ADM would even exist if it wasn't for their
enormous corporate welfare. Their whole existence is based on
government subsidies that essentially started with their heavy financing
of lobbying efforts that led to the blatantly projectionist sugar-quota
system that went into effect in 1982 and has held sway ever since.
Jeff
The 5% reduction makes sense as the energy content is half. I had
heard 3% perhaps because the can run more advanced in some cars.
What really is your highway mileage, surely not 80!
I might have some money for a replacement car, thinking along the
lines of a Honda Civic HX, if I can find one. That gets 40 + on the
highway. With that kind of mileage I can drive like it's 2007 all over
again!
I don't get this whole ethanol bit, beyond the big Agra boost.
Methanol makes more sense if we have to have some such stuff as it
doesn't boost food costs. Even Bio Diesel makes more sense.
Jeff
Dennis
>Dennis wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 11:48:33 -0700, un...@example.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 10:10:13 -0700, in misc.consumers.frugal-living Dennis
>>> <dg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:23:41 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if you can tell how much ethanol a particular gas has.
>>>>> Ethanol has a lower energy content and 10% Ethanol gives about 3% less
>>>>> mileage.
>>>> I see about a 5% reduction in mileage on 10% ethanol. 1998 Toyota
>>>> Corolla, 1.8L, manual transmission, ~80/20 highway/city.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dennis (evil)
>>>
>>> I think everything in some states is 10% ethonol now.
>>
>> It was just mandated for my area at the beginning of this year, so I
>> have pretty good before and after data to compare.
>
> The 5% reduction makes sense as the energy content is half. I had
>heard 3% perhaps because the can run more advanced in some cars.
>
> What really is your highway mileage, surely not 80!
I meant my driving mix is roughly 80% highway, 20% city (i.e.,
stoplights and traffic).
I was averaging about 40mpg overall last year with straight gas. It
has dropped to about 38mpg since the switch to 10% ethanol. Actually,
it dropped lower than that at the switchover time last January (to
36mpg, about 10% drop), but has improved. I suspect the colder
weather, snow tires vs. regular tires, etc. played a factor. I
calculate my mpg the old fashion way, miles on the trip odo divided by
gallons to fill the tank, and it stays pretty consistent over time.
> I might have some money for a replacement car, thinking along the
>lines of a Honda Civic HX, if I can find one. That gets 40 + on the
>highway. With that kind of mileage I can drive like it's 2007 all over
>again!
Why did they quit making models like the HX? Nowadays, they act like
it's a big deal when a compact 4-banger gets 30mpg.
I bought my first brand-new car in 1980, a Datsun (now Nissan) 200SX.
It had a 2.0L 4-cylinder, 5-speed manual transmission. It was
supposed to be a sporty little brother to the 280ZX. I used to
average 35mpg commuting with it, and once got 38mpg over a couple
tanks on a longer trip down the freeway (in July with the A/C going).
OK, it had electronic ignition, fuel injection, etc, but it was almost
(now) 30-year-old technology! Why can't the manufacturers at least
match that today?
> I don't get this whole ethanol bit, beyond the big Agra boost.
>Methanol makes more sense if we have to have some such stuff as it
>doesn't boost food costs. Even Bio Diesel makes more sense.
Ethanol in fuel, at least as it is implemented today, makes no sense
for the driving public.
Dennis (evil)
--
My output is down, my income is up, I take a short position on the long bond and
my revenue stream has its own cash flow. -George Carlin
George
>
>> I might have some money for a replacement car, thinking along the
>> lines of a Honda Civic HX, if I can find one. That gets 40 + on the
>> highway. With that kind of mileage I can drive like it's 2007 all over
>> again!
>
> Why did they quit making models like the HX? Nowadays, they act like
> it's a big deal when a compact 4-banger gets 30mpg.
>
> I bought my first brand-new car in 1980, a Datsun (now Nissan) 200SX.
> It had a 2.0L 4-cylinder, 5-speed manual transmission. It was
> supposed to be a sporty little brother to the 280ZX. I used to
> average 35mpg commuting with it, and once got 38mpg over a couple
> tanks on a longer trip down the freeway (in July with the A/C going).
> OK, it had electronic ignition, fuel injection, etc, but it was almost
> (now) 30-year-old technology! Why can't the manufacturers at least
> match that today?
They can. Unfortunately the US manufacturers decided fluffed up trucks
with 18 cup holders, 600 HP engines and 195,000lb towing capacity were
what the average US driver needed to transport themselves and a large
coffee.
I had a Ford Fiesta that they imported for only a few years and it got
similar mileage to what you described with the Datsun. They still make
and sell the Fiesta in Europe and Asia. The new version gets 34 mpg
city/ 43 highway and 38.9 combined. The turbodiesel version gets 64 mpg
combined.
If Ford is still in business they won't even be able to offer the Fiesta
gas version in the US until at least October, 2009 because of all of the
reliance they put on selling fluffed up trucks here.
>
>
>> I don't get this whole ethanol bit, beyond the big Agra boost.
>> Methanol makes more sense if we have to have some such stuff as it
>> doesn't boost food costs. Even Bio Diesel makes more sense.
>
> Ethanol in fuel, at least as it is implemented today, makes no sense
> for the driving public.
Heavily subsidizing grinding up food to make ethanol to keep the SUVs
going will definitely go into the history books as one of the dumbest
ideas the politicians ever came up with.
>
>
> Dennis (evil)
Rod Speed
Basically because of the pollution controls.
Rod Speed
> Dennis wrote:
>
>>
>>> I might have some money for a replacement car, thinking along the
>>> lines of a Honda Civic HX, if I can find one. That gets 40 + on the
>>> highway. With that kind of mileage I can drive like it's 2007 all
>>> over again!
>>
>> Why did they quit making models like the HX? Nowadays, they act like
>> it's a big deal when a compact 4-banger gets 30mpg.
>>
>> I bought my first brand-new car in 1980, a Datsun (now Nissan) 200SX.
>> It had a 2.0L 4-cylinder, 5-speed manual transmission. It was
>> supposed to be a sporty little brother to the 280ZX. I used to
>> average 35mpg commuting with it, and once got 38mpg over a couple
>> tanks on a longer trip down the freeway (in July with the A/C going).
>> OK, it had electronic ignition, fuel injection, etc, but it was
>> almost (now) 30-year-old technology! Why can't the manufacturers at
>> least match that today?
>
> They can.
Nope.
> Unfortunately the US manufacturers decided fluffed up trucks with 18 cup holders, 600 HP engines and 195,000lb towing
> capacity were what the average US driver needed to transport themselves and a large coffee.
Doesnt explain why Datsun doesnt get the result they used to get.
> I had a Ford Fiesta that they imported for only a few years and it got
> similar mileage to what you described with the Datsun. They still make
> and sell the Fiesta in Europe and Asia. The new version gets 34 mpg
> city/ 43 highway and 38.9 combined. The turbodiesel version gets 64
> mpg combined.
> If Ford is still in business they won't even be able to offer the
> Fiesta gas version in the US until at least October, 2009 because of all of the reliance they put on selling fluffed
> up trucks here.
Doesnt explain why Datsun doesnt get the result they used to get.
The real reason its got worse is the pollution controls that are now mandated.
>>> I don't get this whole ethanol bit, beyond the big Agra boost.
>>> Methanol makes more sense if we have to have some such stuff as it
>>> doesn't boost food costs. Even Bio Diesel makes more sense.
>>
>> Ethanol in fuel, at least as it is implemented today, makes no sense
>> for the driving public.
>
> Heavily subsidizing grinding up food to make ethanol to keep the SUVs
> going will definitely go into the history books as one of the dumbest
> ideas the politicians ever came up with.
I doubt it. Look at what Brazil is doing sometime.
Rod Speed
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 13:24:58 -0400, in misc.consumers.frugal-living
> George <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> I don't get this whole ethanol bit, beyond the big Agra boost.
>>>> Methanol makes more sense if we have to have some such stuff as it
>>>> doesn't boost food costs. Even Bio Diesel makes more sense.
>>>
>>> Ethanol in fuel, at least as it is implemented today, makes no sense
>>> for the driving public.
>>
>> Heavily subsidizing grinding up food to make ethanol to keep the SUVs
>> going will definitely go into the history books as one of the dumbest
>> ideas the politicians ever came up with.
> I don't like bio-desiel because they are cutting down forests to make bio-deisel.
No they arent.
Rod Speed
> Yes they are and I have witnessed it.
Fuck all biodiesel comes from freshly cut down forests.
Evelyn C. Leeper
> On Jul 11, 10:14 am, George Grapman <sfgeo...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>> Seerialmom wrote:
>>>
>>>> You pay for travelers checks. Better to get them free at AAA or, even
>>>> better, use a debit card on trips.
>>> Never has traveling to Europe been easier. American Express Euro and
>>> Pounds Traveler Cheques are accepted in 12 European nations. US
>>> Traveler cheques are also available. Please note a $9.95 handling fee
>>> for US Travelers Cheques purchases
>> I do not think I have purchased travelers checks since I first got a
>> debit card. When traveling I rarely carry more than $40 on me. If I need
>> cash I numerous options:
>>
>> Go to any chain store,buy one item and get cash back.
>> My credit union is linked to network of other credit unions as well as
>> the 7/11 network with no fees for using their ATMs.
>>
> I bought traveler's cheques when I was going on a trip to Hong Kong
> about 8 years ago, but I also used my debit card. I think the
> original point of Traveler's Cheques was that back before debit cards
> were around people wrote personal checks. Outside of your local area
> many businesses wouldn't take a personal check from out of towners,
> Traveler's Cheques were the alternative (plus you didn't have to carry
> a big roll of dough).
Traveler's Cheques are also useful in countries where the ATMs are 1)
iffy because of bad telephone lines (e.g. Turkey), 2) often not in
English (e.g., Japan), or 3) when the ATM system goes down entirely
(which happened to us--and everyone else--in Stockholm one Saturday).
It's worth having a few as a backup to the ATM/credit/debit cards.
By the way, if you use a bank ATM card, find out which banks in your
destination country are partnered with them--you won't have to pay ATM
fees at those.
--
Evelyn C. Leeper
Just because everything is different doesn't mean
anything has changed. -Irene Peter
George
It doesn't but that wasn't the question.
>
> The real reason its got worse is the pollution controls that are now mandated.
>
>
>>>> I don't get this whole ethanol bit, beyond the big Agra boost.
>>>> Methanol makes more sense if we have to have some such stuff as it
>>>> doesn't boost food costs. Even Bio Diesel makes more sense.
>>> Ethanol in fuel, at least as it is implemented today, makes no sense
>>> for the driving public.
>> Heavily subsidizing grinding up food to make ethanol to keep the SUVs
>> going will definitely go into the history books as one of the dumbest
>> ideas the politicians ever came up with.
>
> I doubt it. Look at what Brazil is doing sometime.
You mean they cluelessly decided to use a crop to make ethanol without
any planning like the politicians in the US did ?
Rod Speed
>>> They can.
>> Nope.
I was commenting on your answer, not the question.
>> The real reason its got worse is the pollution controls that are now mandated.
>>>>> I don't get this whole ethanol bit, beyond the big Agra boost.
>>>>> Methanol makes more sense if we have to have some such stuff as it doesn't boost food costs. Even Bio Diesel makes
>>>>> more sense.
>>>> Ethanol in fuel, at least as it is implemented today, makes no sense for the driving public.
>>> Heavily subsidizing grinding up food to make ethanol to keep the SUVs going will definitely go into the history
>>> books as one of the dumbest ideas the politicians ever came up with.
>> I doubt it. Look at what Brazil is doing sometime.
> You mean they cluelessly decided to use a crop to make ethanol without any planning like the politicians in the US did
> ?
They worked out a way of producing their own transport fuel
instead of importing crude oil and it works quite effectively for them.
Vic Smith
>
>I bought my first brand-new car in 1980, a Datsun (now Nissan) 200SX.
>It had a 2.0L 4-cylinder, 5-speed manual transmission. It was
>supposed to be a sporty little brother to the 280ZX. I used to
>average 35mpg commuting with it, and once got 38mpg over a couple
>tanks on a longer trip down the freeway (in July with the A/C going).
>OK, it had electronic ignition, fuel injection, etc, but it was almost
>(now) 30-year-old technology! Why can't the manufacturers at least
>match that today?
>
Hey, you're driving one.
The 2.0L's now are probably a good bit more efficient than the
Datsun's.
But the cars they're in are heavier. Window motors, beefier seats,
airbags, side impact door bracing, etc.
Thinking about how weight bears on mpg (doh) I looked a bit and found
this:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~mjlaine/Palmenia/sas/tiedostot/cars.sas
It may or may not include your 200SX - not sure whether yours was an
'79, '80 or '81, all of which I assume could be purchased new in 1980.
You can see evident correlations between weight, HP, acceleration and
MPG. Just glanced at it and had to resist loading it into a
spreadsheet for some sorting.
Looked up the 2006 Corolla 1.8L 5-sp manual - curb weight approx
2500-2600 lbs EPA MPG 28/37. It's probably better, as yours is.
So that's as good as the Datsun, and it's a faster, better car.
They could squeeze more MPG out of the Corolla if they lighten it up a
bit.
Those 30 year old cars look better because you were 30 years younger
(-:
--Vic
Dennis
<thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 09:34:24 -0700, Dennis <dg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>I bought my first brand-new car in 1980, a Datsun (now Nissan) 200SX.
>>It had a 2.0L 4-cylinder, 5-speed manual transmission. It was
>>supposed to be a sporty little brother to the 280ZX. I used to
>>average 35mpg commuting with it, and once got 38mpg over a couple
>>tanks on a longer trip down the freeway (in July with the A/C going).
>>OK, it had electronic ignition, fuel injection, etc, but it was almost
>>(now) 30-year-old technology! Why can't the manufacturers at least
>>match that today?
>>
>Hey, you're driving one.
True but, AFAICT, it was pretty much at the top of it's class
mpg-wise. That was a major factor in my choice. Most other
comparable cars (with the possible exception of the Civic) are worse.
>The 2.0L's now are probably a good bit more efficient than the
>Datsun's.
>But the cars they're in are heavier. Window motors, beefier seats,
>airbags, side impact door bracing, etc.
>Thinking about how weight bears on mpg (doh) I looked a bit and found
>this:
>http://www.helsinki.fi/~mjlaine/Palmenia/sas/tiedostot/cars.sas
>
>It may or may not include your 200SX - not sure whether yours was an
>'79, '80 or '81, all of which I assume could be purchased new in 1980.
>You can see evident correlations between weight, HP, acceleration and
>MPG. Just glanced at it and had to resist loading it into a
>spreadsheet for some sorting.
>Looked up the 2006 Corolla 1.8L 5-sp manual - curb weight approx
>2500-2600 lbs EPA MPG 28/37. It's probably better, as yours is.
>So that's as good as the Datsun, and it's a faster, better car.
>They could squeeze more MPG out of the Corolla if they lighten it up a
>bit.
Or made the gearing a little taller. I can go up pretty good grades
at 50mph+ in 5th gear. That seems wrong -- I would prefer a taller
5th gear and downshift when needed if it meant better highway mileage.
>Those 30 year old cars look better because you were 30 years younger
>(-:
The only regret I have about my Datsun is that I was young and foolish
and traded it off too soon. ;-)
Dennis (evil)
--
I'm a hands-on, footloose, knee-jerk head case. -George Carlin