It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
- Last Active
I think those averages are weighted averages, as well, rather than just a numerical average, so to get to 35 mpg is really impressive.. For example, the average of 10 and 20 is 15 (30/2) but the weighted average of 10 mpg and 20 mpg is actually 13.3 mpg. For instance, if you drove 200 miles on a tank of gas, and 100 miles of it was local driving getting 10 mpg, and 100 miles was a trip getting 20 mpg, you would have used 15 gallons total, in those 200 miles, or 13.33... mpg total
@tlong said: I would be very nervous if I had been promised a pension. They are unsustainable. The last gravy train is government workers but even that is going to collapse at some point. I'm happy taking my chances on my own IRAs and 401K's. I'm subject to the market risk but at least if major decisions and screwups are made it's my responsibility, not a bunch of bureaucrats that were too stupid to get real jobs.
I'll be getting a small pension from my ~6 years of service with McDonnell-Douglas/Boeing back in the 1990's. Sometimes over the years I wondered if I would have been better off staying with them rather than switching companies back in 2000. I got a 10% raise, better 401K, and 7 weeks of severance pay when I made the switch.
Well, the Boeing pension is not COLA'd, so it erodes over time. And, apparently not very solvent either, because I heard that Boeing ended up freezing the pension for new hires awhile back. But then, just recently, they're going to freeze the pensions for current employees!
So, just because you get promised a pension, it's still not a guarantee. What's the old saying...promise in one hand, poop in the other, and see which one fills up quicker?
FWIW, my pension for those 5.83 years of service will come out to about $349.20 per month, in 2035 when I turn 65. If I was still with Boeing, I'd have about 20 years in now, so I still doubt if that pension would be very much.
Losing the "security" of a pension and being forced to fend for my own for retirement security was probably the best thing that ever happened to me, as it forced me to get serious about saving.
Oh hell, I'll confess that I have a pair of white leather loafers. They've been called everything from pimp shoes to "Cousin Eddies". Maybe I should have worn them last week when I took my '79 5th Ave up to the Carlisle Mopar show, to complete the look! B)
I don't have a white belt, though. Just can't bring myself to do that. One of my friends though, who I think is going through midlife crisis, said he wanted one a few months ago. At one point he also said "The world has no place for old people", and I came very close to asking "Then why are you looking so hard for a white belt?!"
I probably should get a pair of decent dress shoes, though. Last time I had to go to a funeral, I wore a pair of black harness boots with a suit, but they shined up well enough to almost pass for dressy, I guess...
One of the downsides of not having to dress to impress at work, I guess...the wardrobe tends to fall apart. Only time I put on a corporate noose (i.e., necktie) is for tragic events like a funeral, court date, or wedding. :p
Actually, the Lincolns in '57 used a fake-me-out quad setup as well. The upper lights were the standard, big single headlights, while the lowers were some kind of driving light. If you look closely, the upper lights are larger than the lower.
As for Cadillac, I think the only Caddies to have standard quads in 1957 was the $13,074 Eldorado Brougham sedan. At least, I've never seen one of those with single lights. I'd be curious to know how Cadillac got around that. Maybe they only sold them in states that allowed the quads? According to Wikipedia, they only sold about 400 of them. Or, I wonder if all 50 states adopted quad headlights sometime during the '57 model year? Again, according to Wikipedia, the Eldorado Brougham wasn't introduced until March of 1957, so by that point the model year was half over.
Another one I've wondered about was the 1957 Nash. Those look like they had quad lights standard to me, and they both look the same size, unlike Lincoln. IIRC, they sold about 5,000 Nashes in '57, so I doubt if they would have simply not sold them in states that didn't allow quads, as I'm sure they were desperate to get rid of every one that they could.
For some reason I'm remembering a '57 Pontiac Bonneville with quad lights, that actually looked pretty good. But I think there were only one or two prototypes of that one built.
On the subject of quad lights, I wonder if the manufacturers knew it was coming, several years out, or if it was a last-minute thing and they all rushed to jump on the bandwagon? I've always heard that it takes about 2-3 years to design a car, but then I'm sure they also make changes on it right up to the last minute. So while a lot of the '57's were probably on the drawing board starting in 1954-55, I guess the designs had enough wiggle room to work in a quad setup at the last minute?
I actually know the guy who owns those cars. I don't know if it's still around, but he used to have a website with a bunch of '57 DeSoto pics he collected off the web, and mine was one of them.
IIRC, he bought that gray one as a parts car for the Salmon "Mandarin Rust" one, but then decided to fix up the gray one as well. I think the Salmon one is a Firedome, while the gray one is a Fireflite. The one in the center is an Adventurer. First domestic production car with one hp per cubic inch standard, 345 hp from a 345 CID Hemi, and fully streetable.
While the '56 Chrysler 300B actually broke that barrier, with a 355 hp 354, it was intended for racing, and not well-suited for the street. Same with the 390 hp 392 Hemi that was optional on the 300C. I've also heard that the 283 hp version of the Chevy 283 Fuelie wasn't really well-suited to everyday driving, either.