Edmunds Members - Cars and Conversations (Archived)

stickguy

Sda, I probably will just chat at the store, not have them out. Put I will report back. Like you, I hope to not be here in 5 years (on the long side), so probably not a good move for us.

oldfarmer50

stickguy said:

ok, Need advice from Q and Fezo (if he wanders by) on NJ solar panel options. Dude from Sunlivity (? - said connected to Lowes) hustling today. Gave a short spiel about how it wouldn't cost me anything (yeah, right) but I was occupied and not feeling like chatting, so broomed him.

but after talking to wifee, decided maybe I should consider. We are probably good candidates (depending on payback period). Lots of roof acreage on a colonial, unblocked dead southern exposure to the south. Plus crazy bills mid summer since we have an inground pool, so running pumps + AC. so in theory, it would make sense for us.

so, for the recent converts, what's the skinny? Best company or way to approach? I may also not be here more than another 5 years (possibly less) so not interested in payback 10+ years down the road! I think you can buy or lease or something else (subcontract?). Would have to be a literal "sign and drive" thanks to 2 more years of college tuition remaining!

I'd be interested in that info too. When I built in '82 we sited the house for passive solar as the active panels back then were only about 5% efficient and the economics just didn't work.

Now panels are as much as 22% efficient and with leasing contracts are promising to pass the break even point. A lot depends on how many cloudy days and local utility costs. The sometimes dreary Northeast isn't as sure a bet as say Arizona. A solar installation has to not only produce enough power to offset the lease but also as much of your grid usage as possible. If your solar panels produce $100 of energy but your lease costs $200 you're not saving anything. You only make "profit" when you pay the lease and at least some of your normal usage.

Tread carefully.

oldfarmer50

bwia said:

Stickguy - have you considered a residential wind turbine gerator?

I know in my community such a set up is not possible because of height and zoning restrictions. Nonetheless, the economics of a whole-house 2-KW system appears to be in the same range (net of tax credits) as solar. Besides, it is a year round system that generates electricity 24 hours a day while selling excess capacity to the local utility company.

One major downside though, minimum  wind speeds of 12 mph is required; so if your neighborhood is a low wind zone then the venture would be a non-starter.

Only generates 24 hours a day if the wind blows 24 hours....which it seldom does. Back in the day we also investigated wind power but the economics were even worse. Better now but the zoning laws usually nix the idea. Also you better have some VERY supportive neighbors or you're looking at lawsuits. Ever been under a big windmill? The whoosh..whoosh..could be used as torture.

Probably a better choice for residential use would be a vertical axis windmill. Union College in Schenectady powers the athletic field lights with them. I've stood under them and they're pretty quiet. Didn't one of you guys go there for school?

Mr_Shiftright

Sounds like a good way for Driver to get even with his axe-wielding neighbor

ab348

Up here the city offered a program to finance the cost of hot water solar panels and let you pay it back over some period of years on your tax bill at low/no interest. They had done a deal with a contractor to presumably get the best pricing and you had to use that outfit. It didn't seem like a great deal to me because it only affected your hot water usage but I guess there are lots of enviro-interested folks and they quickly oversubscribed the program.

http://www.halifax.ca/solarcity/PilotProjectSummary.php

qbrozen

There are several ways to go about solar in NJ, thanks to the penalties the state gov charges the power companies. One way is to buy it outright and own and sell the SRECs (solar energy credits) on the open market yourself. These currently sell for about $220. My rental property gives me around 8 SRECs per year, putting ~$1700 in my pocket. My electric bills were ridiculously low in that house after installation. Averaging maybe $20-$40/mo.

Option 2 was offered to me on different terms between Trinity Solar on the first house, and now Solar City on the new house. In the first house, I could have paid about 25% of the purchase option and utilize the electricity for free for life but not own the SRECs. With Solar City, they still wanted me to pay something like 80% of the system cost. That's just nutty. The SRECs will potentially be worth $45k and they were effectively offering me $8k up front for them. No thanks!

Option 3 is what they call a lease. It does not have a fixed payment, however. You pay for what the system produces, and the per kW charge is lower than what you are paying the power company.

I'd say Trinity was easier to deal with. Solar City is run by Elon Musk, though, so I'm secretly hoping for a break on a Tesla. Haha. Seriously, though, they have been a PITA. I originally tried to use Trinity again, but they made 3 appointments with us and never showed up. I thought the people in Lowes were from NRG. Maybe each location is different.

So, for a lease, there really is no "payback" period since you aren't paying anything out of pocket. If you are moving, though, its maybe not such a great idea for the reasons already stated. Both companies I have dealt with, however, claim they will move your system to your new house if you want, for a small fee.

isellhondas

stever said:

snakeweasel said:

I know people who owned Hondas and Toyotas that were complete lemons and not one of them will admit that they owned one that was bad. Each and everyone of them state that every one of their Hondas/Toyotas was built proof.

That's because Hondas (especially) don't require repair - just some maintenance now and then. Like when their AC compressors catch black death, a couple of thousands bucks in "maintenance" and they're good to go.

After twelve years of zero repairs our 2013 CRV that we bought new decided to "punish" us in major fashion.

The front struts started knocking, the master cylinder started bypassing and sure enough the A/C compressor decided to self destruct which sent metal throughout the system and as a result, every component had to be replaced. Luckilly I was able to order the parts on line and a moonlighting Acura tech was able to do the work for a fraction of what the dealer or a shop would charge. Even so, this was expensive!

Funny since several years ago when I was still working I read in these forums about this so called Black Death. At the time I checked with our Service and Parts Depts and nobody know what I was talking about. I even saw a printout that showed how many A/C CRV compressors had been sold and the number was no higher than any other Honda model. Not many at all.

Still at 87,000 it runs as it did when it was new. No oil consumption or leaks etc.

I have seem MANY Hondas with over 300,000 miles that still seemed to run and drive just fine.

My record trade in was a 1989 Civic that I took in with 477,000 miles. It needed a new clutch so the owner decided to dump it.

I also had a ride to the airport recently in a Lincoln Town Car that looked and seemed to run like new. the owner/driver told me that it had nearly 500,000 miles and the only major problem had been a transmission replacement.

tifighter

We bought our solar; leases are not very common up here. The 'should I or shouldn't I' really comes down to each individual state. In WA, the production incentive increases depending on if the equipment is made in state. For example, panels and inverters made in WA get a much higher buyback rate from utilities than a system with components made out of state. As in, like, triple. This program continues thru mid-2020 here, and even though we are getting our system installed now, our ROI should be near 90% when the program ends in roughly four years. Like I said, it really depends on the state.

isellhondas

suydam said:

Key fob battery in my Accord went out early, probably a defect. There was plenty of warning. And I had the dealer replace both of them -- maybe $5. Normally they should last a lot longer.

The key fobs for our 2003 CRV still both have the original batteries in them! Maybe I should replace them before they start to leak!

qbrozen

One of the Chrysler's keys is putting out a message through the van display telling me the battery is low.

What happens with these keyless ignitions in that case? Do I get stranded??

jwm40517

Hey Driver, I-75 opened the south bound lanes Wed and the north side is to have one lane open by 3-24-16.

suydam

isellhondas said:

suydam said:

Key fob battery in my Accord went out early, probably a defect. There was plenty of warning. And I had the dealer replace both of them -- maybe $5. Normally they should last a lot longer.

The key fobs for our 2003 CRV still both have the original batteries in them! Maybe I should replace them before they start to leak!

You had push button start in 2003? !!

suydam

qbrozen said:

One of the Chrysler's keys is putting out a message through the van display telling me the battery is low.

What happens with these keyless ignitions in that case? Do I get stranded??

Do you have the other one still fine? No problem! But replace the battery ASAP!

imidazol97

jwm40517 said:

Hey Driver, I-75 opened the south bound lanes Wed and the north side is to have one lane open by 3-24-16.

So they opened the southbound lanes 4 days earlier than the contractual date. Good.

Hopefully they'll get the northbound lane open on time which is three weeks at March 22/23. And maybe they'll
have both lanes open by 30th for our return trip.

I had checked on Wednesday for traffic flow in that area on google maps and didn't see any change.
Must have opened southbound later Wednesday after I checked the map.

[Deleted User]

oldfarmer50 said:

I'd be interested in that info too. When I built in '82 we sited the house for passive solar as the active panels back then were only about 5% efficient and the economics just didn't work.

Now panels are as much as 22% efficient and with leasing contracts are promising to pass the break even point. A lot depends on how many cloudy days and local utility costs. The sometimes dreary Northeast isn't as sure a bet as say Arizona. A solar installation has to not only produce enough power to offset the lease but also as much of your grid usage as possible. If your solar panels produce $100 of energy but your lease costs $200 you're not saving anything. You only make "profit" when you pay the lease and at least some of your normal usage.

Tread carefully.

There are some online calculators to help determine efficiency of your particular area for "sun hours", but you also have to factor in inclination of the panels relative to the sun and time of year, and any interferences. A formal quote should include all of that info to determine max and expected production. Our system is currently about 10% more productive than they conservatively calculated.

stickguy

One plus for my house is it faces dead south, and there is no obstructions at all. If the sun is out, it's hitting my roof!

bwia

The Cadillac 2017 XT5 -- is this a good looking vehicle or because of the color.

driver100

tyguy said:

driver100 said:

Why didn't I get that neighbor living beside me....instead of the tree axe murderer who cut down 6 40 ft Spruce trees to build his pool? Story of my life

I forgot about the tree incident, and it sounds like the neighbor relations haven't gotten any better. I think I remember you mentioning they planted some new vegetation after the pool install. If so, how's that filling in?

You have a good memory Ty. The 6 trees he cut down...just on his side of the fence, were like a divider blocking off the view of his yard from our dining room. This happened 4 years ago. So we brought in 20 foot trees, that;s the tallest ones you can replant (replacing 40' trees) and they have done well so we have our divider back....but 6 trees, plays coated windows probably cost $14000.

All for a pool he probably uses 10 times a year.....I would have bought him a membership at the local recreation center so he could swim in the pool there.

At the time he sent his wife over with a check in an envelope so we could clean our windows. I didn't even open the envelope, I just gave it back and said no thanks. Probably $100 to ease their conscience and then they can tell the neighbors they tried to make it up to us.

My wife will say hi to them if we happen to cross them on the street....but, I don't even want to do that. I have learned that if people have absolutely no respect for others, no consideration, they just aren't worth my time. btw, when they went away on vacations we went in and checked their house, brought in the mail, even emailed them a report. Now they are on their own, and now they are pretty well blocked out of view.

I know I should say hello to him or her at least if I see them, but, I can't be phony about it.....too much energy for people I really don't care about. At least all my other neighbors are really nice.....wish one would organize some pickleball though. Maybe I will and won't invite this guy.

driver100

Mr_Shiftright said:

Sounds like a good way for Driver to get even with his axe-wielding neighbor

(windmill whoosh whoosh torture)

That thought crossed my mind too.

Also, Donald Trump wants to bring back water torture but maybe windmill torture could be legal. :@

driver100

ab348 said:

Up here the city offered a program to finance the cost of hot water solar panels and let you pay it back over some period of years on your tax bill at low/no interest. They had done a deal with a contractor to presumably get the best pricing and you had to use that outfit. It didn't seem like a great deal to me because it only affected your hot water usage but I guess there are lots of enviro-interested folks and they quickly oversubscribed the program.

http://www.halifax.ca/solarcity/PilotProjectSummary.php

Driver's Rule About Government Kickbacks: I am skeptical of any plan where I have to rely on the government to make money or save money for me.

They gave everyone incentives in my area to get smart meters. I told them I didn;t want their smart meter, even though it was supposed to save all kinds of money and they would throw in a free thermostat. It turns out the people with smart meters are paying more than ever and their electricity can be cut back when the government wants to cut back.

driver100

jwm40517 said:

Hey Driver, I-75 opened the south bound lanes Wed and the north side is to have one lane open by 3-24-16.

Thanks jwm...that is really good news as are departure date is now April 1st. I hope they can get more than the one lane open by then. Glad we aren't going today....lots of rain along that corridor these days.

andres3

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

Self reporting bias is OK because the amount of bias for all manufacturers should be close to identical, especially with large sample size. Meaning the amount of skewed reports favorable and unfavorable should be the same for Toyota as it is for GM. This balances the comparisons for all the different companies. It is a "relative" view of who is doing what against their peers.

That's not true, say we have two car brands, one with a stellar reputation and one without, selling the exact same car. Those who bought from the brand that has the good reputation would naturally be more forgiving than the person who bought from the company with the lesser reputation. Reasons for this can be many and are not limited to such things as perception of the brand, excusing bad reliability as a fluke or blaming a fluke on bad reliability .

**** I take your "naturally be more forgiving" statement, and double down on they'd be naturally more punishing. Likely the brand with a better reputation earned it for legitimate reasons, so it is a deserved and earned reputation. Second, the higher reputation brand likely required more extra money to obtain for similar performance levels, due to the inherently higher quality (both real and perceived). When you pay extra for something so that you don't have to worry about breakdowns, I think a person would be more likely to raise a fuss over problems. Often people try to excuse my woes with my '95 Dodge as it being a result of a car being priced under $15K, for example. There's a saying in Spanish and probably in all languages that the cheap ends up being the most expensive in the long run. Penny wise, pound foolish.

Some talked about Carrier and other air conditioning brands... I guarantee you if I paid double for a Carrier or Lennox over a Goodman, and it broke down prematurely, I'd be terribly disappointed. If Sony sold me lemons in the 80's and 90's I wouldn't have been paying the premium over and over again for their TV's (that reputation lasted until about 2010 for good reason; where they lost it with poor reliability on their rear-projection HDTV's). Meanwhile, other friends and family that "cheaped out" on TV's seemed to be replacing them every few years, while the Sony's lasted decades.

andres3 said:

Unless your hypothesizing that a brand with a good "perception" would somehow increase the amount of people making more favorable reports than the reality of the situation. I would think people that get a bad car from a good manufacturer would be more inclined to bring out the big ax!

That's just the thing with self reporting it rarely reports the reality of the situation. It is more likely to report perceptions, wishful thinking and a multitude of other factors. You would be wrong in a lot of cases. I know people who owned Hondas and Toyotas that were complete lemons and not one of them will admit that they owned one that was bad. Each and everyone of them state that every one of their Hondas/Toyotas was built proof. Yet with my Hyundai when I had the first, and only, thing go wrong with it at 135K miles they all said "that's what you get for buying a Hyundai"

My sister only drives Toyota and once had a truck that was so bad that if I owned it I would have returned it back to Toyota's headquarters by putting it on a catapult and flinging it through the CEO's office window. Yet throughout her ownership of it she laminated about how good the truck was.

Self reporting surveys are seriously flawed and should be taken with a grain of salt.

I'm sure there are an equal amount of GM fan-boys that won't admit their GM was a POS.

I know I've heard remarks in that grain. Something to the effect of extremely overly excusing remarks like "With my Tahoe, I still think GM makes good engines, they just skimped on the quality of other things." Big GM Fan and believer, but their next vehicle was a Tundra. They still own it.

isellhondas

No, I was talking about the batteries in my keyless entry fobs. Not remote start.

andres3

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

houdini1 said:

verdugo said:

houdini1 said:

Since any award is tax free, lawyer fee excluded, I could probably get by on $25 Mill.

I actually read that since there is no physical harm, only emotional, the $55 million will be taxable.

Yes, I saw that also. I always thought money received from a lawsuit was tax free...but I guess that is not always the case. I learned something new.

Speaking of which, why are unemployment benefits taxed? That's robbing Peter to pay Paul later.

No since unemployment benefits are supported by unemployment taxes not income taxes. Secondly using your logic we shouldn't be taxing the income of any government employees.

I suppose they could just give everyone a pay demotion equivalent to their tax rate and the match would balance out for gov't employees.

You suppose wrong as how can you tell what their tax rate is until you do their taxes? Everyone's tax situation is different and can change from one year to another.

Answer: Rand Paul's Flat Tax. Not that I'm advocating for or against it, but it certainly would simplify things.

houdini1

I have been researching about run flat tires and I can't find any reason to buy a car that has them. If you have a flat, basically, you have to buy a new tire. On most cars with run flats, you don't have a spare. Even though they can go on with out air, you ruin the tire if you drive it without air. Also, how do you even know if you have hit a nail or something and the tire will eventually go flat. I guess the first warning you would have is that the tire would fall apart. All the ones that I have seen have zero tread life warranty. They are expensive. They only last about 20,000 miles.

Someone help me here. There must be some redeeming qualities.

stickguy

Saves the cost and weight of a spare. More trunk room. And in a pinch, you can limp someplace without having to change to the spare.

isellhondas

Few shops have the equipment to mount and dismount them. If you can drive 150 miles on a flat, that's not going to help in the middle of Montana. No price completion either! They wear quickly and are EXPENSIVE!

Not for me, anyway!

houdini1

stickguy said:

Saves the cost and weight of a spare. More trunk room. And in a pinch, you can limp someplace without having to change to the spare.

But how would you ever know you had or were having a flat if the car keeps going? Seems you would not even know until the tire actually did go flat. Then you still can't drive anywhere.

andres3

qbrozen said:

There are several ways to go about solar in NJ, thanks to the penalties the state gov charges the power companies. One way is to buy it outright and own and sell the SRECs (solar energy credits) on the open market yourself. These currently sell for about $220. My rental property gives me around 8 SRECs per year, putting ~$1700 in my pocket. My electric bills were ridiculously low in that house after installation. Averaging maybe $20-$40/mo.

Option 2 was offered to me on different terms between Trinity Solar on the first house, and now Solar City on the new house. In the first house, I could have paid about 25% of the purchase option and utilize the electricity for free for life but not own the SRECs. With Solar City, they still wanted me to pay something like 80% of the system cost. That's just nutty. The SRECs will potentially be worth $45k and they were effectively offering me $8k up front for them. No thanks!

Option 3 is what they call a lease. It does not have a fixed payment, however. You pay for what the system produces, and the per kW charge is lower than what you are paying the power company.

I'd say Trinity was easier to deal with. Solar City is run by Elon Musk, though, so I'm secretly hoping for a break on a Tesla. Haha. Seriously, though, they have been a PITA. I originally tried to use Trinity again, but they made 3 appointments with us and never showed up. I thought the people in Lowes were from NRG. Maybe each location is different.

So, for a lease, there really is no "payback" period since you aren't paying anything out of pocket. If you are moving, though, its maybe not such a great idea for the reasons already stated. Both companies I have dealt with, however, claim they will move your system to your new house if you want, for a small fee.

It's not that "small" of a fee. I think $600 or something. Also, if your "new" house needs a new roof within 5 years... watch out again. They quoted me $0.15 Kwh whereas SDG&E was charging .17 at the time. That part I could live with if they make it a flat 20 year contract. The problem is they wanted a yearly raise of 2.9%. I couldn't swallow that; plus I knew I was moving soon.

stever

houdini1 said:

stickguy said:

Saves the cost and weight of a spare. More trunk room. And in a pinch, you can limp someplace without having to change to the spare.

But how would you ever know you had or were having a flat if the car keeps going? Seems you would not even know until the tire actually did go flat. Then you still can't drive anywhere.

The air pressure will go down and trigger your TPMS light.

Michaell

stever said:

houdini1 said:

stickguy said:

Saves the cost and weight of a spare. More trunk room. And in a pinch, you can limp someplace without having to change to the spare.

But how would you ever know you had or were having a flat if the car keeps going? Seems you would not even know until the tire actually did go flat. Then you still can't drive anywhere.

The air pressure will go down and trigger your TPMS light.

Exactly what happened with my daughter's MINI when she had a leak.

ab348

driver100 said:

They gave everyone incentives in my area to get smart meters. I told them I didn;t want their smart meter, even though it was supposed to save all kinds of money and they would throw in a free thermostat. It turns out the people with smart meters are paying more than ever and their electricity can be cut back when the government wants to cut back.

Heh. That reminded me of a time in the mid-'90s when I was living in a nice apartment building on the 21st floor. I got home from work one day and there was a note saying the staff were coming in the next day to replace the shower heads with a new more efficient model. Well, Nova Scotia is not exactly short of water but I suppose they wanted to cut back on their water heating bills. The next night I got home and there was a shiny new metal shower head installed.

The next morning I went to take a shower and it was like I was standing in a warm fog. You would get wet but god help you trying to rinse off the soap lather. No adjustment would give you enough water. I didn't know anything about changing shower heads but I figured it couldn't be too hard so that night I went to the nearest place that sold them and bought the cheapest one they had, all plastic, about $5. When I got home I took it out of the package and could see there was a disc inside with a small hole that let water into the sprayer part. I got the one the building installed off and tried mine, which worked pretty much the same way since it too was a water-saver, all you could buy.

I took mine off, got out my cordless drill, and opened up the restrictor hole to maybe 3/16" or 1/4". When reinstalled, it worked better than any shower head I have ever had! It would almost hurt if you got too close to the spray. When I moved a few years later I should have taken it with me. That pretty much convinced me that things that are supposed to be better for the environment usually are worse for the user.

stever

Kramer.

(and that pop culture reference even relates to cars because Kramer and Jerry got "black market" replacements on the street from a friend of Newman's selling them out of the trunk of their car. )

berri

That pretty much convinced me that things that are supposed to be better for the environment usually are worse for the user.

Sums up my general opinion too. Throw in Chinese manufactured parts and it only gets worse!

abacomike

Last summer, our electricity provider upgraded the meters in our building to smart meters.  Since the smart meter was installed, my electric bills have dropped an average of 25%.  I used to average $70.00 a month in summer and $45.00 a month winter.  My last month's bill was $26.00 and the highest bill I've had in the last 9 months was $51.00.  I ran the A/C about 13 days last month.

It is possible that those old meters were robbing me of money due to their inefficiency?

When Dad was alive, he insisted that the AC be set at 78 degrees.  Now I have it set at 76 degrees.  Dad did not use much electricity because he was blind and never turned on lights or the TV.  He sat with me in my bedroom and listened to the TV with me.

oldfarmer50

stickguy said:

One plus for my house is it faces dead south, and there is no obstructions at all. If the sun is out, it's hitting my roof!

Mine too. I used a compass to set the stakes for the foundation. Because the house sits sideways on the lot and we have land people thought our house was the model home in a development. I'd be there working on the construction and people would constantly pull up and ask "how much".

oldfarmer50

stickguy said:

Saves the cost and weight of a spare. More trunk room. And in a pinch, you can limp someplace without having to change to the spare.

My Ford only has a can of fix-a-flat and an air pump. Spare was an option. According to the registration it weighs less than the official figures by about 100 pounds. That's some heavy tire.

oldfarmer50

ab348 said:

driver100 said:

They gave everyone incentives in my area to get smart meters. I told them I didn;t want their smart meter, even though it was supposed to save all kinds of money and they would throw in a free thermostat. It turns out the people with smart meters are paying more than ever and their electricity can be cut back when the government wants to cut back.

Heh. That reminded me of a time in the mid-'90s when I was living in a nice apartment building on the 21st floor. I got home from work one day and there was a note saying the staff were coming in the next day to replace the shower heads with a new more efficient model. Well, Nova Scotia is not exactly short of water but I suppose they wanted to cut back on their water heating bills. The next night I got home and there was a shiny new metal shower head installed.

The next morning I went to take a shower and it was like I was standing in a warm fog. You would get wet but god help you trying to rinse off the soap lather. No adjustment would give you enough water. I didn't know anything about changing shower heads but I figured it couldn't be too hard so that night I went to the nearest place that sold them and bought the cheapest one they had, all plastic, about $5. When I got home I took it out of the package and could see there was a disc inside with a small hole that let water into the sprayer part. I got the one the building installed off and tried mine, which worked pretty much the same way since it too was a water-saver, all you could buy.

I took mine off, got out my cordless drill, and opened up the restrictor hole to maybe 3/16" or 1/4". When reinstalled, it worked better than any shower head I have ever had! It would almost hurt if you got too close to the spray. When I moved a few years later I should have taken it with me. That pretty much convinced me that things that are supposed to be better for the environment usually are worse for the user.

You should have gotten the shower head that 'Seinfeld's' Kosmo Kramer bought out of some shady character's trunk.




EDIT: I see Stever beat me to it. Great minds think alike.

cdnpinhead

ab348 said:

That pretty much convinced me that things that are supposed to be better for the environment usually are worse for the user.

Imagine.

Remember when there was enamel paint on cars? It dried smooth as glass and lasted more-or-less forever. Now we drive around in cars that look like they were painted with a roller, and they flake and/or fade and/or chalk on a regular basis.

But. . .they're "green."

Oh boy.

stever

oldfarmer50 said:

Mine too. I used a compass to set the stakes for the foundation. Because the house sits sideways on the lot and we have land people thought our house was the model home in a development.

The people that built our house sited it to take advantage of the sun (and views). It's cattywampus to the street and lot lines. They bought the lot in '88 and studied on it until 2001 when they built the house. Got a "let me help you sell your house" letter in the mail today but no one pulling up to ask me to name my price.

snakeweasel

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

Self reporting bias is OK because the amount of bias for all manufacturers should be close to identical, especially with large sample size. Meaning the amount of skewed reports favorable and unfavorable should be the same for Toyota as it is for GM. This balances the comparisons for all the different companies. It is a "relative" view of who is doing what against their peers.

That's not true, say we have two car brands, one with a stellar reputation and one without, selling the exact same car. Those who bought from the brand that has the good reputation would naturally be more forgiving than the person who bought from the company with the lesser reputation. Reasons for this can be many and are not limited to such things as perception of the brand, excusing bad reliability as a fluke or blaming a fluke on bad reliability .

**** I take your "naturally be more forgiving" statement, and double down on they'd be naturally more punishing. Likely the brand with a better reputation earned it for legitimate reasons, so it is a deserved and earned reputation. Second, the higher reputation brand likely required more extra money to obtain for similar performance levels, due to the inherently higher quality (both real and perceived). When you pay extra for something so that you don't have to worry about breakdowns, I think a person would be more likely to raise a fuss over problems. Often people try to excuse my woes with my '95 Dodge as it being a result of a car being priced under $15K, for example. There's a saying in Spanish and probably in all languages that the cheap ends up being the most expensive in the long run. Penny wise, pound foolish.

Some talked about Carrier and other air conditioning brands... I guarantee you if I paid double for a Carrier or Lennox over a Goodman, and it broke down prematurely, I'd be terribly disappointed. If Sony sold me lemons in the 80's and 90's I wouldn't have been paying the premium over and over again for their TV's (that reputation lasted until about 2010 for good reason; where they lost it with poor reliability on their rear-projection HDTV's). Meanwhile, other friends and family that "cheaped out" on TV's seemed to be replacing them every few years, while the Sony's lasted decades.

andres3 said:

Unless your hypothesizing that a brand with a good "perception" would somehow increase the amount of people making more favorable reports than the reality of the situation. I would think people that get a bad car from a good manufacturer would be more inclined to bring out the big ax!

That's just the thing with self reporting it rarely reports the reality of the situation. It is more likely to report perceptions, wishful thinking and a multitude of other factors. You would be wrong in a lot of cases. I know people who owned Hondas and Toyotas that were complete lemons and not one of them will admit that they owned one that was bad. Each and everyone of them state that every one of their Hondas/Toyotas was built proof. Yet with my Hyundai when I had the first, and only, thing go wrong with it at 135K miles they all said "that's what you get for buying a Hyundai"

My sister only drives Toyota and once had a truck that was so bad that if I owned it I would have returned it back to Toyota's headquarters by putting it on a catapult and flinging it through the CEO's office window. Yet throughout her ownership of it she laminated about how good the truck was.

Self reporting surveys are seriously flawed and should be taken with a grain of salt.

I'm sure there are an equal amount of GM fan-boys that won't admit their GM was a POS.

I know I've heard remarks in that grain. Something to the effect of extremely overly excusing remarks like "With my Tahoe, I still think GM makes good engines, they just skimped on the quality of other things." Big GM Fan and believer, but their next vehicle was a Tundra. They still own it.

In talking to a lot of people about cars I think that domestic car owners are more likely to be more realistic about the quality of their vehicles.

And how long have they owned the Tundra?

snakeweasel

stickguy said:

Saves the cost and weight of a spare. More trunk room. And in a pinch, you can limp someplace without having to change to the spare.

I would think that the cost savings of the spare being eliminated is more than eaten up by the cost of four run flat tires. And the weight of the spare is minimal in relation to the weight of the car. More trunk space maybe a little more. The only real advantage is not having to change a flat, but how often do you get a flat? I cannot remember the last time I got one.

explorerx4

@isellhondas,
You mean you had to do repairs on your 2003, not 2013, right?

snakeweasel

houdini1 said:

stickguy said:

Saves the cost and weight of a spare. More trunk room. And in a pinch, you can limp someplace without having to change to the spare.

But how would you ever know you had or were having a flat if the car keeps going? Seems you would not even know until the tire actually did go flat. Then you still can't drive anywhere.

You will still lose pressure in the tire (tyre for our friends up north) and that should set off the tire pressure monitors.

ab348

Tire also up north. Tyre in Jolly Olde England.

I have run flats on the ATS. Won't have to worry about replacements for a while, but I think I'd get conventional tires and some fix-a-flat.

driver100

houdini1 said:

stickguy said:

Saves the cost and weight of a spare. More trunk room. And in a pinch, you can limp someplace without having to change to the spare.

But how would you ever know you had or were having a flat if the car keeps going? Seems you would not even know until the tire actually did go flat. Then you still can't drive anywhere.

As mentioned, your pressure monitor light will come on...I had it happen. The advantage for RFT do not make up for the disadvantages, for all the reasons given, wear out faster, expensive, harsher ride, trying to find a dealer who has a replacement if you are in a small town on Xmas eve when your tire goes. The extra trunk room is minimal, the weight, is a minimal reason too. Another reason is RFT insurance is an additional cost....$800 I think for the BMW, .

The only advantage I can think of is if you get a flat on a bridge or on a super highway and you have to change a tire....may even be snowing or raining, that can be a real pain and a RFT would be nice to have in that situation.

I'd have to want the car really badly to buy a car with RFTs, I think they are more of an advantage to the manufacturer than the customer. I wonder how many people don't buy a car because of RFTs.....I was told by both a Mercedes and Audi salesmen they hear that a lot.

driver100

ab348 said:

Tire also up north. Tyre in Jolly Olde England.

I have run flats on the ATS. Won't have to worry about replacements for a while, but I think I'd get conventional tires and some fix-a-flat.

I considered that too but I think you may really need a spare....not sure if Fix a Flat is good if a tire gets shredded for example

If you do get normal tires where will you put the spare....there probably isn't a place to put it.? They probably use them in the ATS to gain some usable trunk room. And that, is probably where they do make some sense, where trunk space is limited.

explorerx4

Got a couple of dealer quotes to sell my Mom's Fiesta today.
Original selling dealer offered 7500, but CarMax offered 8000.
Got the CarMax quote first.
Taking it to CarMax tomorrow to sell it.
Sat in a few cars on their lot while waiting for the appraisal.
They had a base ATS 2.5, very disappointing.
Cheap console trim and as near as I could figure, a 4 way power driver seat.
Back adjustment was power but very notchy.
I guessing a higher trim has a better interior.

abacomike

driver100 said:

Saves the cost and weight of a spare. More trunk room. And in a pinch, you can limp someplace without having to change to the spare.

But how would you ever know you had or were having a flat if the car keeps going? Seems you would not even know until the tire actually did go flat. Then you still can't drive anywhere.

As mentioned, your pressure monitor light will come on...I had it happen. The advantage for RFT do not make up for the disadvantages, for all the reasons given, wear out faster, expensive, harsher ride, trying to find a dealer who has a replacement if you are in a small town on Xmas eve when your tire goes. The extra trunk room is minimal, the weight, is a minimal reason too. Another reason is RFT insurance is an additional cost....$800 I think for the BMW, . The only advantage I can think of is if you get a flat on a bridge or on a super highway and you have to change a tire....may even be snowing or raining, that can be a real pain and a RFT would be nice to have in that situation. I'd have to want the car really badly to buy a car with RFTs, I think they are more of an advantage to the manufacturer than the customer. I wonder how many people don't buy a car because of RFTs.....I was told by both a Mercedes and Audi salesmen they hear that a lot.

I don't think Mercedes-Benz offers a run flat tire on any of its cars but I sure would not buy a car with run flats.  I prefer ultra high performance summer tires for outstanding handling and control on a RWD vehicle.

Run flats offer a very harsh ride.  It's stiff enough driving on summer performance tires - but can you imagine run flats on my car?  I am very happy without run flats.

qbrozen

isellhondas said:

Few shops have the equipment to mount and dismount them. If you can drive 150 miles on a flat, that's not going to help in the middle of Montana. No price completion either! They wear quickly and are EXPENSIVE!

Not for me, anyway!

special equipment? I change them with my low-end machine in my home garage.