Edmunds Members - Cars and Conversations (Archived)

snakeweasel

Got my new car today.



Just kidding: they had a "Super car" show in my little hometown today and when they said super cars they weren't kidding, they had a lot of high end cars. Ferrari's, Lamborghini's (actually close to a 2 lamb's per Ferrari ratio), Vettes, Vipers, Mustangs and the lot.





And as far as I am concerned nothing looks better than good old Detroit Iron

driver100

imidazol97 said:

driver100 said:

Not sure why they don't use a larger engine or add a turbo, that would make it a blast to drive.

Which engine does it have under the hood? The obvious difference is the dipstick--one goes into the top of the engine and the other goes through an external tube down to the sump.

Wish I knew which one I had. I turned it in yesterday.....won't need it for awhile, off to Switzerland on Tuesday for 10 days. My guess would be it had a turbo....if it was no-turbo then the one with a turbo would be a rocket.

jmonroe

snakeweasel said:

Got my new car today.



Just kidding: they had a "Super car" show in my little hometown today and when they said super cars they weren't kidding, they had a lot of high end cars. Ferrari's, Lamborghini's (actually close to a 2 lamb's per Ferrari ratio), Vettes, Vipers, Mustangs and the lot.





And as far as I am concerned nothing looks better than good old Detroit Iron

I agree about the Detroit iron thing.

Maybe that's because I just don't want to lose sight of those good old days but the cars today are so much more reliable and safer. I have some good memories of trying to keep my GM cars running well. That old saying that "GM cars run better badly than most cars run at all" is something that I can relate to. Although I kept mine running pretty good (50's through early 80's), Ford and Chrysler products back in the day just couldn't compare.

I'm sure I'm going to hear from the Ford and Chrysler lovers but deep down they really know I'm right.

jmonroe

driver100

nyccarguy said:

@jmonroe - my biggest gripe I have with my 4cyl Legacy is that it's underpowered.

Sometimes you just have to live with that....we live with it with our Passat....pretty anemic. Speaking of the Passat, compared to the Fusion, I think the Fusion really feels like a bigger heavier car. Nice touches like the seats glind back when turned off and then go into position when you put the key in. But, for tasteful interior, Euro riding, better ergonomics, nicer handling and ride the Passat wins....a matter of what suits a person more.

The Cruze has the handling, more power in the one I had, great suspension that dampens bumps, it just doesn't feel as substantial or finished off as nicely. I am impressed that they can make an economy car that solid feeling, and fast.

Now, if you could combine the best qualities of each..............

jmonroe

driver100 said:

imidazol97 said:

driver100 said:

Not sure why they don't use a larger engine or add a turbo, that would make it a blast to drive.

Which engine does it have under the hood? The obvious difference is the dipstick--one goes into the top of the engine and the other goes through an external tube down to the sump.

Wish I knew which one I had. I turned it in yesterday.....won't need it for awhile, off to Switzerland on Tuesday for 10 days. My guess would be it had a turbo....if it was no-turbo then the one with a turbo would be a rocket.

Just in case I get thrown off this site for inappropriate posts, let me wish you a good time on your trip now. I'll do my best to still be here when you get back but...sometimes I lose it.

jmonroe

stever

houdini1 said:

"Accidents" happen all the time, but they are usually caused by someone's carelessness.

That's no longer the accepted terminology. (legalexaminer.com)

It's now crash.

(and the NHTSA has been trying to change the lingo since 1997 )

driver100

houdini1 said:

driver100 said:

oldfarmer50 said:

driver100 said:

snakeweasel said:

driver100 said:

I got the police report from the insurance company and the moron cop did a number on me. Other driver was at fault, but, I stopped too suddenly for an amber light.

Like I said, it was a completely normal stop. The cop never asked anything about how or why I stopped, but, he took the truck drivers word that he thought I would go through the light and he was going to do the same. Isn't that assuming...make an [non-permissible content removed] of u and me?

This is what the retired insurance broker wrote to me:

The police reports used to show estimates of damage. I don’t see any here but the officer, it appears, didn’t like you or your ride or both.
There is nothing to be gained & only frustration in attempting to have the officer alter his report.
With the amount of damage done to your vehicle the other driver should have been charged.
You were rear ended when you stopped for the changing light & owe no explanation to anyone for your actions.
You are not at fault.

I feel like telling the police department they have a moron officer who should learn the law and study the drivers handbook. I'd like to see him called up on the carpet....but, the insurance man says just get on with life!

Were your brake lights working? If so than the moment you touched that brake pedal the truck driver should have known you were stopping. Either that or he wasn't paying attention. And it doesn't matter how fast you stopped he should have been able to stop before hitting you, since he didn't he was either following to close, going to fast, wasn't paying attention or a combination of the three.

He was clearly at fault.

Most people can't believe the truck driver wasn't charged! For the cop to say I stopped too fast, and should have gone through an amber light I can easily stop for is ludicrous.

I sometimes think, the odds of me hitting a car or a person in the intersection would have been 10X greater, than the chance of a big truck hitting the rear of my car.

I might have mentioned how years ago I was driving a small bus and per school district policy I stopped rather quickly for a yellow and was clipped by a woman in a mini van.

She got a ticket for following too close. Case closed.

I think my wife put this accident thing into perspective for me, let me know what you think,

Many years ago my wife was teaching our daughter how to drive. They were on a two lane highway, speed limit 60 mph, in a pick up truck. It was dark, evening hours.

They stopped to turn left into a gas station, no turning lane. The truck following behind swerved around them on to the gravel shoulder....but, the large truck behind that truck didn't know there was a stopped vehicle, and had no time to go around. Hit the pick up pretty hard.

A few hours later the cop came to the door of the house, he said the accident was caused by the truck driver - obviously, but, he apologized that he wasn't going to charge him.....classed as an accident. My wife was satisfied and she understood, the truck driver didn't do something intentionally, in a way, it was a human error.

The main difference in my case is the cop gave me this bogus excuse for not laying a charge....that I stopped too quickly for an amber light. If he had said to me look, the other driver is at fault, but, it was an accident, I don't want to lay a charge on the poor slob...he is a working guy with kids to support, let's leave it at that I would probably be OK with that.

My wife said it is probably a good thing the police show some humanity. That the truck driver doesn't lose his license or his job because of this incident. It could happen to me or to you or anyone...a moment of stupidity, and maybe it is a good thing there is some leniency shown.

I was going to try to get an appointment at the police station this morning, but, now all the fight has been taken out of me.

Any thoughts?

"Accidents" happen all the time, but they are usually caused by someone's carelessness. If I am driving down the road fiddling with my radio, texting, or some other foolishness, and rear end someone, certainly I did not intend to cause harm, but cause it I did. What if someone was killed or seriously injured in your accident? Does the guy still get off because of the flimsy excuse that you stopped because the light was turning red? Give me a break !!

Good point, and I said a similar thing to my wife. If I was driving down the street and hit someone because I was chasing a bee out of the car, or trying to change the radio station, that would truly be an accident, and I would feel grateful if the cop didn't charge me.

However, the truck thing was more than an accident, that was careless and reckless driving. You haven't read about the traffic control supervisor, but he sees it the same way we do...he knows something is wrong.

snakeweasel

jmonroe said:

I agree about the Detroit iron thing.

Maybe that's because I just don't want to lose sight of those good old days but the cars today are so much more reliable and safer. I have some good memories of trying to keep my GM cars running well. That old saying that "GM cars run better badly than most cars run at all" is something that I can relate to. Although I kept mine running pretty good (50's through early 80's), Ford and Chrysler products back in the day just couldn't compare.

I'm sure I'm going to hear from the Ford and Chrysler lovers but deep down they really know I'm right.

jmonroe

Oh, I agree that todays cars are light years ahead of those old cars in the areas of reliability and safety. But it is the looks and styles of some of the 50's through the early 70's cars that really are so much better than today.

driver100

stickguy said:

all this talk about people stopping short in front of you is why CR at least is on a crusade to get auto braking mandatory. can certainly make the difference when you are slightly distracted just for a second, and won't react as quickly as the car.

that, I like. Randomly slamming on the brakes on an empty highway, that I can live without.

Do those brakes work when you are right on someone's back bumper?

What you really need is a device so that when a big waste pickup truck is behind you and won't stop in time your car senses it and rocket thrusts forward right through the intersection.

snakeweasel

stever said:

houdini1 said:

"Accidents" happen all the time, but they are usually caused by someone's carelessness.

That's no longer the accepted terminology. (legalexaminer.com)

It's now crash.

(and the NHTSA has been trying to change the lingo since 1997 )

If it's not an "accident" is it then a "purpose"?

driver100

I got this today which seemed to make sense,

Johnny Carson: If life were fair, Elvis would still be alive today and all the impersonators would be dead.

jmonroe

snakeweasel said:

jmonroe said:

I agree about the Detroit iron thing.

Maybe that's because I just don't want to lose sight of those good old days but the cars today are so much more reliable and safer. I have some good memories of trying to keep my GM cars running well. That old saying that "GM cars run better badly than most cars run at all" is something that I can relate to. Although I kept mine running pretty good (50's through early 80's), Ford and Chrysler products back in the day just couldn't compare.

I'm sure I'm going to hear from the Ford and Chrysler lovers but deep down they really know I'm right.

jmonroe

Oh, I agree that todays cars are light years ahead of those old cars in the areas of reliability and safety. But it is the looks and styles of some of the 60's through the early 70's cars that really are so much better than today.

You left out the '50's but maybe that was a little before your time. The '50 and '57 Chevy are always on the list of real classic cars and that gripes me no end. If you are wondering why, I had a '56 Chevy and that year never even gets honorable mention. :@

jmonroe

snakeweasel

driver100 said:

Good point, and I said a similar thing to my wife. If I was driving down the street and hit someone because I was chasing a bee out of the car, or trying to change the radio station, that would truly be an accident, and I would feel grateful if the cop didn't charge me.

However, the truck thing was more than an accident, that was careless and reckless driving. You haven't read about the traffic control supervisor, but he sees it the same way we do...he knows something is wrong.

Funny you should mention a bee, reminds me of maybe 30 years ago I was stun by a bee in my but cheek while driving and it almost got me into an accident. The best I could come up with is that the bee was on my seat when I got into my car and I sat on it and it took the bee a little while to get into position to sting me.

The definition of accident is an event that happens but wasn't planned or intended so unless the other driver intended to and/or planned to run into you then "accident" would be a proper word to use.

snakeweasel

jmonroe said:

snakeweasel said:

jmonroe said:

I agree about the Detroit iron thing.

Maybe that's because I just don't want to lose sight of those good old days but the cars today are so much more reliable and safer. I have some good memories of trying to keep my GM cars running well. That old saying that "GM cars run better badly than most cars run at all" is something that I can relate to. Although I kept mine running pretty good (50's through early 80's), Ford and Chrysler products back in the day just couldn't compare.

I'm sure I'm going to hear from the Ford and Chrysler lovers but deep down they really know I'm right.

jmonroe

Oh, I agree that todays cars are light years ahead of those old cars in the areas of reliability and safety. But it is the looks and styles of some of the 60's through the early 70's cars that really are so much better than today.

You left out the '50's but maybe that was a little before your time. The '50 and '57 Chevy are always on the list of real classic cars and that gripes me no end. If you are wondering why, I had a '56 Chevy and that year never even gets honorable mention. :@

jmonroe

My deepest apologies it was an ACCIDENT, I have made the appropriate correction in my post.

jmonroe

snakeweasel said:

driver100 said:

Good point, and I said a similar thing to my wife. If I was driving down the street and hit someone because I was chasing a bee out of the car, or trying to change the radio station, that would truly be an accident, and I would feel grateful if the cop didn't charge me.

However, the truck thing was more than an accident, that was careless and reckless driving. You haven't read about the traffic control supervisor, but he sees it the same way we do...he knows something is wrong.

Funny you should mention a bee, reminds me of maybe 30 years ago I was stun by a bee in my but cheek while driving and it almost got me into an accident. The best I could come up with is that the bee was on my seat when I got into my car and I sat on it and it took the bee a little while to get into position to sting me.

The definition of accident is an event that happens but wasn't planned or intended so unless the other driver intended to and/or planned to run into you then "accident" would be a proper word to use.

@snakeweasel you gotta come clean on this bee thing. I don't buy that bit about it working it's way into position thing after you sat down. It probably got there when you were doing the boggie in your seat while listening to the radio. Now isn't that more like it?

jmonroe

snakeweasel

OK we went out shopping and got some quotes and may pull the trigger in the up comming weeks (Months?).

Looks like I have nailed it down to two of two different styles. The two are a Honda CTX700 DCT and a HD Dyna Switchback.

For the Honda the pros are price (less than half the price of the HD), better gas mileage and it has the dual clutch transmission (no shifting).

For the HD the pros are much better resale value, bigger bike (better fit for me), larger more powerful engine, better dealer support, more aftermarket accessories, better for 2 up riding, better warranty and more standard equipment.

Ah decision, decisions.

imidazol97

driver100 said:

Wish I knew which one I had. .

If you have the paperwork for the rental, it probably shows the VIN. Did it say LS on the trunk or LT?

andres3

snakeweasel said:

stever said:

houdini1 said:

"Accidents" happen all the time, but they are usually caused by someone's carelessness.

That's no longer the accepted terminology. (legalexaminer.com)

It's now crash.

(and the NHTSA has been trying to change the lingo since 1997 )

If it's not an "accident" is it then a "purpose"?

The vast majority if accidents are not accidents at all. They should be called Negligents. That would be the right word; too bad our society is so soft on reckless careless dangerous behavior.

An accident is "mechanical failure." A negligent is "driver error."

snakeweasel

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

stever said:

houdini1 said:

"Accidents" happen all the time, but they are usually caused by someone's carelessness.

That's no longer the accepted terminology. (legalexaminer.com)

It's now crash.

(and the NHTSA has been trying to change the lingo since 1997 )

If it's not an "accident" is it then a "purpose"?

The vast majority if accidents are not accidents at all. They should be called Negligents. That would be the right word; too bad our society is so soft on reckless careless dangerous behavior.

An accident is "mechanical failure." A negligent is "driver error."

Actually the vast majority of accidents are truly accidents. By definition an accident is an event that is not planned or intended.

jmonroe

jmonroe said:

snakeweasel said:

jmonroe said:

I agree about the Detroit iron thing.

Maybe that's because I just don't want to lose sight of those good old days but the cars today are so much more reliable and safer. I have some good memories of trying to keep my GM cars running well. That old saying that "GM cars run better badly than most cars run at all" is something that I can relate to. Although I kept mine running pretty good (50's through early 80's), Ford and Chrysler products back in the day just couldn't compare.

I'm sure I'm going to hear from the Ford and Chrysler lovers but deep down they really know I'm right.

jmonroe

Oh, I agree that todays cars are light years ahead of those old cars in the areas of reliability and safety. But it is the looks and styles of some of the 60's through the early 70's cars that really are so much better than today.

You left out the '50's but maybe that was a little before your time. The '50 and '57 Chevy are always on the list of real classic cars and that gripes me no end. If you are wondering why, I had a '56 Chevy and that year never even gets honorable mention. :@

jmonroe

I have to make a correction, I said '50 and '57 Chevy but I meant '55 and '57 Chevy's are the classic years.

I almost made it through the year without screwing up and I always seem to mess it up somehow. This year I got to September. One time I made it all the way until Christmas.

I'm not leaving this earth until I log in a perfect year but I may be building in an incentive.

jmonroe

driver100

jmonroe said:

driver100 said:

imidazol97 said:

driver100 said:

Not sure why they don't use a larger engine or add a turbo, that would make it a blast to drive.

Which engine does it have under the hood? The obvious difference is the dipstick--one goes into the top of the engine and the other goes through an external tube down to the sump.

Wish I knew which one I had. I turned it in yesterday.....won't need it for awhile, off to Switzerland on Tuesday for 10 days. My guess would be it had a turbo....if it was no-turbo then the one with a turbo would be a rocket.

Just in case I get thrown off this site for inappropriate posts, let me wish you a good time on your trip now. I'll do my best to still be here when you get back but...sometimes I lose it.

jmonroe

Thanks, and behave yourself......we don't want to lose anyone around here.

oldfarmer50

henryn said:

andres3 said:

While your statement is correct about following distance accounting for slammed brakes, the problem is a good chunk of drivers don't allow that following distance, and someone slamming on their brakes for no reason is so unexpected it could catch someone off-guard.

I remember the last time it was done to me, and they were probably surprised how good my A3's brakes were as I didn't hit them. That must of been their intent. Some people lack IQ.

The problem is, if you do NOT allow that "safe following distance", and you rear end someone, you are at fault.

In today's modern high speed urban traffic (freeways), it is almost impossible to leave a good cushion between yourself and the car you are following. If you try to leave 2 or 3 car lengths in front of you, 4 or 5 cars immediately cram into that space. The only thing you can do is pay close attention, be prepared to react, and drive a car with really good brakes.

Wow, ain't that the truth. In the bus I have to be purer than Caesar's wife and leave a one second gap for each 10 mph. It's constant adjusting as car after car jams into the gap I create.

oldfarmer50

jmonroe said:

henryn said:

andres3 said:

While your statement is correct about following distance accounting for slammed brakes, the problem is a good chunk of drivers don't allow that following distance, and someone slamming on their brakes for no reason is so unexpected it could catch someone off-guard.

I remember the last time it was done to me, and they were probably surprised how good my A3's brakes were as I didn't hit them. That must of been their intent. Some people lack IQ.

The problem is, if you do NOT allow that "safe following distance", and you rear end someone, you are at fault.

In today's modern high speed urban traffic (freeways), it is almost impossible to leave a good cushion between yourself and the car you are following. If you try to leave 2 or 3 car lengths in front of you, 4 or 5 cars immediately cram into that space. The only thing you can do is pay close attention, be prepared to react, and drive a car with really good brakes.

I agree. Leaving what is a safe distance only results in cars jumping into the safety space you allowed yourself. Yes, it gets frustrating doing this but those cars that jumped into your safety space are the very ones that are responsible for why, even us good drivers, pay the insurance rates that we do. I keep telling Mrs. j this about our rates and she is not so sure I am right. This is the not the only time we have disagreed about something and I will not bring this up while we are in the house. I only mention this while we are in the car and this happens. You don't think I want to do laps around the dining room table do you?

As for having good brakes, I'm not sure how you can prove this other than making panic stops while test driving a car and you better warn the salesman before you do it. Also, just be sure you let @oldfarmer50 know what car you do this with because he will NOT be interested in that car, no way. :@

jmonroe

I don't know....how many miles on that car?

driver100

We saw the movie "Come Hell or High Water" tonight and really enjoyed it. Not for everyone, a little slow, but great acting, lots of humor, clever premise and a few cars from the 80s. One car was about an 84 Camaro...which I can relate to.

oldfarmer50

snakeweasel said:

Got my new car today.



Just kidding: they had a "Super car" show in my little hometown today and when they said super cars they weren't kidding, they had a lot of high end cars. Ferrari's, Lamborghini's (actually close to a 2 lamb's per Ferrari ratio), Vettes, Vipers, Mustangs and the lot.





And as far as I am concerned nothing looks better than good old Detroit Iron

Oh those are SWEET! That Daytona is probably worth $250,000 because it is rare but I'd rather have a stock Hemi Charger of that vintage for looks.

ab348

oldfarmer50 said:

Wow, ain't that the truth. In the bus I have to be purer than Caesar's wife and leave a one second gap for each 10 mph. It's constant adjusting as car after car jams into the gap I create.

I have the same problem when I drive the old Cutlass. I try to leave a gap with the car in front of me due to drum brakes and unobtainum body parts, but other cars will jump in.

jmonroe

oldfarmer50 said:

jmonroe said:

henryn said:

andres3 said:

While your statement is correct about following distance accounting for slammed brakes, the problem is a good chunk of drivers don't allow that following distance, and someone slamming on their brakes for no reason is so unexpected it could catch someone off-guard.

I remember the last time it was done to me, and they were probably surprised how good my A3's brakes were as I didn't hit them. That must of been their intent. Some people lack IQ.

The problem is, if you do NOT allow that "safe following distance", and you rear end someone, you are at fault.

In today's modern high speed urban traffic (freeways), it is almost impossible to leave a good cushion between yourself and the car you are following. If you try to leave 2 or 3 car lengths in front of you, 4 or 5 cars immediately cram into that space. The only thing you can do is pay close attention, be prepared to react, and drive a car with really good brakes.

I agree. Leaving what is a safe distance only results in cars jumping into the safety space you allowed yourself. Yes, it gets frustrating doing this but those cars that jumped into your safety space are the very ones that are responsible for why, even us good drivers, pay the insurance rates that we do. I keep telling Mrs. j this about our rates and she is not so sure I am right. This is the not the only time we have disagreed about something and I will not bring this up while we are in the house. I only mention this while we are in the car and this happens. You don't think I want to do laps around the dining room table do you?

As for having good brakes, I'm not sure how you can prove this other than making panic stops while test driving a car and you better warn the salesman before you do it. Also, just be sure you let @oldfarmer50 know what car you do this with because he will NOT be interested in that car, no way. :@

jmonroe

I don't know....how many miles on that car?

I don't know about the miles so you'll have to ask Hank about that but would you accept an otherwise new car with less than 60% of its original brake pads and maybe even warped rotors?

jmonroe

oldfarmer50

jmonroe said:

snakeweasel said:

Got my new car today.



Just kidding: they had a "Super car" show in my little hometown today and when they said super cars they weren't kidding, they had a lot of high end cars. Ferrari's, Lamborghini's (actually close to a 2 lamb's per Ferrari ratio), Vettes, Vipers, Mustangs and the lot.





And as far as I am concerned nothing looks better than good old Detroit Iron

I agree about the Detroit iron thing.

Maybe that's because I just don't want to lose sight of those good old days but the cars today are so much more reliable and safer. I have some good memories of trying to keep my GM cars running well. That old saying that "GM cars run better badly than most cars run at all" is something that I can relate to. Although I kept mine running pretty good (50's through early 80's), Ford and Chrysler products back in the day just couldn't compare.

I'm sure I'm going to hear from the Ford and Chrysler lovers but deep down they really know I'm right.

jmonroe

I thought it was Chryslers that ran badly longer than most cars ran at all. At least mine did. I don't know how many time I drove home with something jammed in the butterfly valve on the carb. It's funny how resilient and innovative you can be when the alternative is walking home.

oldfarmer50

snakeweasel said:

OK we went out shopping and got some quotes and may pull the trigger in the up comming weeks (Months?).

Looks like I have nailed it down to two of two different styles. The two are a Honda CTX700 DCT and a HD Dyna Switchback.

For the Honda the pros are price (less than half the price of the HD), better gas mileage and it has the dual clutch transmission (no shifting).

For the HD the pros are much better resale value, bigger bike (better fit for me), larger more powerful engine, better dealer support, more aftermarket accessories, better for 2 up riding, better warranty and more standard equipment.

Ah decision, decisions.

Those are motorcycles, right? Just when I thought I knew most cars you throw a curve.

oldfarmer50

jmonroe said:

oldfarmer50 said:

jmonroe said:

henryn said:

andres3 said:

While your statement is correct about following distance accounting for slammed brakes, the problem is a good chunk of drivers don't allow that following distance, and someone slamming on their brakes for no reason is so unexpected it could catch someone off-guard.

I remember the last time it was done to me, and they were probably surprised how good my A3's brakes were as I didn't hit them. That must of been their intent. Some people lack IQ.

The problem is, if you do NOT allow that "safe following distance", and you rear end someone, you are at fault.

In today's modern high speed urban traffic (freeways), it is almost impossible to leave a good cushion between yourself and the car you are following. If you try to leave 2 or 3 car lengths in front of you, 4 or 5 cars immediately cram into that space. The only thing you can do is pay close attention, be prepared to react, and drive a car with really good brakes.

I agree. Leaving what is a safe distance only results in cars jumping into the safety space you allowed yourself. Yes, it gets frustrating doing this but those cars that jumped into your safety space are the very ones that are responsible for why, even us good drivers, pay the insurance rates that we do. I keep telling Mrs. j this about our rates and she is not so sure I am right. This is the not the only time we have disagreed about something and I will not bring this up while we are in the house. I only mention this while we are in the car and this happens. You don't think I want to do laps around the dining room table do you?

As for having good brakes, I'm not sure how you can prove this other than making panic stops while test driving a car and you better warn the salesman before you do it. Also, just be sure you let @oldfarmer50 know what car you do this with because he will NOT be interested in that car, no way. :@

jmonroe

I don't know....how many miles on that car?

I don't know about the miles so you'll have to ask Hank about that but would you accept an otherwise new car with less than 60% of its original brake pads and maybe even warped rotors?

jmonroe

IDK. It would be like dating a girl with a checkerd past...You'd always wonder.

jmonroe

oldfarmer50 said:

jmonroe said:

snakeweasel said:

Got my new car today.



Just kidding: they had a "Super car" show in my little hometown today and when they said super cars they weren't kidding, they had a lot of high end cars. Ferrari's, Lamborghini's (actually close to a 2 lamb's per Ferrari ratio), Vettes, Vipers, Mustangs and the lot.





And as far as I am concerned nothing looks better than good old Detroit Iron

I agree about the Detroit iron thing.

Maybe that's because I just don't want to lose sight of those good old days but the cars today are so much more reliable and safer. I have some good memories of trying to keep my GM cars running well. That old saying that "GM cars run better badly than most cars run at all" is something that I can relate to. Although I kept mine running pretty good (50's through early 80's), Ford and Chrysler products back in the day just couldn't compare.

I'm sure I'm going to hear from the Ford and Chrysler lovers but deep down they really know I'm right.

jmonroe

I thought it was Chryslers that ran badly longer than most cars ran at all. At least mine did. I don't know how many time I drove home with something jammed in the butterfly valve on the carb. It's funny how resilient and innovative you can be when the alternative is walking home.

You are just making my point. Chrysler's and Ford's constantly had those bug-a-boos. GM cars didn't have nearly that many types of problems as they aged. GM cars just got old from wear/tear and ran badly because of it then they finally died. They usually had many more miles on them when they went to the yard and a lot of the times they were driven to the yard with tears in the eyes of their owners.

jmonroe

murphydog

It never fails

Rented a cabin out on the coast for the long weekend. No cellular coverage and very slow wifi. Of course I get 2 inquires on the ghia.

Traded emails with one of em, he is going to come by Wednesday to check it out...

berri

I thought it was Chryslers that ran badly longer than most cars ran at all. At least mine did. I don't know how many time I drove home with something jammed in the butterfly valve on the carb

That's funny. I remember that my dad always kept a wedge of wood for the butterfly valve on his 54 Desoto when it was very cold outside. I had forgotten all about that from my childhood days until you mentioned it. After that car, and given Chicago winters, his next car was a 60 Ford 6 cylinder, 3 on the tree with a MANUAL hand choke. Lots of black smoke on a cold winters day, but that sucker always started

stever

I used matchsticks to push the brushes in on my distributor on my '73 Super Beetle back in 1980. Best snow car I ever had but my girlfriend (now wife) hated it so we got a beater Datsun wagon together.

andres3

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

stever said:

houdini1 said:

"Accidents" happen all the time, but they are usually caused by someone's carelessness.

That's no longer the accepted terminology. (legalexaminer.com)

It's now crash.

(and the NHTSA has been trying to change the lingo since 1997 )

If it's not an "accident" is it then a "purpose"?

The vast majority if accidents are not accidents at all. They should be called Negligents. That would be the right word; too bad our society is so soft on reckless careless dangerous behavior.

An accident is "mechanical failure." A negligent is "driver error."

Actually the vast majority of accidents are truly accidents. By definition an accident is an event that is not planned or intended.

I think it could be argued successfully that a reasonably competent and responsible person that drives should know that texting on their cell phone while driving will lead to an accident, whether you plan or intend it to or not. Your definition is a cop out.

The drunk driver is negligent. They didn't intend to kill someone, they just chose to drive drunk and hoped they'd get away with it. Laws are being changed in some areas to hold people more accountable for their own actions that reasonably lead to the end result.

bwia

Just a thought

I have been perusing my Auto magazines and most of the pages are devoted to sedans and sports cars. Since SUVs and trucks have surpassed sedan sales shouldn't the magazines devote more ink to SUVs? Even in this thread little attention is paid to SUVs except for the occasional Ford Escape comment. What's with that. Are we stuck in the past?

driver100

Just something to think about....people who drive sedans and sports cars are probably more apt to buy a magazine about their cars than SUV drivers. Car drivers are their real target audience, a lot SUVs are driven for utilitarian reasons, and a lot of people buy them because they feel safer in them....they don't buy them for the joy of driving so much.

ab348

I learned long ago that car magazines and websites employ people who like to drive sporty cars and then rag on sedans for not being sporty enough. That equation goes out the window with SUVs and minivans so I suspect that is why you see relatively few reviews of them.

I realized this when I finally got tired of seeing the latest Porsche, Corvette, Ferrari and BMW on the cover of C&D and R&T every month.

snakeweasel

oldfarmer50 said:

Those are motorcycles, right? Just when I thought I knew most cars you throw a curve.

Yes sir these are motorcycles, gotta keep you guys on your toes.

The two dealerships we went to were both family owned. At the Honda dealer we were helped by the owner, nice lady was very helpful in answering all our questions and took the time to work out an out the door price and some options and what we could expect in the way of a payment based on our stated credit score.

The HD dealership we were helped by the sales manager (all the salesmen were busy) who helped us decide which bike we wanted and if we wanted new or used (I have an issue with used Harleys since they tend to be heavily modified by their owners) and went over options, out the door price and what we could expect in the way of monthly payments.

Both were a pleasure to work with.

snakeweasel

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

stever said:

houdini1 said:

"Accidents" happen all the time, but they are usually caused by someone's carelessness.

That's no longer the accepted terminology. (legalexaminer.com)

It's now crash.

(and the NHTSA has been trying to change the lingo since 1997 )

If it's not an "accident" is it then a "purpose"?

The vast majority if accidents are not accidents at all. They should be called Negligents. That would be the right word; too bad our society is so soft on reckless careless dangerous behavior.

An accident is "mechanical failure." A negligent is "driver error."

Actually the vast majority of accidents are truly accidents. By definition an accident is an event that is not planned or intended.

I think it could be argued successfully that a reasonably competent and responsible person that drives should know that texting on their cell phone while driving will lead to an accident, whether you plan or intend it to or not. Your definition is a cop out.

The drunk driver is negligent. They didn't intend to kill someone, they just chose to drive drunk and hoped they'd get away with it. Laws are being changed in some areas to hold people more accountable for their own actions that reasonably lead to the end result.

Please reread the post you are responding to.

houdini1

Good analysis ab.

At my age, I don't necessarily like to have "fun" because of what I am driving, but I do like to enjoy what I am driving. I wonder how much "fun" those writers have driving their "sporty cars" while commuting in heavy traffic through a snow storm in hilly terrain.

snakeweasel

bwia said:

Just a thought

I have been perusing my Auto magazines and most of the pages are devoted to sedans and sports cars. Since SUVs and trucks have surpassed sedan sales shouldn't the magazines devote more ink to SUVs? Even in this thread little attention is paid to SUVs except for the occasional Ford Escape comment. What's with that. Are we stuck in the past?

Yeah, and while we are on it those truck magazines are mostly devoted to trucks and SUV's and no cars. What gives?



It's just that most auto magazines are tailored to cars, there are plenty of truck magazines that are tailored to trucks. Just different magazines targeting different audiences.

driver100

I was surprised at this statistic...in Ontario, twice as many accidents are now caused by distracted drivers, as drunk drivers.

The number of road deaths from distracted driving in Ontario this year is set to double that of drunk driving, according to the OPP.

As of mid-August, the Ontario Provincial Police investigated 40 road deaths in which a distracted driver was involved, and 21 where an impaired driver was a factor, Sgt. Kerry Schmidt said Monday.

The OPP noted that “for the first time since Ontario distracted driving laws were introduced in 2009, the OPP is reporting that driver inattention-related road deaths are poised to double the number of impaired-related deaths this year.”

Ontario recently jacked the fine for distracted driving to between $490 and $1,000. Those convicted also face a hit of three demerit points.

According to the provincial government, distracted driving includes “using your phone to talk, text, check maps or choose a playlist while you’re behind the wheel.”

Eating, reading and typing a destination into a GPS device also constitute being distracted while driving

driver100

ab348 said:

I learned long ago that car magazines and websites employ people who like to drive sporty cars and then rag on sedans for not being sporty enough. That equation goes out the window with SUVs and minivans so I suspect that is why you see relatively few reviews of them.

I realized this when I finally got tired of seeing the latest Porsche, Corvette, Ferrari and BMW on the cover of C&D and R&T every month.

I used to like a program called Autoweek I think it was called, on PBS. Kind of got tired of it when they were testing cars I could never hope to own. I'd rather watch reviews of the "real" cars that I may actually be interested in buying one day.

I suppose some people like more exotic cars that they can imagine driving, so they can live it through the TV show.....I prefer just seeing reviews of regular cars.

ab348

snakeweasel said:

It's just that most auto magazines are tailored to cars, there are plenty of truck magazines that are tailored to trucks. Just different magazines targeting different audiences.

I imagine if one was interested in trucks - real trucks, that is - then those truck magazines would be useful.

But we were not talking about trucks. We were talking about SUVs, CUVs, minivans, etc. Those are not trucks.

stever

driver100 said:

Just something to think about....people who drive sedans and sports cars are probably more apt to buy a magazine about their cars than SUV drivers. Car drivers are their real target audience, a lot SUVs are driven for utilitarian reasons, and a lot of people buy them because they feel safer in them....they don't buy them for the joy of driving so much.

If people were having fun driving their cars they wouldn't be texting while driving or praying over the blue glow of their device with their head bend over the wheel at stop lights.

Car enthusiasts are a pretty small subset of the driving population. Everyone else can't wait for self-driving cars.

driver100

stever said:

driver100 said:

Just something to think about....people who drive sedans and sports cars are probably more apt to buy a magazine about their cars than SUV drivers. Car drivers are their real target audience, a lot SUVs are driven for utilitarian reasons, and a lot of people buy them because they feel safer in them....they don't buy them for the joy of driving so much.

If people were having fun driving their cars they wouldn't be texting while driving or praying over the blue glow of their device with their head bend over the wheel at stop lights.

Car enthusiasts are a pretty small subset of the driving population. Everyone else can't wait for self-driving cars.

I have no desire to talk on the phone, text, look at emails, read, shave, eat, do my nails, play solitaire or bridge etc. while driving. I really like to know what is going on and I like to appreciate the engineering and design of the car I am driving......but, I am probably in the minority.

28firefighter

driver100 said:

Just something to think about....people who drive sedans and sports cars are probably more apt to buy a magazine about their cars than SUV drivers. Car drivers are their real target audience, a lot SUVs are driven for utilitarian reasons, and a lot of people buy them because they feel safer in them....they don't buy them for the joy of driving so much.

If people were having fun driving their cars they wouldn't be texting while driving or praying over the blue glow of their device with their head bend over the wheel at stop lights. Car enthusiasts are a pretty small subset of the driving population. Everyone else can't wait for self-driving cars.

I have no desire to talk on the phone, text, look at emails, read, shave, eat, do my nails, play solitaire or bridge etc. while driving. I really like to know what is going on and I like to appreciate the engineering and design of the car I am driving......but, I am probably in the minority.

I think you're right that you're in the overall minority, except on this board. I dread the day that self-driving cars become the norm. 

oldfarmer50

bwia said:

Just a thought

I have been perusing my Auto magazines and most of the pages are devoted to sedans and sports cars. Since SUVs and trucks have surpassed sedan sales shouldn't the magazines devote more ink to SUVs? Even in this thread little attention is paid to SUVs except for the occasional Ford Escape comment. What's with that. Are we stuck in the past?

Yes!

berri

Put some Elvis on the turntable