Edmunds Members - Cars and Conversations (Archived)

ab348

Talking about leases, I was trying to help somebody local who has signed up for a college program for the next 2 years and is suddenly faced with a highway commute for the next 2 years of 1000km (600 miles) a week. She was looking for an inexpensive AWD vehicle and I figured a lease was out of the question with that mileage. Turns out at least one of the dealer groups here does high-mileage leases, with up to 100,000km over a 3 year term. Monthly payment is more of course but worked out about the same as the payment if she were to buy the vehicle, but she would just walk away after the 3 years without another 3 years worth of payments. She ended up not taking it (is still looking) but it was news to me that these even existed.

oldfarmer50

karhill1 said:

"The thing is is that leasing forces you into the new car every X number of years. Now if you trade your car in before your pay it off then yes you never outright own the car. But that's your choice, you could keep it but not with the lease."

Actually, a lease does not force a person into a new car every X number of years.

Nor does a lease inherently result in a person never owing the vehicle.

With a lease a person can do anything a person can do with a purchase. At any time, the lease can be bought out same as a purchase. At any time the leased vehicle can be traded, same as a purchase. At any time, the leased vehicle can be sold, same as a purchase.

These various options make any potential cost resulting from over mileage or even damage mute.

Unlike a purchase, a lease can be given back.

A lease presents some advantages. The obvious first advantage is it is a lower monthly payment. Another advantage is it allows a person to "test drive' the vehicle for a number of months.

Ultimately, if the money factor is relatively low, a lease presents almost no difference than a purchase.

For example, if a person buys a $20K vehicle and finances at 1.9 percent over 60 months, the total amount paid would be $21,000.

If that person leased that $20K vehicle for 36 months with a 55 percent residual and a money factor of .0008, the monthly lease payment would be about $292. This includes a $600 acquisition fee. The residual would be $11,000.

If the person bought the vehicle after the lease, the total amount paid would be about $21,500. Not really different than if the person had purchased the vehicle in the first place. The difference being the lease acquisition fee.

The only question is if the extra $500 is a good expenditure to gain the advantages of the lease.

Unfortunately most people have no knowledge of how a lease actually works. With the right knowledge, a person can make any lease work for them.

I heardDave Ramsey on his radio show saying that buying a car was stupid and that leasing was the most stupid.

He said that the money involved in a lease is borrowed at something like 14%. He mentioned cap cost but I thought the interest rate was the money factor. I'm confused now.

Can someone explain that to me?

oldfarmer50

graphicguy said:

driver100 said:

Leasing or buying?......There is no right or wrong, it is whichever suits your particular needs at the time.

Since my accident, here is a question to ponder. If you lease a car, your leased car is in an accident, the leased car is fixed up and repaired.........do you just hand it back in if everything else is good?

If you own the car they can give you less for it as a trade in. This could make a good advantage for leasing.

My sister did a lease that way. She had a 36 month lease on a Camry. Guy slammed into her, both airbags went off. Outside and inside looked like hell....tons of damage! Other guy at fault, but like your insurance Driver, his insurance looked to cheap out. Anyway, she was only 3 mos away from the end of the lease. Took 6 weeks to fix it. So, she only had it another 6 weeks.

She took it for final inspection to the nearest Toyota dealer. The inspector immediately knew it had been wrecked. But, since he could not find anything wrong with the repair work (aside from the usual paint overspray on it, new steering wheel cover, new welds, and bolts, and body shop smell throughout, etc).

They gave her the previously agreed amount on the lease agreement for the residual value.

This was on a Toyota Credit lease, though. Might be different with 3rd parties.

Well since Toyotas never go down in value they probably figured that someone would pay full price for even a wrecked one.

snakeweasel

karhill1 said:

"The thing is is that leasing forces you into the new car every X number of years. Now if you trade your car in before your pay it off then yes you never outright own the car. But that's your choice, you could keep it but not with the lease."

Actually, a lease does not force a person into a new car every X number of years.

Nor does a lease inherently result in a person never owing the vehicle.

With a lease a person can do anything a person can do with a purchase. At any time, the lease can be bought out same as a purchase. At any time the leased vehicle can be traded, same as a purchase. At any time, the leased vehicle can be sold, same as a purchase.

These various options make any potential cost resulting from over mileage or even damage mute.

Unlike a purchase, a lease can be given back.

A lease presents some advantages. The obvious first advantage is it is a lower monthly payment. Another advantage is it allows a person to "test drive' the vehicle for a number of months.

Ultimately, if the money factor is relatively low, a lease presents almost no difference than a purchase.

For example, if a person buys a $20K vehicle and finances at 1.9 percent over 60 months, the total amount paid would be $21,000.

If that person leased that $20K vehicle for 36 months with a 55 percent residual and a money factor of .0008, the monthly lease payment would be about $292. This includes a $600 acquisition fee. The residual would be $11,000.

If the person bought the vehicle after the lease, the total amount paid would be about $21,500. Not really different than if the person had purchased the vehicle in the first place. The difference being the lease acquisition fee.

The only question is if the extra $500 is a good expenditure to gain the advantages of the lease.

Unfortunately most people have no knowledge of how a lease actually works. With the right knowledge, a person can make any lease work for them.

If you do not buy the car after the lease ends or get a new lease then you are out a car, that's what forces you to buy.

Now the $20K car at 1.9% comes to a total of $20,980.86 or $980.86.

Now the lease to pay off that residual in 2 years at 1.9% interest would require a $467 monthly payment. To keep that $292 payment you would have to take out a loan that is over 3 additional years. Now if you pay it off in the two years you pay and additional $750 give or take. A 75% increase in interest paid.

Now consider this at the end of three years with the lease buying the car at the end of the lease you will have an $11,000 car that you owe $11,000 on. After three years of payments you will owe $8,228.50 on a car that's worth $11,000.

Michaell

Mr_Shiftright said:

Is this about right for what's negotiable and non-negotiable in a car lease?

Negotiable:

MSRP
Front money
MF
miles per year
Lease term
Security Deposit ??
Doc Fee
Silly Dealer Add-ons from F&I

Non-Negotiable:

Residual value
Acquisition Fee
Taxes
Mileage overage
Disposition Fee ??

What am I missing?

Most leases waive the initial security deposit if your credit is good enough. However, some luxury brands allow multiple security deposits to be made to "buy down" the money factor.

snakeweasel

imidazol97 said:

Saw a car with a vinyl roof yesterday morning. I didn't get a chance to study it because it was being driven recklessly changing lanes to pass--probably late for work. Brown with complementary color tan vinyl roof. Certainly not a monstrosity. But it was a Buick. A LaCrosse. The current edition. Looked like a raincoat glued onto a duck. Useless. But certainly not a monstrosity of a car. But it hurts me that it was on a Buick...

Within the last week I saw a Golf with a vinyl roof. There's something odd to the shape of a Gold in profile. It looks like a cartoonish car.

What's wrong with a vinyl roof? My car has a vinyl roof. Of course it folds down into the trunk but does that matter?

oldfarmer50

jmonroe said:

imidazol97 said:

Saw a car with a vinyl roof yesterday morning. I didn't get a chance to study it because it was being driven recklessly changing lanes to pass--probably late for work. Brown with complementary color tan vinyl roof. Certainly not a monstrosity. But it was a Buick. A LaCrosse. The current edition. Looked like a raincoat glued onto a duck. Useless. But certainly not a monstrosity of a car. But it hurts me that it was on a Buick...

Within the last week I saw a Golf with a vinyl roof. There's something odd to the shape of a Gold in profile. It looks like a cartoonish car.

@imidazol97, I don't know why seeing a Buick with a vinyl roof is "hurtful" for you. Buicks are made for vinyl roofs. Go to South Florida and look for yourself if you don't believe me.

Hurtful would be if I were to ever see a Genny with a vinyl roof.

FWIW, cars in Southern Florida with vinyl roofs and tinted windows are cooler when left out in the sun for a while.

jmonroe

Case in point, the Florida Buick I was considering:

Michaell

oldfarmer50 said:

karhill1 said:

"The thing is is that leasing forces you into the new car every X number of years. Now if you trade your car in before your pay it off then yes you never outright own the car. But that's your choice, you could keep it but not with the lease."

Actually, a lease does not force a person into a new car every X number of years.

Nor does a lease inherently result in a person never owing the vehicle.

With a lease a person can do anything a person can do with a purchase. At any time, the lease can be bought out same as a purchase. At any time the leased vehicle can be traded, same as a purchase. At any time, the leased vehicle can be sold, same as a purchase.

These various options make any potential cost resulting from over mileage or even damage mute.

Unlike a purchase, a lease can be given back.

A lease presents some advantages. The obvious first advantage is it is a lower monthly payment. Another advantage is it allows a person to "test drive' the vehicle for a number of months.

Ultimately, if the money factor is relatively low, a lease presents almost no difference than a purchase.

For example, if a person buys a $20K vehicle and finances at 1.9 percent over 60 months, the total amount paid would be $21,000.

If that person leased that $20K vehicle for 36 months with a 55 percent residual and a money factor of .0008, the monthly lease payment would be about $292. This includes a $600 acquisition fee. The residual would be $11,000.

If the person bought the vehicle after the lease, the total amount paid would be about $21,500. Not really different than if the person had purchased the vehicle in the first place. The difference being the lease acquisition fee.

The only question is if the extra $500 is a good expenditure to gain the advantages of the lease.

Unfortunately most people have no knowledge of how a lease actually works. With the right knowledge, a person can make any lease work for them.

I heardDave Ramsey on his radio show saying that buying a car was stupid and that leasing was the most stupid.

He said that the money involved in a lease is borrowed at something like 14%. He mentioned cap cost but I thought the interest rate was the money factor. I'm confused now.

Can someone explain that to me?

Guess you can't believe everything you hear on the radio, either.

On my latest Jetta lease, the MF is .00005 - that's equal to an APR of .12%

A long way from 14%

Cap cost is the negotiated price plus any taxes and fees you don't pay up front.

The highest MF I regularly see for top tier credit is just less than 7%.

Like a traditional loan, those numbers go up if your credit is not top tier.

nyccarguy

snakeweasel said:

karhill1 said:

"The thing is is that leasing forces you into the new car every X number of years. Now if you trade your car in before your pay it off then yes you never outright own the car. But that's your choice, you could keep it but not with the lease."

Actually, a lease does not force a person into a new car every X number of years.

Nor does a lease inherently result in a person never owing the vehicle.

With a lease a person can do anything a person can do with a purchase. At any time, the lease can be bought out same as a purchase. At any time the leased vehicle can be traded, same as a purchase. At any time, the leased vehicle can be sold, same as a purchase.

These various options make any potential cost resulting from over mileage or even damage mute.

Unlike a purchase, a lease can be given back.

A lease presents some advantages. The obvious first advantage is it is a lower monthly payment. Another advantage is it allows a person to "test drive' the vehicle for a number of months.

Ultimately, if the money factor is relatively low, a lease presents almost no difference than a purchase.

For example, if a person buys a $20K vehicle and finances at 1.9 percent over 60 months, the total amount paid would be $21,000.

If that person leased that $20K vehicle for 36 months with a 55 percent residual and a money factor of .0008, the monthly lease payment would be about $292. This includes a $600 acquisition fee. The residual would be $11,000.

If the person bought the vehicle after the lease, the total amount paid would be about $21,500. Not really different than if the person had purchased the vehicle in the first place. The difference being the lease acquisition fee.

The only question is if the extra $500 is a good expenditure to gain the advantages of the lease.

Unfortunately most people have no knowledge of how a lease actually works. With the right knowledge, a person can make any lease work for them.

If you do not buy the car after the lease ends or get a new lease then you are out a car, that's what forces you to buy.

Now the $20K car at 1.9% comes to a total of $20,980.86 or $980.86.

Now the lease to pay off that residual in 2 years at 1.9% interest would require a $467 monthly payment. To keep that $292 payment you would have to take out a loan that is over 3 additional years. Now if you pay it off in the two years you pay and additional $750 give or take. A 75% increase in interest paid.

Now consider this at the end of three years with the lease buying the car at the end of the lease you will have an $11,000 car that you owe $11,000 on. After three years of payments you will owe $8,228.50 on a car that's worth $11,000.

Yup! That's part of the "pro finance" argument. On a lease, generally your payments are less because it is based on a higher residual for a longer term. On a cAr with a 55% residual value after 3 years, you are paying for 45% of the car over 3 years. If you finance with nothing down, at the 2 1/2 year mark your car is 50% paid off. Go another 6 months and you're almost guaranteed to have equity in the car.

roadburner

I've been at Genius training in SC this week. Today we spent the afternoon at the Performance Center driving several new BMWs on a short road course- herewith my impressions:

i8: Not a track toy, and not designed to be one. A stunning but impractical grand tourer.
X6M: Fast but a bit ungainly in the tight corners. Not my cup of tea.
Z4: Nice enough, but again it doesn't get my juices flowing.
M2: WANT, WANT, WANT!!!

We also had a competitive autocross in M235is on a very short course(FTD was 27.9 seconds). I suck at autocross; I've only won an AutoX once- and only because everyone else in my class was horrible. Today I didn't even crack the top five...

berri

Crimson over silver - That Lacrosse must belong to an Ohio State alum

roadburner

Almost forgot- we also took X3s on the off road course:

snakeweasel

andres3 said:

And if 50's cars could go 80 MPH safely on the Interstate, you've proved my point that modern cars can definitely go 100 on those same Interstates if left unimpeded by bad drivers which may be as high as 95% of the drivers out there.

Sorry I didn't prove your point, The reason that modern cars cannot go 100 on those same interstates is because the laws of physics don't change when you go from a 50's to a modern car.

berri

Either way, I'd take todays powertrains, steering and brakes over even a decade ago.

ab348

roadburner said:

Almost forgot- we also took X3s on the off road course:

Will those be advertised next week as "Executive Demonstrator" cars?

snakeweasel

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

the IIHS is hilariously biased; they actually publish this drivel:

What are radar detectors?
Radar detectors are radio receivers tuned to the frequency range used by police radar guns. Radar detectors are bought and sold for the sole purpose of helping speeders avoid speeding tickets.

As a radar detector owner I can categorically state they are 100% wrong. The detector is an informational device giving a driver greater information about his surroundings (that could and do impact the driving around them), thereby increasing my own personal safety levels.

For example, I will often hear radar (that can't be seen) with the detector, which alerts me to the fact that cars may bunch up and brake in front of me for no other reason than there is a cop ahead. I'm given an early warning system. It is simply another tool and gauge to better inform the driver about their surroundings; a definite safety device.

Some drivers choose to be informed, educated, and welcome devices that give them additional information. Others like the IIHS, prefer drivers remain ignorant, and just stick their heads in the sand, and pay for the speeding ticket.

BULL

For those that believe the "speed kills" myth, I can see them saying the same thing. Going fast in those minds will get you killed a lot faster than anything else going on in the world; statistics or the Autobahn be damned.

For those that have studied the issue, we know that the only thing speed kills is your pocketbook!

https://youtu.be/2BKdbxX1pDw

I may not be oldfarmer but I know Toro Poopoo when I see it.

For those that believe the "speed has no effect on accidents" myth I have heard that bull before. It's always a load of crap to keep them from admitting that the only reason they got a radar detector is to avoid speed tickets. Having the radar detector gives you nothing that you claimed and what you claimed is achieved by other means that a good driver should know.

As for studying the issue did you actually study the issue or did you just looked for whatever supported your position?

It is nothing more that a crock of bull.

fintail

Yeah, I have leased three times, never heard a word about a deposit.

Regarding Dave Ramsey, I think he is better at self-promotion and basic "save save save" advice than any shrewd financial analysis.

Michaell said:

Most leases waive the initial security deposit if your credit is good enough. However, some luxury brands allow multiple security deposits to be made to "buy down" the money factor.

snakeweasel

Now onto a different note, something that actually matters. The Cubs magic number is now down to one.

stickguy

Just going to lose to the Mets again in the first round. The stars are aligning.

berri

Now onto a different note, something that actually matters. The Cubs magic number is now down to one.

The press is saying it is good they will probably do it at home. I'm saying that if they are really hardcore, they would have swept the archenemy cards

cdnpinhead

. . . and the beat goes on.

henryn

cdnpinhead said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

Been there. I was actually there the day of the Moon Landing!

Wow -- excellent! I was sat in an apartment in Tempe, AZ, when it happened. Remember when the U.S. did exciting things like that? Yeah, me too, but just barely.

Hmmm... I was driving from Palo, Iowa to Livingston, Texas. I remember pulling off the road, parking, and laying out on the hood / windshield listening to the car radio. History, good history. I have lived through a number of historical moments, some good, some bad. The Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK's assasination, the first moon landing, 9/11. Most of those bad history, but never to be forgotten. The moon landing, definitely good.

berri

On the lighter side you probably remember hula hoops, slinky's, Duncan yo-yo's and the good Humor ice cream truck.

My uncle was moved to a Naval Air Base in Florida sitting with engines running during that crisis. It was real and some AF planes had nukes on them. I watched the moon landing in a college dorm lounge because it had a color TV

snakeweasel

stickguy said:

Just going to lose to the Mets again in the first round. The stars are aligning.

I doubt that, the Cubs are doing much better and are a better team than last year. Also for them to even meet the Mets in the post season the Mets have to make the wildcard (it's a tight 3 way race) and then have to win that wildcard game. If they do I put the Cubs winning in 6. 

snakeweasel

berri said:

Now onto a different note, something that actually matters. The Cubs magic number is now down to one.

The press is saying it is good they will probably do it at home. I'm saying that if they are really hardcore, they would have swept the archenemy cards

While it would have been nice to sweep the Cards I really didn't expect it, the Cards are to good of a team. Anyway we have one more chance to sweep the Cards.

snakeweasel

henryn said:

cdnpinhead said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

Been there. I was actually there the day of the Moon Landing!

Wow -- excellent! I was sat in an apartment in Tempe, AZ, when it happened. Remember when the U.S. did exciting things like that? Yeah, me too, but just barely.

Hmmm... I was driving from Palo, Iowa to Livingston, Texas. I remember pulling off the road, parking, and laying out on the hood / windshield listening to the car radio. History, good history. I have lived through a number of historical moments, some good, some bad. The Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK's assasination, the first moon landing, 9/11. Most of those bad history, but never to be forgotten. The moon landing, definitely good.

I also live through all of those, even if I don't remember them. I was too young to remember to remember the Cuban missile crisis or the JFK assassination (Although I do remember not being able to watch a favorite show because of it, hey I was only 2.5 years old). For the moon landing we were at a park for my dads work picnic and someone had a small TV there watching it, I watched part of it on that TV. Later we went home and continued watching the events.

nyccarguy

stickguy said:

Just going to lose to the Mets again in the first round. The stars are aligning.

Los Mets are playing well now. They are doing well considering all of the injuries they have. The problem is that Cespedes has 2 modes - on fire & is he even in the ball park today. Plus I don't fully trust that Familia. He's great, but 1 pitch away from blowing an entire post season series.

snakeweasel

Well some news on the motorcycle front. Was at an event last Saturday and came across a good deal, an anniversary edition Harley Sportster with 500 miles (yes just 500 miles) for about $5K. OK this is a great deal as I would have to work hard to get this bike in a condition where I can't get my money back even 10 years down the road. Only problem is that I would have to get it here from Florida, an easy solution. So I start to get ready to get information on transporting it and planning on contacting the credit union for the loan.

On Sunday a wrench gets thrown into the gears. Now me and my wife are the youngest of our parents kids and we both have 55 in our rear view mirrors. My wifes sisters will be retiring over the years starting now and most of them have decided on Florida and found a nice active 55 and older gated community that is still under construction. Since many of my sister in laws are planning on getting homes there and that it is 40 minutes from our kids the wife wants us to also get a home there. Now there is an added bonus that it's about an hour from my sister, an aunt and an uncle of mine. The place has a lot of activities including pickelball.

So the wife wants to get a house there for us to retire to in 10-12 years. I think it's a good idea so we found a model we like, 1,100 square feet, two bedrooms, two baths. Yeah it's a lot smaller than what we have but it is just the two of us. So I ran the figure and while it will be tight it is totally doable, but means no bike for the foreseeable future. We talked to a mortgage broker yesterday who says that it would be tight to get the figures right for a second home but thinks it can be worked out.

If this goes through we will have two mortgages, a place in Florida for vacations and when we retire we sell our main home and take the proceeds and pay off that Florida home.

As it is related to a previous discussion the mortgage broker pulled our credit rating and asked if our car payment was for a lease. He was happy that it wasn't. See as a regular car payment it disappears in a couple of months and we have no more car payment and a car, if it were a lease it disappears in a couple of months but so does the car and we would either buy the car or get a new one making our payments continue. The reason it was good that it wasn't a lease is that the numbers wouldn't work out if we were going to continue with a car payment, we would have to much in payments to meet the guidelines for a second home mortgage. Once that car payment drops we could make it work. Wish us luck.

imidazol97

snakeweasel said:

What's wrong with a vinyl roof? My car has a vinyl roof. Of course it folds down into the trunk but does that matter?

And quite a nice looking vehicle too, vinyl roof UP or vinyl roof down.

Another Chick Fil A story for those needing to activate the ignore button:
After the xxx comment about vinyl roofs on Buicks, I saw a BMW with a vinyl roof at
my local CFA. I thought I had found the archexample of vinyl roof uncorrectness.
I looked closer and decided it was a well-padded convertible top. I looked
up the price for that model 6XX i, and two local stores had one at about $110,000.


And I see classic vehicles go through the drive thru while I'm eating. I see fancy
luxury barges go through. I see antique VWs go through.

And with all the commenting about Malibu Gen 8's lack of legroom, I have only seen
one competing midsize vehicle go through with 4 adults in it. Nobody uses
those rear seats--LOL--that everyone was so diminutive about the legroom in.
Interesting that someone recently bought one of the Malibu midsize competitors
and my 14 Malibu has an inch or more rear legroom than the Hyunkia competitor.
The 16 model competitor has more room most other ways because it's inching
closer to full-size.

Strange how stereotypes persist.

imidazol97

Hmmm... I was driving from Palo, Iowa to Livingston, Texas. I remember pulling off the road, parking, and laying out on the hood / windshield listening to the car radio. History, good history. I have lived through a number of historical moments, some good, some bad. The Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK's assasination, the first moon landing, 9/11. Most of those bad history, but never to be forgotten. The moon landing, definitely good.

The oldest major events for me are that I remember seeing pictures of war wounded and dead being carried on stretchers in the Korean war. We didn't have a TV but local general store did. I remember how it upset Dad seeing those pictures in the new live TV war coverage. TV shaped out culture for a couple of generations. It used to be reporting, but now it's more opinionated coverage of events or omission of events.

sda

I remember coming in from the backyard after playing on the swingset to see tears rolling down my mom's face as she watched on our RCA Victor black and white TV Walter Cronkite explaining JFK had been shot. I was 4. Later in '68, we had just moved to New Orleans about 6 months before, I watched in horror a hostage and fire situation where people jumped to their death. This was on live New Orleans local TV news. That truly upset me. The moon landing in '69, totally cool.

fintail

I must be one of the youngsters here. My earliest vivid TV memory is the hoopla around the 1984 Olympics, I was 7. I also have vague memories of seeing reports the KAL tragedy. From then on, I remember most significant events, I think. I remember Challenger clearly.

fintail

BMW 6er convertibles with the top up aren't exactly pretty, indeed.

60s and 70s cars can pull off a vinyl top - some look unusual without it. My mom's big T-Bird had one, a Chrysler (green on green on green, someone would want that now) my grandpa had when I was little had one.

imidazol97 said:

Another Chick Fil A story for those needing to activate the ignore button:
After the xxx comment about vinyl roofs on Buicks, I saw a BMW with a vinyl roof at
my local CFA.

Mr_Shiftright

roadburner said:

Almost forgot- we also took X3s on the off road course:

The only off road most X3s will see might be a speed bump at a shopping mall.

stickguy

Not true shifty. Sometimes the parking areas at the soccer fields are gravel, or even grass!

driver100

Snake, good luck with the Florida place. Wow, and pickleball.....try not to get addicted. I know people buy early in Florida, and get the place paid down so they can eventually go or stay there.

This last year, rental rates really increased, so if you own you won't get hi as much compared to renting.

Nothing is guaranteed but that money you are setting aside isn't a total expense. You can sell one day and get money back, and there is a possibility prices could increase.

Mr_Shiftright

Ah, there I go again with my hasty remarks. And of course there are botts dots and curbs as well.

I dunno...I'd sure hate to rip the exhaust system out of an X3 while doing some frisky off-roading. That'd set you back a few thou.

ab348

Funny thing about TV memories. I was born in '56 and in 1959 when I was 3 I remember sitting on the floor in front of the set and watching the test pattern with the Indian head at the top of the circle. The station didn't start running actual programs until 4PM but the test pattern was shown earlier. One of the first things I remember from around that time was a commercial for Rambler that showed the unibodies at the factory being dipped in a big tank of primer or some such. That made a big impression. I even think I remember the announcer, Earl Cameron, who Canadians of my age would remember.

I don't recall the Cuban missile crisis - maybe my parents shielded me from that - but I remember a news broadcast about Sputnik, and clearly remember the Kennedy coverage. It was in the afternoon when me and a school friend were walking home that his mom told us about it when we got to his house, and I went another block to our place and mom was watching it. One of the things that always scared the living daylights out of me was when you would be watching a network TV show and they would interrupt the program in mid-sentence with the "News Bulletin" slide with just an announcer (not on camera) telling you something big had occurred. I still remember the news of the Apollo 1 tragedy being broken in that way.

All though the '60s the coverage of the space program was must-see stuff. I was fascinated by all the rocket launches that used to be aired live.

Mr_Shiftright

Yeah, kids grew up then dreaming of going to outer space.

But alas, Nixon pretty much gutted NASA's budget and their ambitious "post-moon" plans for space stations with 100 inhabitants. I think we could have done it. But now all our Germans are dead.

qbrozen

fintail said:

I must be one of the youngsters here. My earliest vivid TV memory is the hoopla around the 1984 Olympics, I was 7. I also have vague memories of seeing reports the KAL tragedy. From then on, I remember most significant events, I think. I remember Challenger clearly.

I only have a few years on you, fin. I also remember Challenger. I was home that day. Can't remember if school was canceled or I was playing hooky. Anyway, my mom was upstairs in the shower and I was down on the couch watching the launch. When it happened, I leaned forward, staring in disbelief. I got off the couch and sat on the coffee table close to the TV as they reshowed it, and I cried.

I witnessed a tragedy in person when I was little, but I'm having a helluva time finding any info about it online, so I'm not sure how old I was. It was an airshow at the Lakehurst Naval Base where either a plane malfunctioned or clipped another, the pilot ejected, but his chute didn't open and he fell to his death. I remember it clearly, and not everyone knew what happened because it was far in the distance over the trees, but I remember seeing something fall from the plane and slowly realizing what had happened as everyone was asked to leave. I tried to tell my parents what I saw, but they didn't want to believe me until we heard about it later.

murphydog

Mr_Shiftright said:

roadburner said:

Almost forgot- we also took X3s on the off road course:

The only off road most X3s will see might be a speed bump at a shopping mall.

Likey true, those as an X3 owner I can tell you it does well on back roads and what not. 2 different times last summer we ended up on the "wrong" forest service roads. While my wife wanted me to immediately turn around I kept going, though very slowly to minimize bumps. I have to say I was surprised how well the X3 did.

Michaell

TV memories ... I remember wanting to stay up on Monday nights to watch "Laugh In". I remember news reports talking about Watergate - I was about 10 at the time.

andres3

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

the IIHS is hilariously biased; they actually publish this drivel:

What are radar detectors?
Radar detectors are radio receivers tuned to the frequency range used by police radar guns. Radar detectors are bought and sold for the sole purpose of helping speeders avoid speeding tickets.

As a radar detector owner I can categorically state they are 100% wrong. The detector is an informational device giving a driver greater information about his surroundings (that could and do impact the driving around them), thereby increasing my own personal safety levels.

For example, I will often hear radar (that can't be seen) with the detector, which alerts me to the fact that cars may bunch up and brake in front of me for no other reason than there is a cop ahead. I'm given an early warning system. It is simply another tool and gauge to better inform the driver about their surroundings; a definite safety device.

Some drivers choose to be informed, educated, and welcome devices that give them additional information. Others like the IIHS, prefer drivers remain ignorant, and just stick their heads in the sand, and pay for the speeding ticket.

BULL

For those that believe the "speed kills" myth, I can see them saying the same thing. Going fast in those minds will get you killed a lot faster than anything else going on in the world; statistics or the Autobahn be damned.

For those that have studied the issue, we know that the only thing speed kills is your pocketbook!

https://youtu.be/2BKdbxX1pDw

I may not be oldfarmer but I know Toro Poopoo when I see it.

For those that believe the "speed has no effect on accidents" myth I have heard that bull before. It's always a load of crap to keep them from admitting that the only reason they got a radar detector is to avoid speed tickets. Having the radar detector gives you nothing that you claimed and what you claimed is achieved by other means that a good driver should know.

As for studying the issue did you actually study the issue or did you just looked for whatever supported your position?

It is nothing more that a crock of bull.

The main reason one buys a radar detector is to avoid only "radar" speeding tickets. It is certainly not the only reason.

It won't help you if you get paced from behind, or in a case of mistaken identity (misidentified fast car). It won't help if you are clocked by land or air. It merely is a safety notification device alerting a driver to information they can't possibly know otherwise. I've driven a lot recently with both a radar detector and without it. If anything, the detector makes me slow down more often as I don't know whether the cop left their radar on and is already pre-occupied writing some other poor soul a ticket, or if they have their radar gun pointed in my direction a mile ahead (or if they are on the other side of the freeway with no access to my side). If slow is safe then the detector is making me a safer driver via that method.

Your claim that there are other means to achieve the benefits I've mentioned is the BULL here. Something tells me you've never driven around with a high quality radar detector. They've advanced massively in just the last 5-8 or so years, so one from 1985 doesn't count. The top of the line models are little geniuses; with built-in real-time GPS based networking to tattletale on the speed trap locations similar to the way CB radios were used by truckers in the past, or flashing lights often used from oncoming traffic to warn of a speed trap ahead; only many more time efficiently and effectively. Even when a radar isn't used I can warn other motorists with pinpoint accuracy of the LEO's current position. Another safety benefit; not being pulled over! Pulling over on the side of a freeway or high-speed highway is high-risk. As I've said, I believe more harm than good is done by pulling over speeders (increased traffic and disruption to flow).

Unlike the IIHS and NHTSA that form their opinion prior to studying or researching the issue, then pay for studies that will help promote their viewpoint, and then alter or rig the data and skew the statistical numbers when the results don't favor their viewpoint, I formed my opinion only AFTER studying the issue.

andres3

That Canadian making the 15 minute video documentary in the link above is really talented. Seems like Canada and the US both have a problem with revenue-based traffic enforcement.

One of the best videos I've ever seen in my lifetime.

henryn

I walked out of the house this morning, ready to leave for work. The 2013 Passat TDI and the 2015 F150 were sitting parked side by side in the driveway, as usual. As I was about to get into the Passat, I snapped that something was wrong. Something was very wrong.

Between 9:30 p.m. last evening, and 8:30 a.m. this morning, someone stole the hood and the driver’s side front light assembly from my truck.

The truck was locked, but somehow they unlocked it, with no visible signs of damage anywhere. They took the hood, and the bolts that hold it on, neatly. No scratches, no damage to the fenders. They unplugged all 3 of the wiring harnesses which went to the light assembly. Which isn’t that easy to do, would have been much easier to cut the wires.

I found no bolts, no screws, no washers, no nothing. Not laying on the ground, or on the truck. This looked like a very neat, professional job, done by a good auto repair technician.

I called the police, and got a report number. Called the insurance company, got a claims number. Drove the truck over to the Ford dealer’s collision center and left it. Went to Enterprise and picked up a rental (2016 Explorer Limited, more on that later). And I was at work by noon.

Just another day in the ‘hood.

28firefighter

henryn said:

I walked out of the house this morning, ready to leave for work. The 2013 Passat TDI and the 2015 F150 were sitting parked side by side in the driveway, as usual. As I was about to get into the Passat, I snapped that something was wrong. Something was very wrong.

Between 9:30 p.m. last evening, and 8:30 a.m. this morning, someone stole the hood and the driver’s side front light assembly from my truck.

The truck was locked, but somehow they unlocked it, with no visible signs of damage anywhere. They took the hood, and the bolts that hold it on, neatly. No scratches, no damage to the fenders. They unplugged all 3 of the wiring harnesses which went to the light assembly. Which isn’t that easy to do, would have been much easier to cut the wires.

I found no bolts, no screws, no washers, no nothing. Not laying on the ground, or on the truck. This looked like a very neat, professional job, done by a good auto repair technician.

I called the police, and got a report number. Called the insurance company, got a claims number. Drove the truck over to the Ford dealer’s collision center and left it. Went to Enterprise and picked up a rental (2016 Explorer Limited, more on that later). And I was at work by noon.

Just another day in the ‘hood.

What the...? They went through that much effort and that is all they took?

stickguy

wow. odd. Not that someone would steal parts, but that they would do it in such a professional manner. and they must believe in only taking what you need, because there are a bunch more expensive parts under there (including the other headlight!) that they could have easily grabbed.

serious stones too, to do that right out in your driveway like that.

js06gv

henryn said:

I walked out of the house this morning, ready to leave for work. The 2013 Passat TDI and the 2015 F150 were sitting parked side by side in the driveway, as usual. As I was about to get into the Passat, I snapped that something was wrong. Something was very wrong.

Between 9:30 p.m. last evening, and 8:30 a.m. this morning, someone stole the hood and the driver’s side front light assembly from my truck.

The truck was locked, but somehow they unlocked it, with no visible signs of damage anywhere. They took the hood, and the bolts that hold it on, neatly. No scratches, no damage to the fenders. They unplugged all 3 of the wiring harnesses which went to the light assembly. Which isn’t that easy to do, would have been much easier to cut the wires.

I found no bolts, no screws, no washers, no nothing. Not laying on the ground, or on the truck. This looked like a very neat, professional job, done by a good auto repair technician.

I called the police, and got a report number. Called the insurance company, got a claims number. Drove the truck over to the Ford dealer’s collision center and left it. Went to Enterprise and picked up a rental (2016 Explorer Limited, more on that later). And I was at work by noon.

Just another day in the ‘hood.

That is awful! Sorry it happened. Don't know how long your drive to the body shop was, but were people staring at you the whole way?

qbrozen

That's pretty astonishing. Were the doors still locked?

andres3

henryn said:

I walked out of the house this morning, ready to leave for work. The 2013 Passat TDI and the 2015 F150 were sitting parked side by side in the driveway, as usual. As I was about to get into the Passat, I snapped that something was wrong. Something was very wrong.

Between 9:30 p.m. last evening, and 8:30 a.m. this morning, someone stole the hood and the driver’s side front light assembly from my truck.

The truck was locked, but somehow they unlocked it, with no visible signs of damage anywhere. They took the hood, and the bolts that hold it on, neatly. No scratches, no damage to the fenders. They unplugged all 3 of the wiring harnesses which went to the light assembly. Which isn’t that easy to do, would have been much easier to cut the wires.

I found no bolts, no screws, no washers, no nothing. Not laying on the ground, or on the truck. This looked like a very neat, professional job, done by a good auto repair technician.

I called the police, and got a report number. Called the insurance company, got a claims number. Drove the truck over to the Ford dealer’s collision center and left it. Went to Enterprise and picked up a rental (2016 Explorer Limited, more on that later). And I was at work by noon.

Just another day in the ‘hood.

Since they took only 1 body panel, and not two, you may not suffer automatic inherent diminished value, at least according to Carmax. 2 panels and you're treated like dead weight.