# What car do you drive?



## Bermuda (Aug 16, 2009)

For all you trads out there....I was just wondering if you drive a "trad" automobile as well....I myself have a PT Cruiser....new and kind of trad looking at the same time....so....What car do you drive?


----------



## Pleasant McIvor (Apr 14, 2008)

If a PT Cruiser is trad, I'm Bob Dylan.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

I drive a Nissan Altima during the week and a Mustang convertible on the weekend.

Cruiser


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

Depends on what the voices command. A GMC 2500 Sierra Crewcab 4x4 LBZ is my daily driver.


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

Ford Contour


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Ford F-150 FX4


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Volvo S60


----------



## gizmojunkie (May 12, 2009)

I drive a 1989 Mercedes 560 SEL.

Yes, its old and a gas guzzler but its still a great ride.


----------



## PetroLandman (Apr 21, 2006)

Dodge 2500 4X4 Diesel during the week. 1982 Porsche 928 on the weekends.


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

audi a4

i wish it were one of these


----------



## Pleasant McIvor (Apr 14, 2008)

I agree about the old SLs. I love them.

As for me, an old rugged 4Runner I can't make myself get rid of, or a 330xi.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Ford Explorer Sport Trac.


----------



## sowilson (Jul 27, 2009)

2500 GMC Sierra 2500HD CC, Duramax/Allison.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

sowilson said:


> 2500 GMC Sierra 2500HD CC, Duramax/Allison.


Nice. My uncle is a supervisor for Allison in Indy.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Audi/Bimmer*

Gentlemen,

Was on my 3rd Audi, and totalled it in the weather up here. I got smart finally and went to the Subaru Legacy. My 3rd subaru. Also have my Jeep Wrangler, and the BMW AWD wagon for my wife.
The Audi and Bimmer do not compare to the Subaru for an AWD vehicle, it is that simple.
Anyway, my Audi AWD friends, have smow tires on all tires in snow. It was not till 4-5 years ago that Audi states that this is required in their winter suggestions. They always used to say an all season radial is all you need. BS!
Anyway, nothing like the Bimmer, our 2nd in our life. 
I agree, nothing like German cars for driving.
Leave the snow to Jeep, or Subaru

Jimmy


----------



## Ricardo-CL (Mar 31, 2009)

'08 Mitsubishi Outlander... I hate it but it's the best vehicle for my job...

In the garage I have a Mercedes E230 from 1985, it belonged to some aunts that were Diplomatic in Costa Rica, it has 110.000 miles and is in pristine conditions, the only problem is that the car was stored for over 4 years in a barnyard, the interior survived in the worse conditions and to make it worse, the people that takes care of our farm drove it for a month until the motor broke, can you imagine how all the fluids were after such a long time. Now I'm working on restoring the interiors and the motor, luckily it's all details, no bodywork needed at all.

So that's my trad car and its story... as for the others, just like many others, there's no like japanese efficiency to drive over the week.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Daily driver = Range Rover HSE
Occasional driver = W12 Phaeton


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Audi A-6 Avant


----------



## nick.mccann (May 3, 2009)

1997 Toyota Corolla.


----------



## KennethB (Jul 29, 2009)

Subaru outback for ski trips/camping. Honda Accord commuter car.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Currently driving a recently acquired 2007 BMW 318ix with a six speed manual, as well as a '95 Land Rover Defender 90.
Wife drives a Subaru Forester with manual transmission. We gave her outback to one of our sons and his family.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Bermuda (Aug 16, 2009)

I just thought that my PT Cruiser was trad looking...like a hot rod kind of.....I would like to get a Volkswagen as my next car


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

Gurdon said:


> . . . as well as a '95 Land Rover Defender 90.


Very nice. I've come close to buying one on more than one occasion. Just haven't found the right one yet.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

I just (as in: weeks ago) bought an Audi S6.

I have an aging (10 years old?) Audi A6 in Japan that I drive there.

Obviously I'm brand-loyal 

DH


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Bermuda said:


> I just thought that my PT Cruiser was trad looking...like a hot rod kind of.....I would like to get a Volkswagen as my next car


I kind of resist trying to extend "trad" to things like cars or attitudes (someone was speculating whether trads are more liberal or conservative a few months ago) - it's very specifically a style of dress.

If "trad" were a lifestyle - like "goth" is, say - THEN it would be expected to have it inform other areas of interest, like musical tastes, pet preferences, nightlife habits, and so on. But it's just a fashion statement.

If it *were* a lifestyle, though... I would think something sensible (used Volvo, an Oldsmobile, possibly a well maintained Camry) would be the order of the day 

DH


----------



## sowilson (Jul 27, 2009)

Dhaller said:


> If it *were* a lifestyle, though... I would think something sensible (used Volvo, an Oldsmobile, possibly a well maintained Camry) would be the order of the day


Ah, but what would you use to tow the "trad" Airstream







or Chris Craft


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

sowilson said:


> Ah, but what would you use to tow the "trad" Airstream
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wagoneer, of course.


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

'06 BMW 330xi


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Today it's the '02 VW Passat wagon.

But I'd trade it for...


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

2000 Chevy Suburban with really big, thick steel bumpers.


----------



## vwdolly (Sep 26, 2009)

I have a fully restored 1960s Volkswagen camper for weekend outings and a 2 seater MX5 for running around :icon_smile:


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

I personally do not have a car, but my wife lets me drive her 2008 Mercedes ML350.


----------



## sgriswold (Sep 24, 2009)

2007 BMW 335i coupe

Lease is up in a few months, will be looking for a sedan as the current automobile is impractical for taking clients to lunch.


----------



## Pr B (Jan 8, 2009)

*Honda*

2003 Honda Accord 4-cylinder

It's now approaching 100K miles. This is the first car I've owned that didn't feel its mileage. My previous cars (i.e., 67 Chevy Impala, 77 Chevy Caprice Classic, 79 Chevy Malibu, 80 VW Vanagon, 82 Volvo 240, 84 VW Jetta, 90 Geo Prizm, 96 Subaru Legacy, 00 Toyota Echo) all felt old, old, old by the time the odometer turned.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

2001 Chevrolet Lumina in white... I don't really like it and it's nothing special.


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

My first car was an '89 Accord 4-cylinder. I didn't have a single problem with it until about 80,000 miles when it would spontaneously turn off while driving. Highway trips were exciting in a new way. The mechanic attributed it to some sort of electrical gremlin that we never figured out. I ended up selling it, but I would never hesistate to recommend an Accord to someone looking for a reasonably priced sedan.



Pr B said:


> 2003 Honda Accord 4-cylinder
> 
> It's now approaching 100K miles. This is the first car I've owned that didn't feel its mileage. My previous cars (i.e., 67 Chevy Impala, 77 Chevy Caprice Classic, 79 Chevy Malibu, 80 VW Vanagon, 82 Volvo 240, 84 VW Jetta, 90 Geo Prizm, 96 Subaru Legacy, 00 Toyota Echo) all felt old, old, old by the time the odometer turned.


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

2009 Nissan Maxima - I've been driving an older one (1998) and really loved it. I was holding out for a redesign because I didn't like the model that's been on the streets for a while. The new generation was what I was looking for.

I'm really a confirmed 4 door sedan guy. 

Some great features on this model not on my last one I'll never be without - backup camera (hopefully this will be on all cars in the next few years) and bluetooth (ditto).


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

sgriswold said:


> 2007 BMW 335i coupe
> 
> Lease is up in a few months, will be looking for a sedan as the current automobile is impractical for taking clients to lunch.


I highly recommend the Audi A6.

Car & Driver did a comparison test of the $50k range sedans, and the Audi beat the others quite handily:

https://www.caranddriver.com/review...2009_jaguar_xf_2010_m-b_e350-comparison_tests

DH


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

Dhaller said:


> I highly recommend the Audi A6.
> 
> Car & Driver did a comparison test of the $50k range sedans, and the Audi beat the others quite handily:
> 
> ...


Only because the current generation BMW 5 series is at the end of its lifecycle. :icon_smile_big: Honestly, though, I look forward to test driving something with Audi's new supercharged V6.....it supposedly has done wonders for the S4 which became too nose heavy with the 4.2l V8.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

KenR said:


> I personally do not have a car, but my wife lets me drive her 2008 Mercedes ML350.


Let me know when she is ready to "trade up!!"


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

'03 Subaru Forester - it's a great vehicle here in Utah, gets one up the mountains in the summer for hiking and in the winter for skiing


----------



## jsgoode (Nov 3, 2006)

1991 Mercedes Benz 350 SD...an awesome highway car!


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Dhaller said:


> I kind of resist trying to extend "trad" to things like cars or attitudes (someone was speculating whether trads are more liberal or conservative a few months ago) - it's very specifically a style of dress.
> 
> If "trad" were a lifestyle - like "goth" is, say - THEN it would be expected to have it inform other areas of interest, like musical tastes, pet preferences, nightlife habits, and so on. But it's just a fashion statement.
> 
> ...


Goth cars? Hearse of course. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## flylot74 (Jul 26, 2007)

1986 MB 560SL when I'm home. I also ride a Honda Aero when the mood strikes me, but then it's a two wheeler.......


----------



## smallwonder (Jun 29, 2009)

2009 Honda Accord. Nice car, dependable and rather stylish. One problem, it gets horrible gas mileage. I am lucky to get 18-19 miles per gallon on a fill up.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

smallwonder said:


> 2009 Honda Accord. Nice car, dependable and rather stylish. One problem, it gets horrible gas mileage. I am lucky to get 18-19 miles per gallon on a fill up.


Maybe your tires aren't properly inflated?

I have a 1998 Ford Explorer (my "haul crap around" vehicle) which gets about 22 mpg or so.

An Accord should be getting 30+ easily.

DH


----------



## Pr B (Jan 8, 2009)

*Accord Mileage*

I get 30 mpg in my '03 Honda Accord 4 cylinder. As with many clergy, I have quite a lead foot.

Is that a V-6 you have there, SmallWonder? Still, I'd expect 22-24 mpg in a V-6?


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

PatentLawyerNYC said:


> My first car was an '89 Accord 4-cylinder. I didn't have a single problem with it until about 80,000 miles when it would spontaneously turn off while driving. Highway trips were exciting in a new way. The mechanic attributed it to some sort of electrical gremlin that we never figured out. I ended up selling it, but I would never hesistate to recommend an Accord to someone looking for a reasonably priced sedan.


I had a car that did the same thing. It turned out to be a bad camshaft sensor which would lose track of the camshaft position and kill the engine.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Dhaller said:


> Maybe your tires aren't properly inflated?
> 
> I have a 1998 Ford Explorer (my "haul crap around" vehicle) which gets about 22 mpg or so.
> 
> ...


or poor airflow so it is running rich. It could be a multitude of things, I would have it checked out personally. Some cars do get worse gas mileage the first few thousand miles.


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

brokencycle said:


> I had a car that did the same thing. It turned out to be a bad camshaft sensor which would lose track of the camshaft position and kill the engine.


Where were you in 1998, when I could have used this information? :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Cars don't get quite as much gas mileage as they do in the specs. The problem is that people drive a lot differently now than the outdated standards they use to measure it. Even a Prius gets far less than 65 miles to the gallon for most of its drivers.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Dhaller said:


> I kind of resist trying to extend "trad" to things like cars or attitudes (someone was speculating whether trads are more liberal or conservative a few months ago) -* it's very specifically a style of dress*.


True, a very specific Right Wing style of dress.

I drive a Volvo and a Ford Ranger, but not at the same time. I also have a '61 Pontiac Laurentian in the barn, which I purchased a few years back specifically to drive to my 40th HS reunion, because back then ('62) I drove my daddy's car which was a spanky-new '61 Pontiac.​


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

There are liberal East Coast types (New England anyone?) who wear 3/2 sacks, penny loafers, repp ties, and button down collars. Ivy League schools (where the style originated) have both liberal and conservative graduates. So no, it's not specifically right wing.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Peak and Pine said:


> I also have a '61 Pontiac Laurentian in the barn, which I purchased a few years back specifically to drive to my 40th HS reunion, because back then ('62) I drove my daddy's car which was a spanky-new '61 Pontiac.


Cars back then had so much more soul than do cars of today, even if they were little more than gas hogging rolling death traps. I guess I'm going off topic but when I think back to that era I'm always reminded of the one purchase that I didn't make and for some reason never got over.

It was 1965 and I was looking at a fire engine red 1963 Mercury S-22 convertible with a 260 V8 and a four speed. It looked exactly like this one.










The guy wanted $600 for it and I finally decided that was more than my $1.15 an hour part time job could handle. To this day I regret not finding a way to make those numbers work. Heck, I could have saved almost $3.00 a week by skipping lunch every day at school. I'm convinced that if I had bought that car the cute brunette in my algebra class would have gone out with me. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

PatentLawyerNYC said:


> Where were you in 1998, when I could have used this information? :icon_smile_wink:


1998 I was 11 years old. Trust me, my car was a 1987 Dodge Daytona, and that was in the shop all the time it took them like 5 attempts to find the problem.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Jovan said:


> There are liberal East Coast types (New England anyone?) who wear 3/2 sacks, penny loafers, repp ties, and button down collars. Ivy League schools (where the style originated) have both liberal and conservative graduates. So no, it's not specifically right wing.


Absloutely right.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Has no one heard of a "Plaid Pants" Republican??

A "RINO??"

Or Olymipian Snowe?? 

Ahhhh, my first ride was a 72 Pontiac LaMans. 

Had it not been a yellow sedan with vinyl roof it would have been awesome!!

Back then, I wanted a BMW Bavaria. 

Too Preppy!!


----------



## harland (Oct 13, 2008)

Honda Civic.


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

brokencycle said:


> 1998 I was 11 years old. Trust me, my car was a 1987 Dodge Daytona, and that was in the shop all the time it took them like 5 attempts to find the problem.


11 in 1998? Thanks. As if my thinning hair didn't make me feel old enough....


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

PatentLawyerNYC said:


> 11 in 1998? Thanks. As if my thinning hair didn't make me feel old enough....


Hey, at least you can run for political office. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Jovan said:


> There are liberal East Coast types (New England anyone?) who wear 3/2 sacks, penny loafers, repp ties, and button down collars. *So no, it's not specifically right wing.*





Mike Petrik said:


> *Absloutely right*.


One of you is from Florida, the other from Georgia and neither is old enough to remember when trad was more than the reactionary costume it is today.

I however_ am_ from New England and when I was young we all dressed like JFK (to whom I mumbled something when shaking his hand when I was 15). But JFK, the 60's and it's fashions have long since left us. I know of no East Coast Liberals, including me, who continue to dress in that fashion. But of course there may be a few.

Some of the items you mention are not unique to trad, i.e., button-down shirts and loafers. I wear those still. But the attempt to dress as if the late 50s and early 60s were the glorification of all that was once right with America, that is mostly a Right Wing thing.​


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Peak and Pine said:


> Some of the items you mention are not unique to trad, i.e., button-down shirts and loafers. I wear those still. But the attempt to dress as if the late 50s and early 60s were the glorification of all that was once right with America, that is mostly a Right Wing thing.​


You imagine a fashion trend is a veiled, racist and vast right wing conspiracy??

Who knew??

What of tie-dye and peace signs on main stream garments I see all over Macy's??

Look into the crowd...










Not a single unwashed, drugged-out Hippie among them!!

Oh, all the White guys are FBI agents I suppose.

HA!!


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Has no one heard of a "Plaid Pants" Republican??
> 
> A "RINO??"
> 
> ...


A grey Bavaria was my first car. Totaled it on Comm Ave in Boston, up by BU. No one hurt.

Good memories.


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

Peak and Pine said:


> True, a very specific Right Wing style of dress.
> ​


Do you mean currently (i.e. those who dress trad are right wingers)? Certainly there's no basis for the view that those who wore this garb in the 1950s and 60s were of one particular political viewpoint.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Peak and Pine said:


> One of you is from Florida, the other from Georgia and neither is old enough to remember when trad was more than the reactionary costume it is today.
> 
> I however_ am_ from New England and when I was young we all dressed like JFK (to whom I mumbled something when shaking his hand when I was 15). But JFK, the 60's and it's fashions have long since left us. I know of no East Coast Liberals, including me, who continue to dress in that fashion. But of course there may be a few.
> 
> Some of the items you mention are not unique to trad, i.e., button-down shirts and loafers. I wear those still. But the attempt to dress as if the late 50s and early 60s were the glorification of all that was once right with America, that is mostly a Right Wing thing.​


... what? Nobody is looking through rose-coloured glasses at the past. I like the style, nothing more.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> You imagine a fashion trend is a *veiled, racist and vast right wing conspiracy*??


I don't recall mentioning racism or conspiracy. I merely said Right Wing. Is that how you see the Right, racist?



> Who knew??
> 
> What of tie-dye and peace signs on main stream garments I see all over Macy's??
> Look into the crowd...
> ...


I have no idea what the above means.



DCLawyer68 said:


> *Do you mean currently* (i.e. those who dress trad are right wingers)? Certainly there's no basis for the view that those who wore this garb in the 1950s and 60s were of one particular political viewpoint.


Yes, I mean currently. In the period in which trad was actually in flower, it had no political connotation.​


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Pine-Sol,

Why does everything have to have a political slant for you? Couldn't you have just answered the question and moved on without trying to drag a simple thread about cars people own into the left or right crap?



Peak and Pine said:


> *True, a very specific Right Wing style of dress.*
> 
> I drive a Volvo and a Ford Ranger, but not at the same time. I also have a '61 Pontiac Laurentian in the barn, which I purchased a few years back specifically to drive to my 40th HS reunion, because back then ('62) I drove my daddy's car which was a spanky-new '61 Pontiac.​


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

Peak and Pine said:


> One of you is from Florida, the other from Georgia and neither is old enough to remember when trad was more than the reactionary costume it is today.
> 
> I however_ am_ from New England and when I was young we all dressed like JFK (to whom I mumbled something when shaking his hand when I was 15). But JFK, the 60's and it's fashions have long since left us. I know of no East Coast Liberals, including me, who continue to dress in that fashion. But of course there may be a few.
> 
> Some of the items you mention are not unique to trad, i.e., button-down shirts and loafers. I wear those still. But the attempt to dress as if the late 50s and early 60s were the glorification of all that was once right with America, that is mostly a Right Wing thing.​


That's kind of funny. I'm from Texas, but some lawyers I know in Vermont all dress very Tradly and, yet, are uber-Democrats (maybe it's just Vermont...). I've always seen Trad and it's variations as a regional product, not a political one.

Getting back on track, the Bavaria is one hell of an awesome car.


----------



## LanceW (Jun 2, 2009)

2002 325xi. 

110k miles; I can't seem to kill it.


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

Peak and Pine said:


> Some of the items you mention are not unique to trad, i.e., button-down shirts and loafers. I wear those still. But the attempt to dress as if the late 50s and early 60s were the glorification of all that was once right with America, that is mostly a Right Wing thing.​


Nahhh, I dress as if the Eighties were the glorification of all that was once right in America.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Which one?​


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Asterix said:


> Pine-Sol,
> 
> *Why does everything have to have a political slant for you?* Couldn't you have just answered the question and moved on without trying to drag a simple thread about cars people own into the left or right crap?


And the signature you ooze onto all your posts, the one from Jefferson that says essentially, I've got mine so screw you, that's not political?
​


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

I'll attempt to get it back on track. Currently I drive a 1997 Saturn SL1 with under 60,000 miles. I needed a car a couple years ago, and it had 30,000 miles on it and was in my price range. It is totally emasculating and too small for me, so it is uncomfortable when I do a lot of driving.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Pine-Sol,

I don't see the relevance of how my signature (which I've had for over a year now) has anything to do with a thread that simply asked what "trads" drive. Did I not answer the OP's question? Did I make any political inferences in my response?

I'd think that since you are AAAC's self appointed "spokesperson" for the "lefties" (folks of which in your myopic world view don't dress "trad") that maturely, after clicking into the thread and reading the OP's question directed at "trads" you'd have respectfully ignored the thread because you are not "trad" especially since to you "trad" = "Right Wing".

 ******enough of the political BS, returning to my watcher mode.******



Peak and Pine said:


> And the signature you ooze onto all your posts, the one from Jefferson that says essentially, I've got mine so screw you, that's not political?
> ​


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Asterix said:


> Pine-Sol,
> 
> I don't see the relevance of how my signature (which I've had for over a year now) has anything to do with a thread that simply asked what "trads" drive.


Really?

Signatures are bumper stickers and they say something about the driver and if the driver didn't want it said he would remove the sticker. But yours stays on. And it's political. You didn't know that? Have you read it? I have. I picture a-red faced Jefferson spluttering on about what's his is his and the rest of you lazy bastards better get your own 'cause you're not getting any of mine. It is _very_ political. And very old, and from a morally dubious individual. But hey, it's your signature. And whether you're commenting on underwear or Obama, that political message gets stuck in, because you want it in. So don't shovel your load at me about being political in an otherwise unpolitical thread.

My sig, on the other hand, gets turrned off and on. I'll turn it on for you now. It's a merry witch upon the heath and she's stirring the pot. I really llike that.​


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

I believe or hope you have the intellectual capability to discern the difference between a signature and an actual response to an otherwise neutral thread directed at "trads".



Peak and Pine said:


> Really?
> 
> Signatures are bumper stickers and they say something about the driver and if the driver didn't want it said he would remove the sticker. But yours stays on. And it's political. You didn't know that? Have you read it? I have. I picture a-red faced Jefferson spluttering on about what's his is his and the rest of you lazy bastards better get your own 'cause you're not getting any of mine. It is _very_ political. And very old, and from a morally dubious individual. But hey, it's your signature. And whether you're commenting on underwear or Obama, that political message gets stuck in, because you want it in. So don't shovel your load at me about being political in an otherwise unpolitical thread.
> 
> My sig, on the other hand, gets turrned off and on. I'll turn it on for you now. It's a merry witch upon the heath and she's stirring the pot. I really llike that.​


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Peak and Pine said:


> Really?
> 
> Signatures are bumper stickers and they say something about the driver and if the driver didn't want it said he would remove the sticker. But yours stays on. And it's political. You didn't know that? Have you read it? I have. I picture a-red faced Jefferson spluttering on about what's his is his and the rest of you lazy bastards better get your own 'cause you're not getting any of mine. It is _very_ political. And very old, and from a morally dubious individual. But hey, it's your signature. And whether you're commenting on underwear or Obama, that political message gets stuck in, because you want it in. So don't shovel your load at me about being political in an otherwise unpolitical thread.
> 
> My sig, on the other hand, gets turrned off and on. I'll turn it on for you now. It's a merry witch upon the heath and she's stirring the pot. I really llike that.​


Yes, but you started this whole issue of politics. Everything is an us vs them policy with you. Everyone was just enjoying a discussion of cars and now we've degenerated into a political argument which involves you insinuating that one of our Founding Fathers is not a good person because he believes you should have to earn what you have.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Hey Asterix and Cycle, I'd like to have you both up to my dorm room where we can argue and curse at each other, then have some beers and go looking for babes.

But there's no beer on the internet and I haven't been in a dorm in 45 years, so I'm stuck here on the internet with the likes of you and I do, I likes you.

(Jefferson was morally dubious because he boinked his slaves. Even Clinton didn't do that, altho Lewinsky was rather low paid.)

Edit: Oh yeah, I drive a car. I have to say that so I can legally stay in this thread​


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Dhaller said:


> Maybe your tires aren't properly inflated?
> 
> I have a 1998 Ford Explorer (my "haul crap around" vehicle) which gets about 22 mpg or so.
> 
> ...


I think the key word is "should" because I bought a slightly used 4 cylinder Accord EX in May in my halfhearted and feeble attempt to reduce my carbon footprint but it turned out to be a gas burner when I did some layman road tests with it in comparison with my A8 so carbon footprint guilt out of the window, I traded both in for a Range Rover.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Peak and Pine said:


> Hey Asterix and Cycle, I'd like to have you both up to my dorm room where we can argue and curse at each other, then have some beers and go looking for babes.
> 
> But there's no beer on the internet and I haven't been in a dorm in 45 years, so I'm stuck here on the internet with the likes of you and I do, I likes you.
> 
> ...


You can expect people to take you to task on posts that are just plain weird... such as ones implying that people dress like conservatives if they dress "trad." Even as a young whippersnapper who lives in Florida (I was born in Canada, so I am not _from_ here) I can tell you that it's a pretty illogical belief.

I'm not trying to disrespect my elders here or anything. I'm just saying that trying to recapture a style from the '50s and '60s does not a Right Wing person make. It does not glorify the standards of civil rights or women's suffrage that existed back then, nor say that the person believes everything was better. My inspirations are Take Ivy and Mad Men, yet I'm as liberal as you are. Only once has someone thought I was a Republican, and that was back in high school when I dressed like a typical drama club student!


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Jovan said:


> such as ones implying that people dress like conservatives if they dress "trad." Even as a young whippersnapper who lives in Florida (I was born in Canada, so I am not _from_ here) I can tell you that it's a pretty illogical belief.


Actually I've been wondering as I read this thread exactly how a conservative, or a liberal for that matter, dresses so I looked at pictures of some conservatives to see if I could spot a common theme.




























And there it was; it's the denim jeans. The only problem is that I was wearing denim jeans when I was a liberal back in the 60's so now I'm confused. Of course my conservative friends said I was confused back when I was a liberal and my liberal friends say that I'm confused now that I'm a conservative. I think this might be what is known as a conundrum, unless of course I'm just confused period as some in this forum have suggested in the past. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Jovan said:


> You can expect people to take you to task on posts that are just plain weird... such as ones implying that people dress like conservatives if they dress "trad." Even as a young whippersnapper who lives in Florida (I was born in Canada, so I am not _from_ here) I can tell you that it's a pretty illogical belief.
> 
> I'm not trying to disrespect my elders here or anything. I'm just saying that trying to recapture a style from the '50s and '60s does not a Right Wing person make. It does not glorify the standards of civil rights or women's suffrage that existed back then, nor say that the person believes everything was better. My inspirations are Take Ivy and Mad Men, yet I'm as liberal as you are. Only once has someone thought I was a Republican, and that was back in high school when I dressed like a typical drama club student!


I'm guessing that Jovan has probably never been called a 50s neanderthal.

Although I dress in a style that I would call "classic traditional" I have to agree with Jovan that most of the "Trads" I see are 'Trad by way of Mad Men.'

I don't always agree with Jovan on issues, but I always appreciate Jovan's pictures. I don't understand how one could hope to decipher his social and political perspectives from his style of dress.

But then, I wear cowboy boots with jeans - I'm sure to some that makes me a racist.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Jovan said:


> I'm just saying that trying to recapture a style from the '50s and '60s does not a Right Wing person make.


I thought this was supposed to be about cars, but since you've addressed me, I'll respond: the answer is yes, people who wish it were still the 50s are usually Right Wing. Sorry. You may not be, but most of them are.

That's not to say the converse is true; right wingers do not necessarily dress as Eisenhower era wannabes, Cruiser's photos above show that. But those that are stuck on 50s clothes are usually stuck on 50s ideas.

Now don't get all wound up. I grew up in the 50s and in New England and in prep schools and with all the stuff latter day trads drool about. It was fine, it was swell, it is gone. If you still choose to dress from a time before you were born, why not choose something really grand like, oh, the Napoleonic Era. The 50s got nothing on that.​


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> I thought this was supposed to be about cars, but since you've addressed me, I'll respond: the answer is yes, people who wish it were still the 50s are usually Right Wing. Sorry. You may not be, but most of them are.​


And here I just thought they liked cars with suggestive body styles ...


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Cruiser said:


> Actually I've been wondering as I read this thread exactly how a conservative, or a liberal for that matter, dresses so I looked at pictures of some conservatives to see if I could spot a common theme.
> 
> Cruiser


Better looking women!!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> Really?
> 
> Signatures are bumper stickers and they say something about the driver and if the driver didn't want it said he would remove the sticker. But yours stays on. And it's political. You didn't know that? Have you read it? I have. I picture a-red faced Jefferson spluttering on about what's his is his and the rest of you lazy bastards better get your own 'cause you're not getting any of mine. It is _very_ political. And very old, and from a morally dubious individual. But hey, it's your signature. And whether you're commenting on underwear or Obama, that political message gets stuck in, because you want it in. So don't shovel your load at me about being political in an otherwise unpolitical thread.
> 
> My sig, on the other hand, gets turrned off and on. I'll turn it on for you now. It's a merry witch upon the heath and she's stirring the pot. I really llike that.​


I'm glad to see a member of the Left denounce Jefferson's politics. The Left's mythical propaganda about Jefferson needs to die. If the truth of a bumper-stick quote is more truth than you can bear, that's a good thing.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Jovan said:


> I'm just saying that trying to recapture a style from the '50s and '60s does not a Right Wing person make. My inspirations are Take Ivy and Mad Men, yet* I'm as liberal as you are*.


I sincerely doubt that. I've not seen you go after the Ksinc crowd. I've never read a single Interchange post where you take a Liberal view. But I have seen picture postings by you (and you look fine) and I don't recall seeing you in sack suits and Nantucket Reds. So I'm not buying this Liberal Trad shtick you're trying to sell me.

Cruiser: that last picture in the trio of Conservatives you posted above, that's you right? You look smooth. And the glass o' Scotch (?) adds a nice vintage touch.
​


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> I sincerely doubt that. *I've not seen you go after the Ksinc crowd. *I've never read a single Interchange post where you take a Liberal view. But I have seen picture postings by you (and you look fine) and I don't recall seeing you in sack suits and Nantucket Reds. So I'm not buying this Liberal Trad shtick you're trying to sell me.
> 
> Cruiser: that last picture in the trio of Conservatives you posted above, that's you right? You look smooth. And the glass o' Scotch (?) adds a nice vintage touch.​


What kind of a ridiculous statement is that? Jovan and I frequently disagree, but to say he isn't liberal because he hasn't gone after me?! Or to purport that my views are consistent with any group?! You obviously are losing the plot here.

Perhaps Jovan is an independent, thinking liberal instead of a rude, reactionary hyena that attacks on command? I would say a true believer unlike some who just parrot the latest talking points.

Regardless, everytime the P&P crowd (both of you) come after me they lose; and badly.

I respect Jovan, but I don't enjoy taking up for him. If you have a problem with him leave me out of it. Have another drink and maybe you can handle him one-on-one, but I doubt it.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Peak and Pine said:


> Cruiser: that last picture in the trio of Conservatives you posted above, that's you right? You look smooth. And the glass o' Scotch (?) adds a nice vintage touch.


Right on both counts. The picture was from about fifteen years ago when I drank Scotch exclusively. I'm more of a Bourbon guy now, but I still enjoy Scotch on occasion. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Man, am I good.​


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> Man, am I *drunk*.​


Fixed it for you.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

ksinc said:


> What kind of a ridiculous statement is that? Jovan and I frequently disagree, but to say he isn't liberal because he hasn't gone after me?! Or to purport that my views are consistent with any group?! You obviously are losing the plot here.
> 
> Perhaps Jovan is an independent, thinking liberal instead of* a rude, reactionary hyena that attacks on command?* I would say a true believer unlike some who just parrot the latest talking points.
> 
> Regardless, everytime the P&P crowd (both of you) come after me they lose; and badly.


My, my, aren't our feelings delicate tonight.

Glenn Beck refeeds at 12 a.m. That should calm you down. And give you a few quotes to reword into future posts.
​


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> My, my, aren't our feelings delicate tonight.
> 
> Glenn Beck refeeds at 12 a.m. That should calm you down. And give you a few quotes to reword into future posts.​


Yes; I can see how Beck is calm and coherent compared to you.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

P&P: I'm not sure which Interchange you've viewed, but me and ksinc have disagreed from time to time. My liberal views are no secret and I've shared them here before. The difference is that you are much more frequently accusatory and snarky in "denouncing" the views of the conservatives here.

Again, not sure what forum you're on. Maybe this other, quasi-conservative Jovan can answer for himself.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

A slight majority of the men I know who dress trad lean liberal. I suspect it is a noblesse oblige thing, but who knows. 

That said, I drive a 1996 Mercedes E320 and a 1989 BMW 325.


----------



## mjo_1 (Oct 2, 2007)

2001 Jeep Cherokee for me. It's new enough to have modern safety/convenience features (airbags, EFI, CD player, etc) but old enough to not be overly refined and electronic (Solid front axle, a real transfer case lever instead of push button, no ABS, no annoying warning noises, classic boxy body).

The straight 6 may not be the most economical, but it has great torque, is easy to work on, and will run forever. Plus it'll take you anywhere you want, be it through snow, mud, etc.

It's one of the more tradly vehicles in my opinion.

Michael


----------



## chamjoe (Oct 26, 2009)

Durring the Week-2004 Honda Civic bought off ebay about a year ago
Weekend-2003 Honda CBR 600 F4i (ebay-salvaged)& Kubota L2550 (new)

As much as I love the new Volkswagen CC I can't justify the depreciation hit so perhaps in two years when I can get it used (off ebay of course)...


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

Are Cooper Minis Trad? :icon_smile:


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Any consensus on which car(s) is/are officially trad of the ones posted so far? :icon_smile_big:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Asterix said:


> Any concensus on the which car(s) is/are officially trad of the ones posted so far? :icon_smile_big:


The SL.

Glad the siggy is secure.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

ksinc said:


> The SL.
> 
> Glad the siggy is secure.


Same here. Didn't know my simple siggy was giving some folks ulcers.


----------



## Zingari (Jul 9, 2007)

Porsche 993 coupe as the weekend car - 14 years old with 51k miles. Last of the air cooled and honed from granite. The traditional dash just blows my mind!

What is interesting when the 993 was built Porsche couldn't work out the actual price of each car until it was finished!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Asterix said:


> Any consensus on which car(s) is/are officially trad of the ones posted so far? :icon_smile_big:


It used to be so easy,

The Mecedes SL
BMW Bavaria or 3-500 series
Volvo 240DL (I liked the wagon) 
Even a Jeep Grand Wagoneer.

In the 2000+ model years I just don't see many standouts.

They are all nice and safe, but I think the Modern, Convertible 3 series BMW still appeals to my 80s sensibility!!


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

The Benz SL ain't Trad. Not by a long shot. Fussell overshot the mark with respect to all Benz but certainly not with respect to the SL. 
'70s and '80s vintage Bimmers, non-SL Mercs, Volvos, and Porsches are Trad, as are many Jeeps, Rovers, and even the new Mini.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

I appreciate this topic coming up again, although I thought I'd only be reading and not posting as my answer wouldn't have changed from the last thread. However, not long ago while on my way to pickup some dinner BOOM! I was rear-ended by a person who got distracted by their cell phone ringing. My car was totaled, I was not. Thus ended my happy time with a sturdy and very comfortable old American tank known as a '99 Buick Park Avenue.

Right now I'm driving around in a rental car courtesy of the other driver's insurance company. I've been looking over all sorts of cars and having some fun doing so. Thanks to all for the comments here and for the ideas about what to get and what not to get.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

smujd said:


> The Benz SL ain't Trad. Not by a long shot.


Are you sure??

I was talking about these, not the modern ones...


----------



## Wall (Dec 4, 2008)

Where is the truck thread?


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Are you sure??
> 
> I was talking about these, not the modern ones...


I'll go with you on the pre-1990 (the 1st through 3rd generation) SLs.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Quay said:


> I appreciate this topic coming up again, although I thought I'd only be reading and not posting as my answer wouldn't have changed from the last thread. However, not long ago while on my way to pickup some dinner BOOM! I was rear-ended by a person who got distracted by their cell phone ringing. *My car was totaled, I was not.* Thus ended my happy time with a sturdy and very comfortable old American tank known as a '99 Buick Park Avenue.
> 
> Right now I'm driving around in a rental car courtesy of the other driver's insurance company. I've been looking over all sorts of cars and having some fun doing so. Thanks to all for the comments here and for the ideas about what to get and what not to get.


I'm glad you were not totalled. Did you escape completely unscathed?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Are you sure??
> 
> I was talking about these, not the modern ones...


Excellent clarification. I agree on the old v. new SLs too. Although I am a fan of the new ones, they don't seem "Trad."


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

ksinc said:


> I'm glad you were not totalled. Did you escape completely unscathed?


Thank you for the kind thought. I was fine after the accident except for a mild case of neck strain ("whiplash") that has already been relieved. I should also note that the other driver was wearing a seatbelt and was not injured. So it's just a matter of property damage and insurance paperwork.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Glad to hear you're okay, Quay. Cell phones can be dangerous distractions. Sorry to say that this is the pot calling the kettle black, though. I occasionally answer or call people while on the road.

Hope your next car purchase gives you another decade or so of driving pleasure.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Thank you for the kind thought and good wishes. When this topic came up a while ago, one group agreed on a couple of things. One, the classic four-door sedan is too often over-looked and undervalued and two, buying a decent car and keeping it for 10 years or so makes excellent practical and financial sense.

I'll probably end up with another sedan but right now I'm having fun looking at just about everything. :icon_smile:



Jovan said:


> Glad to hear you're okay, Quay. Cell phones can be dangerous distractions. Sorry to say that this is the pot calling the kettle black, though. I occasionally answer or call people while on the road.
> 
> Hope your next car purchase gives you another decade or so of driving pleasure.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Quay said:


> Thank you for the kind thought and good wishes. When this topic came up a while ago, one group agreed on a couple of things. One, the classic four-door sedan is too often over-looked and undervalued and two, buying a decent car and keeping it for 10 years or so makes excellent practical and financial sense.
> 
> I'll probably end up with another sedan but right now I'm having fun looking at just about everything. :icon_smile:


I saw the remains of a wreck the other day on TV local news. It was a car that rear ended a Hummer. There were pieces of the car strewn everywhere and a Hummer that I swear didn't even look scratched. I drive an F-150. I think there's something to be said for a full-size car or truck for this practical reason alone. My Wife drives the Volvo S60 and it's small, but it is four doors and has a good safety system (so they say.) I also have a weekend car, but it's not my regular vehicle.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

My car is eight years old now, and will probably run for years with good maintenance. However, things are not _all_ well. The key/remote, passenger side window button, and some other little things don't work. I'm almost afraid to ask how much it will cost to fix those issues. (And yes, I did try new batteries in the remote.)

I'd also _like_ a CD/MP3 deck, but wondering whether it's worth it at this point in time. I may sell this in a couple years.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Jovan said:


> My car is eight years old now, and will probably run for years with good maintenance. However, things are not _all_ well. The key/remote, passenger side window button, and some other little things don't work. I'm almost afraid to ask how much it will cost to fix those issues. (And yes, I did try new batteries in the remote.)
> 
> I'd also _like_ a CD/MP3 deck, but wondering whether it's worth it at this point in time. I may sell this in a couple years.


I've had some electrical problems and it was a complete rip-off. Good luck with that stuff. The one bad thing about a Ford. Ok, maybe one of the bad things ... LOL


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

I love it. I don't come around for a couple weeks and a simple thread about cars turns into a bar fight. Nice to see The Interchange got its teeth back. :icon_smile_big:

My biggest gripe with my car right now is that the cost of premium gas (91 octane) keeps inching higher and higher every time I go to fill up. My Audi has a 20-gallon tank, so do the math. My only solace is that I fill up on the Missouri side of Kansas City, where taxes and the other silly fees Kansas slaps on gas aren't as high.

Is it a placebo effect, or does the octane number REALLY make that big of a difference on the performace of luxury and near-luxury cars?

P.S. Quay, glad to read that you're all in one piece after your accident.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I've had some electrical problems and it was a complete rip-off. Good luck with that stuff. The one bad thing about a Ford. Ok, maybe one of the bad things ... LOL


My grandfather and my father drove Ford trucks and I currently drive an F-150. We haven't had any real problems with them. I will always have a truck, they're just so useful.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

TMMKC said:


> I love it. I don't come aorund for a couple weeks and a simple thread about cars turns into a bar fight. Nice to see The Interchange got its teeth back. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> My biggest gripe with my car right now is that the cost of premium gas (91 octane) keeps inching higher and higher every time I go to fill up. My Audi has a 20-gallon tank, so do the math. *My only solace is that I fill up on the Missouri side of Kansas City, where taxes and the other silly fees Kansas slaps on gas aren't as high.*
> 
> ...


It's the same in IL. My friends and relatives on the IL side drive across the river to fill up.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> My grandfather and my father drove Ford trucks and I currently drive an F-150. We haven't had any real problems with them. I will always have a truck, they're just so useful.


I've lost both power window regulators and my rear sliding window regulator. I have the flow-through console in the Lariat. The air went out this summer, I have a 2004 with just under 35,000 miles. The Service Consultant called and said something like the Master Command Controller was bad and it was like $500 plus labor to fix it.

I said something like so you're telling me you're going to charge me around $800 to replace a simple circuit board; right?

And the guy kind of chuckled and said - well yeah.

It might have been $600 I can't really remember. It was a load of you-know-what, but it was 104* inside the truck and I needed to have A/C pronto.

I have a totally worthless 75,000 extended warranty. You know they do the whole Easy Care or Total Care dance on you. It's such a racket.

OTOH the Volvo dealer has yet to charge for a repair, my Wife has 100,000 miles on a 2006 and they have almost rebuilt the thing. The other day they replaced the steering wheel kit because she scratched the plastic and the logo didn't look new anymore. They replaced the grill because it "faded" and some molding and I think part of the ground effects. They even replaced a rim which she admitted she drove into a curb and scarred.

I was just starting to look at a GMC when they had their problems ... I really can't find anything I like more than the F-150. I might get a new King Ranch and call it a day ... maybe I just have a bad apple.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

TMMKC said:


> I love it. I don't come around for a couple weeks and a simple thread about cars turns into a bar fight. Nice to see The Interchange got its teeth back. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> My biggest gripe with my car right now is that the cost of premium gas (91 octane) keeps inching higher and higher every time I go to fill up. My Audi has a 20-gallon tank, so do the math. My only solace is that I fill up on the Missouri side of Kansas City, where taxes and the other silly fees Kansas slaps on gas aren't as high.
> 
> ...


It can. From my understanding, all cars requiring premium gas have knock sensors these days, so they can compensate for the lower octane, but it isn't recommended. I could be completely offbase though.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

TMMKC said:


> My biggest gripe with my car right now is that the cost of premium gas (91 octane) keeps inching higher and higher every time I go to fill up. My Audi has a 20-gallon tank, so do the math.


Where I live, Premium is .25 to .30 /gal more than regular.

20 X .30 = $6 per fill up.

$6 X 52 (weeks per year) = $312.

If you like performance and motoring, I think it's worth it.

Just don't get me started about any schemes to increase gas/energy taxes astronomically!!

(The pump will only charge those of us making 250k+ though, so don't worry about it!!  )


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

When we bought the car several months ago, the salesperson told us the octane doesn't matter as as much being consistent in what we put in the tank. That told, it SEEMS to perform better on 91 than 89.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

TMMKC said:


> I love it. I don't come around for a couple weeks and a simple thread about cars turns into a bar fight. Nice to see The Interchange got its teeth back. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> My biggest gripe with my car right now is that the cost of premium gas (91 octane) keeps inching higher and higher every time I go to fill up. My Audi has a 20-gallon tank, so do the math. My only solace is that I fill up on the Missouri side of Kansas City, where taxes and the other silly fees Kansas slaps on gas aren't as high.
> 
> ...


The octane does make a difference in those cars. If you want peak performance from your car, you have to provide it with the recommended gas because that was what was used to generate the performance rating it was given and for the potential damage that can ensure from using cheaper gas in your car, a savings of $3 - $5 per fill up is not worth it. The cars in my household all use premium with the following fuel tanks: 27.6, 26.4 & 23.8 and I groan each time the price of premium gas inches upwards. It is currently $2.97 here.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Asterix said:


> The octane does make a difference in those cars. If you want peak performance from your car, you have to provide it with the recommended gas because that was what was used to generate the performance rating it was given and for the potential damage that can ensure from using cheaper gas in your car, a savings of $3 - $5 per fill up is not worth it. The cars in my household all use premium with the following fuel tanks: 27.6, 26.4 & 23.8 and I groan each time the price of premium gas inches upwards. It is currently $2.97 here.


It's at $2.91 here. Thanks for the perspective. I was a steady Acura owner for 15 years before I made the switch to Audi. I absolutely love that car, though I must admit I am still getting used to the nuances of owning a German car. Japanese cars aren't as picky.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Asterix said:


> The octane does make a difference in those cars. If you want peak performance from your car, you have to provide it with the recommended gas because that was what was used to generate the performance rating it was given and for the potential damage that can ensure from using cheaper gas in your car, a savings of $3 - $5 per fill up is not worth it. The cars in my household all use premium with the following fuel tanks: 27.6, 26.4 & 23.8 and I groan each time the price of premium gas inches upwards. It is currently $2.97 here.


Most cars, especially modern performance cars, have a sensor that tells the computer to retard the timing if there is any problem with detonation or pinging. Obviously, this reduces the horsepower affecting "performance." I know my car does, but I still do not run 'cheaper' gas in it because I like being at the max of the curve for my engine. I'm not sure if it makes a difference in regards to longevity, but performance; yes. I spend extra on synthetic fluids and everything so I am in for $1 in for $10. It does get expensive! I'm not sure if you can use regular unleaded gas for commuting where you aren't as concerned about performance without any ill effects and then use premium when you do. Or if the computer reverses the timing after it retards it. My last Cobra you had to unhook the battery to reset the computer for it to undo any such changes.

Sadly, just part of the 'rare air' of luxury and/or performance cars. I paid $65 to fill up once and it was rather shocking.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

TMMKC said:


> ...I am still getting used to the nuances of owning a German car. Japanese cars aren't as picky.


And the fill openings are on opposite sides!!


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

ksinc said:


> Most cars, especially modern performance cars, have a sensor that tells the computer to retard the timing if there is any problem with detonation or pinging. Obviously, this reduces the horsepower affecting "performance." I know my car does, but I still do not run 'cheaper' gas in it because I like being at the max of the curve for my engine. I'm not sure if it makes a difference in regards to longevity, but performance; yes. I spend extra on synthetic fluids and everything so I am in for $1 in for $10. It does get expensive! I'm not sure if you can use regular unleaded gas for commuting where you aren't as concerned about performance without any ill effects and then use premium when you do. Or if the computer reverses the timing after it retards it. My last Cobra you had to unhook the battery to reset the computer for it to undo any such changes.
> 
> Sadly, just part of the 'rare air' of luxury and/or performance cars. I paid $65 to fill up once and it was rather shocking.


Very true and according to some German auto engineers, the concern with lower grade gas is on the type and quality of additives the gasoline companies include in the fuel. Premium gas may have better additive packages which are more effective at keeping fuel systems (especially the injectors) clean and working efficiently, than those in regular grade fuels or off-brand products. Using lower octane or off-brand fuel could be degrading the fuel system over time, setting the owner up for a repair bill down the line.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

TMMKC said:


> It's at $2.91 here. Thanks for the perspective. I was a steady Acura owner for 15 years before I made the switch to Audi. I absolutely love that car, though I must admit I am still getting used to the nuances of owning a German car. Japanese cars aren't as picky.


My first two luxury cars were the Legend LS & the 3.5RL. They both were awesome and practically trouble free but like I tell people in conversations about German cars, owning a German car is like having a high maintenance mistress..... Gorgeous/sexy looking, mind blowingly superb in bed but very fussy and expensive to keep. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Zingari (Jul 9, 2007)

Try filling up in the UK with a large tank - 2 years ago I paid £80 to fill my VW Touareg and that was DIESEL.

Circa £5 a gallon here and whilst a lot of people drive diesels they cost more AND the fuel is more expensive. The stats say that you need to do +25k miles per annum over 3 years to break even over the equivalent petrol doing 10k pa. Most of us know the maths doesn't stack up but visiting a fuel station less often is seen as a positive.


----------



## Black & Proud (Oct 28, 2009)

A 2004 BMW 730Li


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Current machine is 2005 Toyota Camry (4 cyl). 94,000 miles. Love it, does what I need and never gives me a bit of trouble.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Zingari said:


> Try filling up in the UK with a large tank - 2 years ago I paid £80 to fill my VW Touareg and that was DIESEL.


Do you still call it "deisel" or do you say "I'm going to the Esso to fill up my car with free health care??"

I suspect before long, I too will be filling my car with "economic justice!!"


----------



## st9635 (Oct 27, 2009)

I drive a 2006 BMW 325XI 6spd


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

Wall said:


> Where is the truck thread?


Everyone knows suits and trucks totally clash! The only suitable vehicle to drive while wearing a suit is a car:


----------



## Good Old Sledge (Jun 13, 2006)

I drive a 2001 Jaguar Van den Plas. Fast, reliable, opulent and unusual enough.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Scoundrel said:


> Everyone knows suits and trucks totally clash! The only suitable vehicle to drive while wearing a suit is a car:


It's funny but during all the years that I was wearing a coat and tie every day I drove a pick-up truck, putting a total of about 250,000 miles on two trucks. I guess this was because I could always use my wife's car if I needed a car.

After I got divorced I continued driving the pick-up for awhile, but then traded for a car. There are times when a car is a better option, especially if one is dating. It was also about this time that I stopped wearing a tie every day.

As an aside, there was a time when I only bought American cars. With the exception of a 1984 Thunderbird, this ended with my piece of crap 1978 Pontiac Grand Prix. Now I think I'm ready to go back to American cars only with the 2010 Ford Taurus squarely in my sights. I think it's a beautiful car and the reviews are terrific.



















Cruiser


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Good choice! Are you considering the hybrid option?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

That's a nice looking Taurus.


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

Cruiser said:


> Now I think I'm ready to go back to American cars only with the 2010 Ford Taurus squarely in my sights. I think it's a beautiful car and the reviews are terrific.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Agreed - sounds like Ford got it right.

They're making some _really_ nice cars. The Focus was one of the best rentals I ever had and I considered a Milan recently before ultimate doing what I do best - just buying what I already had (the Nissan Maxima).


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

Quay said:


> Thus ended my happy time with a sturdy and very comfortable old American tank known as a '99 Buick Park Avenue.
> 
> ...


If you're a Buick guy, give the new LaCrosse a look - a LOT of car for the money, and it really does compare well to cars running $5k more (e.g. Lexus).


----------



## TheWardrobeGirl (Mar 24, 2008)

ksinc said:


> That's a nice looking Taurus.


Nice looking car...stupid name...that's one thing that drives me nuts about American cars...why can't they just number or letter them like the high end German and Japanese cars instead of giving them dopey names.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

TheWardrobeGirl said:


> Nice looking car...stupid name...that's one thing that drives me nuts about American cars...why can't they just number or letter them like the high end German and Japanese cars instead of giving them dopey names.


Ford tried that by killing the Taurus and bringing back the 500, as in Galaxy 500.

Now they killed the 500 and went back to Taurus!!


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Cruiser,

I'm not an "American" car fan but have you checked out this gorgeous machine from Buick?






























Cruiser said:


> It's funny but during all the years that I was wearing a coat and tie every day I drove a pick-up truck, putting a total of about 250,000 miles on two trucks. I guess this was because I could always use my wife's car if I needed a car.
> 
> After I got divorced I continued driving the pick-up for awhile, but then traded for a car. There are times when a car is a better option, especially if one is dating. It was also about this time that I stopped wearing a tie every day.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Asterix said:


> Cruiser,
> 
> I'm not an "American" car fan but have you checked out this gorgeous machine from Buick?


Yes, I've read just about every review on the internet of these two cars and the Taurus seems to consistently get better reviews in most categories. Many professional reviewers say that the Taurus interior rivals luxury cars costing almost twice as much. I've looked at both cars and generally like the styling of the Taurus more with it's more American look.

The reviewers talk about the quality of the Taurus and describe it's interior as being one of the quietest out there. Of course it weighs over 4,000 pounds, but it still gets gas mileage of 18/28.

Let's face it, both the Taurus and LaCrosse are big, American sedans. The Taurus is really big, fully a half a foot longer and a few inches wider than the LaCrosse. Heck, it's bigger than a BMW 7 series.

The Taurus is probably not the best choice if one's driving is primarily in the city with a lot of tight parking, but for the open road it looks like a winner. And that is where I hope to take it. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> Yes, I've read just about every review on the internet of these two cars and the Taurus seems to consistently get better reviews in most categories. Many professional reviewers say that the Taurus interior rivals luxury cars costing almost twice as much. I've looked at both cars and generally like the styling of the Taurus more with it's more American look.
> 
> The reviewers talk about the quality of the Taurus and describe it's interior as being one of the quietest out there. Of course it weighs over 4,000 pounds, but it still gets gas mileage of 18/28.
> 
> ...


I just did a comparison and the Taurus is definitley bigger and comes with 85hp more. Now if I were in the market and looking at either, based on performance alone, the Taurus SHO AWD (which is the one I did the comparison based on) is the one I'd pick. :icon_smile:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

They should put you two on commission.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

DCLawyer68 said:


> If you're a Buick guy, give the new LaCrosse a look - a LOT of car for the money, and it really does compare well to cars running $5k more (e.g. Lexus).


Thanks -- I did take a test drive in one. Very impressive car for the money and hopefully a sign of more good things to come at GM. I also drove the new Taurus just for fun and it, too, is a very good sedan although it now reminds me of the Accord in styling.

I rarely buy brand-new, preferring a 2 or 3 year-old, one-owner lease return or the equivalent (why not let someone else enjoy the depreciation?) with an impeccable service history, CarFax and preferably passed through and covered under a factory certified used program (in addition to, sometimes, still having the original factory warranty remaining). So the new LaCrosse hasn't been around long enough for me to really consider it.

But oh is it a nice time to be in the market! Dealers are so polite and helpful these days. :icon_smile:


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

ksinc said:


> They should put you two on commission.


Ksinc,

Right now Ford seems to be the King! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

ksinc said:


> They should put you two on commission.


Hey, that would be fine with me. :icon_smile:

Actually I've never been either a Ford or a GM guy. My first car was a '53 Chevy Bel Aire. I've owned 5 GMs over the years. The '53 Chevy along with a Camaro, 2 Buick LeSabres, and a Buick Park Avenue. On the Ford side I had 4 Mustangs, 1 Taurus, and a Thunderbird. So the count is almost even at 6 to 5 in favor of Ford. I also had a Dodge Dart to represent my Chrysler ownership.

When it comes to foreign cars, I've had 3 VWs, 3 Toyotas, 3 Nissans, and 1 Mazda.

I didn't include any of my pick-up trucks in the above, only automobiles.

I don't even want to start counting my motorcyles which started with a 1959 Allstate Moped and ended with a 2000 Harley-Davidson FXD.

Cruiser


----------



## GWAlex (Oct 31, 2009)

I drive a 1996 Toyota Corolla hatchback. It's blue, it's slightly scratched, but it gets me from A to B. I'm still waiting for the time to pass before I can go for my full licence. I'm still stuck on my restricted's, no driving between 10 PM - 5 AM, and no passengers. It's no fun.


----------



## mxgreen (Jan 18, 2009)

2007 Volvo S40. I lease it, not sure I would do it again.


----------



## tda003 (Aug 16, 2009)

Currently, I drive a '05 Toyota Tundra as a daily driver. Gas mileage is in the mid teens, but it's very comfortable (important to me) and does a terrific job of boat hauling.

My "other" car is an '05 M-B CLK 500 cab. On the interstate @ approx 70 mph, it gets 26-27 mpg on premium, although I didn't buy it for that reason.

Past cars: '31 Model A coupe, '29 model A tudor, '50 MGTD, '55 MGTF, '86 M-B 560 SEL, '97 M-B E420, '06 M-B SLK 55 AMG (yards per gallon, but s*** fast) and many VW Beetles from '56 thru '76.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

mxgreen said:


> 2007 Volvo S40. I lease it, not sure I would do it again.


I looked but got a VW Passat wagon instead. We've been pleased with it.


----------



## 46L (Jan 8, 2009)

I am currently driving a '09 Jaguar XF Super Charged. I feel like I got a steal because they jacked up all the prices on the '10 models.


----------



## xerais (Sep 12, 2009)

05 Honda Accord


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

mxgreen said:


> 2007 Volvo S40. I lease it, not sure I would do it again.


The lease or the Volvo?

I'd never lease. My '02 S60 is wonderful, and I'd love to always own a Volvo. (Until a Chinese firm buys the company from Ford and guts it.)

But my '02 only has 88,000 miles, which means its life has barely begun.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Pentheos said:


> My '02 S60 is wonderful, and I'd love to always own a Volvo.


Since I've been touting the new Ford Taurus in this thread I should note that it is built on the Volvo S80 frame. Just thought I would throw that in.:icon_smile:

Cruiser


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

My Wife had an S40 before she got the S60. They seem like they would be a lot more similar, but the S60 is a much nicer car IMHO. I actually like it better than the S80 and that seems to not be an uncommon opinion. She has a 2005 or 2006 I can't recall 2.5T? It's graphite gray with silver fleck.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> Since I've been touting the new Ford Taurus in this thread I should note that it is built on the Volvo S80 frame. Just thought I would throw that in.:icon_smile:
> 
> Cruiser


I'm a qualified-fan of the new Taurus. It's a large, beautiful car---it is bigger, I think, than the S80 and the BMW 700 series. (When one pulled up next to me, I thought, "What the hell is that huge beast?")

But at $35,000ish well-appointed ($40,000+ for the SHO AWD), it's hardly the car of the average Joe anymore. That price puts you in German-import territory, and only a nutter would buy a Ford over a BMW 3-series, Mercedes (or Volvo). Hell, you could probably get a nice year-old Porsche for the price of a new Taurus---and that ain't right.

But if they could pull the price down 10-20% or so, they'd be doing gangbusters. But Ford has to feed the UAW-beast, and so that'll never happen.


----------



## Pentheos (Jun 30, 2008)

ksinc said:


> My Wife had an S40 before she got the S60. They seem like they would be a lot more similar, but the S60 is a much nicer car IMHO. I actually like it better than the S80 and that seems to not be an uncommon opinion. She has a 2005 or 2006 I can't recall 2.5T? It's graphite gray with silver fleck.


The S40 and S60 are very different cars, while the S60 and S80 differ very little.

Depending on which years you compare, the S60 and S80 differ only in rear-seat room, while the S40 is frankly tiny in comparison to the S60---to say nothing of it being underpowered. But Volvo has been through many permutations of each model over the last ten years, it is so hard to keep track.

The S60, for instance, for a while came with four different engine configurations: normally-aspirated, low-pressure turbo, high-pressure turbo, and the R-model. Throw in a few different gear-boxes, and AWD, and you have dozens of powertrain possibilities. It's hard to keep track of all these things.

At the top of the heap is the S60R, a truly amazing car. It'll blow the doors off of most things on the street.

In my experience, Volvos are very picky cars. If you get a bad one, I pity you. If you get a good one, you'll have decades of fun with it. So far, mine seems to be one of the good ones.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Gents,

Quick point on the Taurus versus BMW 7 series size comparison bit. Which BMW 7 series are you comparing the Taurus to? The I or LI? I know it is possible for the Taurus to be bigger than the I but definitely not the LI which seems to be the common one on the streets.


----------



## Corcovado (Nov 24, 2007)

BMW 3 series wagon


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Asterix said:


> Quick point on the Taurus versus BMW 7 series size comparison bit. Which BMW 7 series are you comparing the Taurus to? The I or LI? I know it is possible for the Taurus to be bigger than the I but definitely not the LI which seems to be the common one on the streets.


The LI is 4 1/2" longer than the Taurus, but the Taurus is 1 1/2" wider. Of course one could buy two of the Fords for the price of one BMW. :icon_smile:

I don't think anyone is saying that the Taurus is equal to a 7 Series BMW. At least I'm not.

At the same time I don't think that one can compare the 3 Series with the Taurus. They are completely different cars that would appeal to different people. Personally I wouldn't choose a 3 Series BMW over the Taurus because that isn't what I'm looking for in a car at this time.

As for quality, I don't (nor do many of the professional reviewers) see that the overall quality of the European sedans exceeds that of the Taurus, at least not to a degree that is consistent with the premium price that is paid for that European quality. I have too many friends driving BMWs, Volvos, and M-Bs to not be aware of what the cost of ownership of those cars really is. They definitely aren't trouble free vehicles; certainly not to the extent that the Japanese cars are.

Cruiser


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> The LI is 4 1/2" longer than the Taurus, but the Taurus is 1 1/2" wider. Of course one could buy two of the Fords for the price of one BMW. :icon_smile:
> 
> I don't think anyone is saying that the Taurus is equal to a 7 Series BMW. At least I'm not.
> 
> ...


I think the new Taurus is an excellent car and as silly as it may be, my first liking for the Taurus was because of the RoboCop series. 

Now outside of dimensions I wouldn't compare a Taurus with any car in the class of the 7 series. It should only be compared to a mid sized car within its own classification. It is almost the same mistake being made with the comparison of the Hyundai Genesis with those high end luxo barges. They are not comparable because there is no way any owner of a premium luxo barge (outside of the fiscal sensibility) would think they are comparable after driving them. Just because a car has similar or more nifty gadgets and an optional V8 engine doesn't make it equal to an Audi A8, BMW 7 series, Lexus LS 460, Jag XJL and an MB S550 or better.

Quality is a relative term when talking about cars because they all have issues especially in the over 65K price range. Most of these are electronic gremlins that comes from excessive gadgets being stuffed into those cars.

From my personal experience, I think the German cars seem to have more publicized issues because half of their owners are ignorant but fussy clowns who feel everything should be perfect in a fancy looking machinery but more importantly because of the limited number and sometimes half-baked technicians we seem to have in the US. Most of the same German cars in Europe don't seem to have as much problems or the problems get easily resolved because they seem to to have more knowledgeable technicians there.

Japanese cars are excellent vehicles and most times rated higher in terms of quality but they are too bland and uninspiring for the average German car owner. True German car owners don't go buying a German car because they want a placid machine, they buy them more for the engine performance, engineering, fit & finish aka snub appeal.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Asterix said:


> Now outside of dimensions I wouldn't compare a Taurus with any car in the class of the 7 series. It should only be compared to a mid sized car within its own classification. It is almost the same mistake being made with the comparison of the Hyundai Genesis with those high end luxo barges.


Neither the Taurus nor the Genesis compete in the mid-size class. That would be left to the Fusion and the Sonata. There is a world of difference between the Taurus/Genesis and the Fusion/Sonata. The Taurus/Genesis are both very large cars that are marketed as the poor man's (relatively speaking) personal luxury sedan. For the bargain price, most professional reviewers say they are both holding their own in this upscale class quite well.

I will admit that neither the Taurus nor the Genesis can match a similar, but much more expensive, BMW in performance driving. But then again not everyone wants the handling characteristics of a BMW. My corner carving days are over. Now I just want a smooth, quiet, luxurious ride and after riding in both of them I can say that the Taurus and the Genesis can both provide that in spades at one half to one third of the cost.

There was a time in my life when the nameplate on the car would have been much more important to me as a status symbol. Not now, but to each his own. My only reason for favoring the Taurus over the Genesis is my desire to buy American for my next car.

Cruiser


----------



## Pier lala (Nov 6, 2009)

*Better off..*

I'm "driving" a bike!
That's best in Amsterdam.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> Neither the Taurus nor the Genesis compete in the mid-size class. That would be left to the Fusion and the Sonata. There is a world of difference between the Taurus/Genesis and the Fusion/Sonata. The Taurus/Genesis are both very large cars that are marketed as the poor man's (relatively speaking) personal luxury sedan. For the bargain price, most professional reviewers say they are both holding their own in this upscale class quite well.
> 
> I will admit that neither the Taurus nor the Genesis can match a similar, but much more expensive, BMW in performance driving. But then again not everyone wants the handling characteristics of a BMW. My corner carving days are over. Now I just want a smooth, quiet, luxurious ride and after riding in both of them I can say that the Taurus and the Genesis can both provide that in spades at one half to one third of the cost.
> 
> ...


I stand corrected and you are absolutely right that they are not mid sized sized cars. According to the automobile classification standards, they are large sized/entry level luxury cars. For true class comparison, think Avalon and Maxima on the Japanese side and Audi A6 and Mercedes E300 from the Germans. By the way, Ford used the Audi A6 for benchmarking and comparison.

Please don't get me wrong, they are awesome cars but we need to be realistic and stop the feel good comparisons by trying to compare cars of different classes just because they have some things in common. A Joseph A. Bank Signature series suit (of which I have a few) is not the same as a Presidential line J. Press Suit neither is a Bass Penny Loafer (I also have a couple) the same as an Alden LHS. Even as I'm typing this I have a fully loaded Genesis V8 4.6L sitting in my driveway that I got from my friend's dealership last night to play with for the weekend and there is no way that car can compare to the Audi A8L (the Genesis has more HP) or VW W12 Phaeton in my household. To be fair to the Taurus, I will try to get one for a long weekend to an actual comparison.

For automobile classifications check here!


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

Asterix said:


> I stand corrected and you are absolutely right that they are not mid sized sized cars. According to the automobile classification standards, they are large sized/entry level luxury cars. For true class comparison, think Avalon and Maxima on the Japanese side and Audi A6 and Mercedes E300 from the Germans. By the way, Ford used the Audi A6 for benchmarking and comparison.
> 
> Please don't get me wrong, they are awesome cars but we need to be realistic and stop the feel good comparisons by trying to compare cars of different classes just because they have some things in common. A Joseph A. Bank Signature series suit (of which I have a few) is not the same as a Presidential line J. Press Suit neither is a Bass Penny Loafer (I also have a couple) the same as an Alden LHS. Even as I'm typing this I have a fully loaded Genesis V8 4.6L sitting in my driveway that I got from my friend's dealership last night to play with for the weekend and there is no way that car can compare to the Audi A8L (the Genesis has more HP) or VW W12 Phaeton in my household. To be fair to the Taurus, I will try to get one for a long weekend to an actual comparison.
> 
> For automobile classifications check here!


Out of curiosity, do you write car reviews? I always thought that would be fun, particularly if I had access to a track when reviewing cars.

I think Ford is going to have an uphill battle with the Taurus because the price point doesn't fit the car's lineage, even if it arguably fits its current specs. While cars can certainly move among classes, I think it is easiest to do gradually (particularly as the classes themselves evolve). I suspect that the average car buyer thinks of the Taurus as an alternative to the Accord, Camry, Malibu, Altima, etc. It seems like the Taurus is marking a run at the Maxima and 300 segment of the market, which I don't personally don't find to be a particularly desirable part of the market because I think that midsized cheaper sedans are generally interchangeable with those cars for most uses, and that more expensive luxury cars are superior to commercial work. I also don't see the Taurus (including the SHO) taking much market share from BMW, Audi or MB. IMO the Taurus SHO would have had a chance to take a shot at the nostalgic crowd missing a big American sedan with a powerful V8 if Ford had taken that direction - too bad they went with the blown 6 (even if it does perform adequately).

My two cents on German cars (to add to some of the thoughts in this chain) - I agree that the electronic gremlins are terribly frustrating (and often the biggest problems) although I am not sure it is fair to blame American technicians. I've certainly experienced some of the electronic gremlins that relate solely to run-of-the-mill options such as power windows and headlights - these are often design or quality control issues.

I also think it is only to fair to point out that the last 10-15 years have shown some pretty serious mechanical problems in some popular German cars. While I have never owned an Audi, I have ben told of problems with their oil systems and transmissions. BMW had the Nikosil problems in their M60 engine (although one more argue that there is no reasonable way they should have foreseen that), the E46 subframe issues and some issues with the E36 subframe and control arms (although I've wondered if people just expected those to act too much like racecars and it was driver abuse...). Porsche had the wiring harness issue in some of the 993s and had the serious IMS and RMS problems in the NA 996/7. I don't know whether MB has suffered any of these issues, largely because I have never been interested in MB. Several of these issues caused extremely expensive damage to the cars.

Setting aside the catestrophic failures (such as those above) and the electronic gremlins, I've found that the run cost on German cars is not too bad relative to American and Japanese cars so long as you treat the cars similarly (any car you take to the track is going to require more maintenance than one that is driven on normal roads). IMO the biggest cost differences are: (i) higher insurance, (ii) more expensive fuel and (iii) more expensive tires (that have to be changed more often).

Having said the above, I am still partial to German cars.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

pleasehelp said:


> Out of curiosity, do you write car reviews? I always thought that would be fun, particularly if I had access to a track when reviewing cars.
> 
> I think Ford is going to have an uphill battle with the Taurus because the price point doesn't fit the car's lineage, even if it arguably fits its current specs. While cars can certainly move among classes, I think it is easiest to do gradually (particularly as the classes themselves evolve). I suspect that the average car buyer thinks of the Taurus as an alternative to the Accord, Camry, Malibu, Altima, etc. It seems like the Taurus is marking a run at the Maxima and 300 segment of the market, which I don't personally don't find to be a particularly desirable part of the market because I think that midsized cheaper sedans are generally interchangeable with those cars for most uses, and that more expensive luxury cars are superior to commercial work. I also don't see the Taurus (including the SHO) taking much market share from BMW, Audi or MB. IMO the Taurus SHO would have had a chance to take a shot at the nostalgic crowd missing a big American sedan with a powerful V8 if Ford had taken that direction - too bad they went with the blown 6 (even if it does perform adequately).
> 
> ...


With my obsession with luxury cars (especially European), I should but don't write reviews. :icon_smile: I have a couple of good friends who owns some chains of dealerships so that gives me access to trying out some interesting new cars and allows me to buy cars at wholesale prices.

You made very excellent points and are quite right about the other issues that are with those cars and talking about inept technicians, my Range Rover has been with the stealership (the only one within a 50 mile radius) for 10 days because they were trying to find out why the right Xenon HID headlights only comes on intermittently which meant no driving at night. After a week, the best they could come up with was the suggestion to replace the entire lighting for $1,200 and it took my having to educate them this past Friday that the issue with it was a defective ballast that would cost less than $250 in replacement part and labor.

I'm not one of those who has their heads in the cloud dreamily thinking that owning one of those cars means problem free bliss neither am I one who wouldn't give credit as due like the fact that both the 2010 Taurus and Genesis are excellent vehicles but the misleading comparisons (marketing or otherwise) cars of different classes is what is slightly irritating.


----------



## Sir Walter (Jun 23, 2007)

Asterix said:


> With my obsession with luxury cars (especially European), I should but don't write reviews. :icon_smile: I have a couple of good friends who owns some chains of dealerships so that gives me access to trying out some interesting new cars and allows me to buy cars at wholesale prices.
> 
> You made very excellent points and are quite right about the other issues that are with those cars and talking about inept technicians, my Range Rover has been with the stealership (the only one within a 50 mile radius) for 10 days because they were trying to find out why the right Xenon HID headlights only comes on intermittently which meant no driving at night. After a week, the best they could come up with was the suggestion to replace the entire lighting for $1,200 and it took my having to educate them this past Friday that the issue with it was a defective ballast that would cost less than $250 in replacement part and labor.
> 
> I'm not one of those who has their heads in the cloud dreamily thinking that owning one of those cars means problem free bliss neither am I one who wouldn't give credit as due like the fact that both the 2010 Taurus and Genesis are excellent vehicles but the misleading comparisons (marketing or otherwise) cars of different classes is what is slightly irritating.


Other than cost, I would be interested in hearing exactly what you feel are the qualitative points that separates the Genesis from the BMW. It is my understanding that the Genesis does have similar horsepower, and given the reliability record of BMW and the cost associated with the premium German cars, especially those with the technologically advanced computer systems and complexed electronics, I am not so sure the Genesis doesn't make for a good comparison or in someways a better value. Consumer reports rates the Genesis as a Best Buy and gives it rating score of 92 second only to the Lexus LS 460 in the luxury class.


----------



## Ricardo-CL (Mar 31, 2009)

Interesting discussion about luxury asian vs europeans... something you don't see very often over here.

From my point of view, I would only buy a brand new german over a korean if I was to keep it for at least 10-15 years, otherwise I'd go with the asian, as simple as that. If I was to buy a used car, older than 3 years, I wouldn't buy the Asian though, although they could perform and have similar features, Hyundai luxury models haven't been in the market for a period enough to track a consistent record of quality.

Eventually, models as the Genesis will get side by side with Lexus or Accura. By the way, does anybody wonder -as I do- why Hyundai didn't create another different brand for luxury models?.

What I really hate about asian cars, is their overpriced parts and aftermarket in general. Can you believe that a front light assemby for my Mitsubishi Outlander is 420 USD, whereas the same for my Mercedes E230 is only 60, made in Japan and Germany respectively. That's why I wouldn't buy an asian if I was to keep it for a long time. Buying parts from alternative manufacturers is out of the question while talking about luxury cars I guess.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I have a friend that has two new cars in the house: a Saub and Hyundai. His wife makes him drive the Saub. Not scientific, but there you go.


----------



## Crownship (Mar 17, 2008)

Asterix said:


> I'm not one of those who has their heads in the cloud dreamily thinking that owning one of those cars means problem free bliss neither am I one who wouldn't give credit as due like the fact that both the 2010 Taurus and Genesis are excellent vehicles but the misleading comparisons (marketing or otherwise) cars of different classes is what is slightly irritating.


I think the advertising or marketing that compares a Taurus or Genesis to real luxury brands is geared toward those who want the major luxury brand but in reality will purchase a Taurus or Genesis.
You're not going to persuade a BMW, Mercedes or Lexus owner to switch 
to a Ford Taurus or Hyundai Genesis because the reviews compare them favorably.
But you could more easily convince a Taurus, or Genesis owner to switch to a major luxury brand like BMW or Lexus ect. because in most minds the prestige resides with those brands.



Sir Walter said:


> Other than cost, I would be interested in hearing exactly what you feel are the qualitative points that separates the Genesis from the BMW. , I am not so sure the Genesis doesn't make for a good comparison or in someways a better value. Consumer reports rates the Genesis as a Best Buy and gives it rating score of 92 second only to the Lexus LS 460 in the luxury class.


You can make a list of the similarities between a Genesis and a LS460 but in the end you won't get a Lexus owner to switch to a Hyundai. Trust me.

If I was in the market for another car the money I could spend on a new Hyundai Genesis would buy a 2006 LS430 or 2007 LS460 with less than 50k miles.
But that's my rational. Buy the best even if it's used. Oh yes.. the prestige too.:icon_smile_big:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Approaching 50k, I like the Cadillac DTS but I better buy one before it gets any smaller!!


----------



## 46L (Jan 8, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Approaching 50k, I like the Cadillac DTS but I better buy one before it gets any smaller!!


I had a 2003 DeVille DTS that I loved dearly. I really miss the larger frames on the Cadillacs.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I have a friend that has two new cars in the house: a Saub and Hyundai. His wife makes him drive the Saub. Not scientific, but there you go.


Saab. My wife has a 9-3.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> Saab. My wife has a 9-3.


Saub=Saab? Ok, thanks! I'm just a hick! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Saub=Saab? Ok, thanks! I'm just a hick! :icon_smile_big:


*S*venska *A*eroplan *A*ktie*b*olag

I've owned a few Saabs and while they can be a bit quirky, I have always liked them. They do seem to have a problem with electrical gremlins in Sweden though.


----------



## aelred (May 26, 2007)

CLK, wife has a Forester.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Sir Walter said:


> Other than cost, I would be interested in hearing exactly what you feel are the qualitative points that separates the Genesis from the BMW. It is my understanding that the Genesis does have similar horsepower, and given the reliability record of BMW and the cost associated with the premium German cars, especially those with the technologically advanced computer systems and complexed electronics, I am not so sure the Genesis doesn't make for a good comparison or in someways a better value. Consumer reports rates the Genesis as a Best Buy and gives it rating score of 92 second only to the Lexus LS 460 in the luxury class.


The simplest analogy is the case of the GH Bass Dover Loafers and the John Lobb Lopez Loafers............ kinda similar looking, can both be worn leisurely but not comparable.

Hyundai is just blowing smoke up gullible people's rears with their cheesy comparisons and it is working due to the current economic downturn so for example the CEO can show up to the office in the new Genesis and still be able to show that he downsized since he recently explained that the financial hardship was why he fired a third of his staff. No one who drives a BMW 7 series et al (except due to a financial mishap) would downgrade to a Genesis. The Genesis is ideal for people who want to upgrade from cars like the Accord, Camry, Altima, Maxima et al to a luxury car without the sudden sticker shock of a 7 series et al. If Hyundai really thought the Genesis was truly a match to the LS 460 or 7 series et al, why are they introducing their real top of the line car next year (the Equus) which is actually a Lexus LS 460 clone? The Equus is what any knowledgeable car buff would consider as competition for the big boys.

The Genesis is an excellent value buy that is full of nifty toys and cool gadgets some of which even the 7 series doesn't currently provide but there is no getting around the fact that one is a BMW and the other is a Hyundai. The difference in price and intended buyer is too radically different. The typical BMW 7 series buyer would never consider the Hyundai and the targeted Hyundai buyer 9 times of 10 would not be able to afford the BMW 7 series. At my friend's Hyundai dealership, the nicest trade-in they've gotten so far for the Genesis was a 2002 Acura TL. We need to stop trying to compare red grapes with red apples just because they are both red, round, moist and sweet. 

Btw, below are a few pictures of the one I've been playing around with since Friday evening and again, it is an awesome car that is filled with very nifty gadgets and zips around very fast but just can't compare to the big boys. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Crownship said:


> I think the advertising or marketing that compares a Taurus or Genesis to real luxury brands is geared toward those who want the major luxury brand but in reality will purchase a Taurus or Genesis.
> You're not going to persuade a BMW, Mercedes or Lexus owner to switch
> to a Ford Taurus or Hyundai Genesis because the reviews compare them favorably.
> But you could more easily convince a Taurus, or Genesis owner to switch to a major luxury brand like BMW or Lexus ect. because in most minds the prestige resides with those brands.
> ...


Very well stated Crownship. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Sir Walter (Jun 23, 2007)

Asterix said:


> Very well stated Crownship. :icon_smile_big:


I agree with both of you. I think you both hit the nail right on the head for the most part, but you points only speak towards reputation and prestige, not objective qaulitative facts. There is no question that most if not all would consider the BMW, Mercedes Benz, Audi and Jaguar the top line of the premium luxury cars. But... what I was asking is what specifically would you point to about the German cars that make them superior. Back in 1990, the top of the line luxurury car was the Mercedes Benz Sel series along with the BMW 7 series. Then along comes the Lexus LS 400, which by the way was designed after careful study of the Mercedes Benz 500 Sel. The lexus LS 400 was rated by consumer reports in 1991 as being technically superior to the Mercedes Benz. My point is reputation and prestige does not factually equate to superiorority. As with shoes, suits or any other product, there should be qualitative facts that support the rating, none of which has been stated here thus far.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Asterix, how does that compare to something like the Audi A6 that you mentioned earlier (or A4 whichever is the more appropriate comparison?)


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Sir Walter said:


> I agree with both of you. I think you both hit the nail right on the head for the most part, but you points only speak towards reputation and prestige, not objective qaulitative facts. There is no question that most if not all would consider the BMW, Mercedes Benz, Audi and Jaguar the top line of the premium luxury cars. But... what I was asking is what specifically would you point to about the German cars that make them superior. Back in 1990, the top of the line luxurury car was the Mercedes Benz Sel series along with the BMW 7 series. Then along comes the Lexus LS 400, which by the way was designed after careful study of the Mercedes Benz 500 Sel. The lexus LS 400 was rated by consumer reports in 1991 as being technically supeior to the Mercedes Benz. My point is reputation and prestige does not factually equate to supiorority. As with shoes, suits or any other product, there should be qualitative facts that support the rating, none of which has been stated here thus far.


I am not a car manufacturer but I'd say the simple answer is that the quality of materials used on every inch of the BMW (engine, leather et al) is definitely higher than the one used on the Genesis because there is no way any car manufacturer can build cars like the 7 series for the price of the Genesis. For example, the 7 series uses the high end Logic 7 system (which only BMW, Rolls Royce, Range Rover and Mercedes are licensed to use) made by Lexicon but Genesis uses the basic Lexicon model do you think if it was financially realistic that Hyundai wouldn't have opted to have the Logic 7 in the Genesis too? The only car that Hyundai has that comes close to being comparable to the 7 series costs 96k. Does anything else need to be said? Or would you say that in reality the 75k/80K 7 series or the 96K Equus should be sold for 39/41K? because they have similar bells and whistles as the Genesis? Note that the key word is similar.

Also no reputable auto reviewer would do a factual comparison between 2 cars of different classes and the best they can tell you is that the cheaper car is great relative to the more expensive one because it also has similar nifty gadgets. No reviewer would even compare a fully loaded BMW 5 series with a fully loaded 7 series (besides the dimensions) even though they both come with similar nifty gadgets and are made by the same company.

Btw, the Genesis has its own gremlins too, visit the owner's forum on edmunds.com to read the complaints about it.



ksinc said:


> Asterix, how does that compare to something like the Audi A6 that you mentioned earlier (or A4 whichever is the more appropriate comparison?)


It compares to the A6 primarily because that was the benchmark vehicle and class Hyundai was shooting for with the Genesis so Hyundai made sure they used materials and technology that would give them a product that can match or come close to the A6 in appeal, size, costs and drivability.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Asterix said:


> I It compares to the A6 primarily because that was the benchmark vehicle and class Hyundai was shooting for with the Genesis so Hyundai made sure they used materials and technology that would give them a product that can match or come close to the A6 in appeal, size, costs and drivability.


And how does it measure up; which is better the Genesis or A6?


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

ksinc said:


> And how does it measure up; which is better the Genesis or A6?


Options wise, they are on par (actually the Genesis has a few more); fit and finish - the A6 is better; engine - the Genesis has more horses except you now start heading into the S6/RS6 class; Looks - the Genesis is more understated which I like. So all in all, for me, I'd go for the Genesis primarily because it would give me more bang for the buck.


----------



## Sir Walter (Jun 23, 2007)

*Asterix* your points are well taken. I do agree with you for the most part and you seem to be very well informed on the subject matter.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Asterix said:


> Options wise, they are on par (actually the Genesis has a few more); fit and finish - the A6 is better; engine - the Genesis has more horses except you now start heading into the S6/RS6 class; Looks - the Genesis is more understated which I like. So all in all, for me, I'd go for the Genesis primarily because it would give me more bang for the buck.


Wow! Thanks for the reply.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Most luxury car buyers want, first and foremost, a smooth quiet ride with a certain amount of convenience. It is in these areas that the Genesis (and the 2010 Taurus, don't forget the new Taurus) delivers on par with cars costing thousands more.

Once those criteria have been met the conversation turns to less noticeable areas such as quality of materials, such as leather for example. It is here that the point of diminishing returns is most apparent. The question is less one of whether or not the leather on the BMW or M-B is better than the Genesis or Taurus (it is), but rather whether the leather on the Genesis and Taurus is good enough to satisfy a luxury car buyer's taste. And in many cases it is. 

It's no different than what many do here with clothing. For example, many here are perfectly happy with their Allen-Edmonds shoes even though there are clearly much higher quality shoes on the market. Of course those shoes cost quite a bit more and many feel that there comes a point at which the increased quality isn't worth it to them for the additional cost. 

In other words, if I can get the same smooth quiet ride in a nice looking package I can live with something like leather that is slightly lower quality as long as it is decent enough to satisfy my taste in leather. That person will buy the Genesis/Taurus.

There is a new book out in which the author surveyed millionaires. While many drive high end luxury cars, many more drive cars like the Toyota Camry; however, the one common thread in both groups is that they both tend to always pay cash for their automobiles. I can pay cash for a new Genesis or Taurus, but I can't justify paying that much cash for a BMW 7 series which, more than any other reason, is why I'm not going to buy the BMW. While I'm not a millionaire, I can at least use the same car purchasing strategy as a millionaire. :icon_smile_big:

Personally I don't think anyone should be buying any of these cars being mentioned here if it has to be financed.

Cruiser


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

Pentheos said:


> The S40 and S60 are very different cars, while the S60 and S80 differ very little.
> 
> Depending on which years you compare, the S60 and S80 differ only in rear-seat room, while the S40 is frankly tiny in comparison to the S60---to say nothing of it being underpowered. But Volvo has been through many permutations of each model over the last ten years, it is so hard to keep track.
> 
> ...


I recently got rid of my S60R. *Hated it.* Turning circle of a bus, zero compliance in the suspension, terrible dealer service experience(s), and several electrical problems. I'm back to BMW and have never been happier.

Oh, and while it was fast, the engine had an on-off type power delivery and ran out of steam at the top of the RPM band. It did not like to be revved. And it had a terrible engine note--like a turbo charged blender. Strong midrange though.

Really wish I gave it a more extensive test drive before I signed the papers. I only put about 9K on it over 2.5 years b/c I avoided driving it.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> Most luxury car buyers want, first and foremost, a smooth quiet ride with a certain amount of convenience. It is in these areas that the Genesis (and the 2010 Taurus, don't forget the new Taurus) delivers on par with cars costing thousands more.
> 
> Once those criteria have been met the conversation turns to less noticeable areas such as quality of materials, such as leather for example. It is here that the point of diminishing returns is most apparent. The question is less one of whether or not the leather on the BMW or M-B is better than the Genesis or Taurus (it is), but rather whether the leather on the Genesis and Taurus is good enough to satisfy a luxury car buyer's taste. And in many cases it is.


You don't know what most luxury car buyers want, you only know what YOU want in car. You seem to be mixing up labels like regular cars with luxury cars because there are tons of regular cars that offer as options most of the gadgets that come standard in Luxury cars. Most luxury car buyers don't drive around in Taurus/Buick or whatever else falls within that cadre. Btw, just to clarify, luxury car buyer does not automatically equate to Millionaire.



Cruiser said:


> It's no different than what many do here with clothing. For example, many here are perfectly happy with their Allen-Edmonds shoes even though there are clearly much higher quality shoes on the market. Of course those shoes cost quite a bit more and many feel that there comes a point at which the increased quality isn't worth it to them for the additional cost.
> 
> In other words, if I can get the same smooth quiet ride in a nice looking package I can live with something like leather that is slightly lower quality as long as it is decent enough to satisfy my taste in leather. That person will buy the Genesis/Taurus.
> 
> There is a new book out in which the author surveyed millionaires. While many drive high end luxury cars, many more drive cars like the Toyota Camry; however, the one common thread in both groups is that they both tend to always pay cash for their automobiles. I can pay cash for a new Genesis or Taurus, but I can't justify paying that much cash for a BMW 7 series which, more than any other reason, is why I'm not going to buy the BMW. While I'm not a millionaire, I can at least use the same car purchasing strategy as a millionaire. :icon_smile_big:


Are you talking about the Millionaire Mind by Dr. Thomas J. Stanley? It is a book I recommend that everyone one should read/own. When I read it in 2001, it opened my eyes and made me a better person financially. I bought a copy for each of my mentees.

Everyone can pay cash for things based on what they think they can afford and just like certain things are not meant for everybody so do people have their varied comfort levels. Most of those who buy Bentleys buy them because that is in their comfort level and most of those who buy Dodge Calibers buy them because that is what they are comfortable with. It doesn't make one group smarter or better than the other even though it doesn't take away the fact that the Bentley is more luxurious than the Caliber.



Cruiser said:


> Personally I don't think anyone should be buying any of these cars being mentioned here if it has to be financed.
> 
> Cruiser


You are quite right and that is why I live/preach cash only for anything that doesn't generate revenue but unfortunately in the society of today that is no longer a norm because people have become comfortable with living beyond their means.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Sir Walter said:


> *Asterix* your points are well taken. I do agree with you for the most part and you seem to be very well informed on the subject matter.


Sir Walter, it was a pleasure and as I had mentioned somewhere in my responses, I have an obsession for luxury automobiles (mostly European). If I could afford it, I'd have one of each in my driveway. 



ksinc said:


> Wow! Thanks for the reply.


Always a pleasure.


----------



## Helvetia (Apr 8, 2008)

2003 Ford Tauras with 176,*** miles and counting.


----------



## Sir Walter (Jun 23, 2007)

I have a 1998 Jaguar Vadden Plas and a recently purchased 1991 MB 420 SEL, both of which I purchased used. The 420 SEL is my favorite, and I waited 10 years to get one. I am glad I did. It is one thing to have the means to purchase a luxury car, it is another thing to have the means to maintain them.


----------



## mbebeau (Feb 6, 2009)

Not the most Trad car ever but I drive a 1993 Accura Legend. Got it from a woman in the neighborhood who didn't drive it often so it has just over 90,000 miles.

Hm.... a weathered, old, well maintained item from a Japanese company....maybe it is somewhat trad.


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> Personally I don't think anyone should be buying any of these cars being mentioned here if it has to be financed.
> 
> Cruiser


"has to" being the key words. I got a better price and 0.9% financing (better than free money when one accounts for inflation and the time value of money) because I financed my wife's car. I told the salesman that I would be paying cash, and he offered a lower price plus 0.9% if I would finance--couldn't pass that up.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
+1. In the near future we will be shopping to replace my wife's vehicle and are hoping that we can find financing options that were as good as they were just months ago (0% for 60 months and at least two offers of 0% for 72 months). If we can still find such financing, we will finance. It would be foolish to pass up free money! Otherwise the money will be withdrawn from savings...bummer!


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Sir Walter said:


> I have a 1998 Jaguar Vadden Plas and a recently purchased 1991 MB 420 SEL, both of which I purchased used. The 420 SEL is my favorite, and I waited 10 years to get one. I am glad I did. *It is one thing to have the means to purchase a luxury car, it is another thing to have the means to maintain them.*


Sir Walter, I wish more people understood that fact. Just because a 70K car depreciated to 7K doesn't change the fact that one will be buying replacement parts for a 70K car.

Btw, excellent choices of cars.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

smujd said:


> "has to" being the key words. I got a better price and 0.9% financing (better than free money when one accounts for inflation and the time value of money) because I financed my wife's car. I told the salesman that I would be paying cash, and he offered a lower price plus 0.9% if I would finance--couldn't pass that up.





eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> +1. In the near future we will be shopping to replace my wife's vehicle and are hoping that we can find financing options that were as good as they were just months ago (0% for 60 months and at least two offers of 0% for 72 months). If we can still find such financing, we will finance. It would be foolish to pass up free money! Otherwise the money will be withdrawn from savings...bummer!


Interesting story ... I know someone that took out 2nd mortgage money to pay off their car because a neighbor 'in real estate' (actually was in mortgages) told them the home mortgage interest was deductible. So, they thought that meant it was 'free' and better then the 0.9% dealer financing ... of course, the 2nd is variable, yada yada, and now at 8% interest ... then their hours were cut back to half ... they lost their benefits too ... So, *now* the same neighbor is advising them on a short sale (apparently a lot of former mortgage brokers are now doing this instead.) Of course, this was all part of a 'woe is me' story as to why they couldn't pay us what they owe us either. I told them they should call the Hope4Homeowners Hotline and inquire about fraud on the mortgage broker. Probably a dead end, but definitely immoral mortgage practice IMHO. There must be a lot of people that fell for this kind of "advice." "In real estate", huh? sad, really sad. It reminds me of the people that say I should buy lunch all the time because I just "write it off; right?"


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

When a low or 0 percent interest rate is offered by an auto company, it is usually offered at the same time a rebate is also being offered although they don't ballyhoo the rebate like they do the financing; and this is an either/or proposition. You take the rebate or the low interest rate, but not both. And then there is the factory to dealer rebates that you probably aren't even aware of at the time of purchase. In most situations the customer is better off taking the rebate instead of the low financing, even if it is 0 percent.

For example, if you take the 0 percent interest instead of a $2000 rebate, you've just paid $2000 in interest up front. Not only that but if you live in a State with high sales taxes you've just paid sales tax on that additional $2000 that you paid for the car. And then beware the dealer, and many do this, that charges a fee for processing your credit application.

At the end of the day the dealer's objective is to make a profit by getting as much of your money as he can. And if you tell them that you are ready, willing, and able to do one thing and the salesman suggests something else under the guise that it will be beneficial to you, buyer beware. After all, how often have you offered a car salesman $23,000 for a car and he counter-offered with $22,000? :icon_smile:

Cruiser


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> After all, how often have you offered a car salesman $23,000 for a car and he counter-offered with $22,000? :icon_smile:
> 
> Cruiser


Well, you know what, that might happen at some that are run by the government now! :icon_smile_big:

Of course, they'll get the extra $1,000 from Eagle with a wealth-tax on savings someday


----------



## smujd (Mar 18, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> When a low or 0 percent interest rate is offered by an auto company, it is usually offered at the same time a rebate is also being offered although they don't ballyhoo the rebate like they do the financing; and this is an either/or proposition. You take the rebate or the low interest rate, but not both. And then there is the factory to dealer rebates that you probably aren't even aware of at the time of purchase. In most situations the customer is better off taking the rebate instead of the low financing, even if it is 0 percent.
> 
> For example, if you take the 0 percent interest instead of a $2000 rebate, you've just paid $2000 in interest up front. Not only that but if you live in a State with high sales taxes you've just paid sales tax on that additional $2000 that you paid for the car. And then beware the dealer, and many do this, that charges a fee for processing your credit application.
> 
> ...


If it's one or the other, I agree. With my wife's car, no rebate was being offered. When I bought my truck, I took both the rebate and 0% financing! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Interesting story ... I know someone that took out 2nd mortgage money to pay off their car because a neighbor 'in real estate' (actually was in mortgages) told them the home mortgage interest was deductible. So, they thought that meant it was 'free' and better then the 0.9% dealer financing ... of course, the 2nd is variable, yada yada, and now at 8% interest ... then their hours were cut back to half ... they lost their benefits too ... So, *now* the same neighbor is advising them on a short sale (apparently a lot of former mortgage brokers are now doing this instead.) Of course, this was all part of a 'woe is me' story as to why they couldn't pay us what they owe us either. I told them they should call the Hope4Homeowners Hotline and inquire about fraud on the mortgage broker. Probably a dead end, but definitely immoral mortgage practice IMHO. There must be a lot of people that fell for this kind of "advice." "In real estate", huh? sad, really sad. It reminds me of the people that say I should buy lunch all the time because I just "write it off; right?"


People foolish enough to finance vehicle purchases from the equity in their homes are doomed to, at some point in their future, find themselves homeless, driving around in and living out of a depreciating asset. Not a good thing, methinks! :crazy:



ksinc said:


> Well, you know what, that might happen at some that are run by the government now! :icon_smile_big:
> 
> Of course, they'll get the extra $1,000 from Eagle with a wealth-tax on savings someday


LOL! If I don't cease and desist with this seemingly never-ending clothes and shoe purchasing binge, they won't be able to do that. However, that old adage, "if you can't pay for it now, you can not afford it", holds true for vehicles, as well as any other item we purchase, other than our homes! :teacha:


----------

