On Feb 15, 8:43Â*am, " wrote:
-



The tests are performed by independent labs to the EPA test procedures
and standards. � It's not up to the maufacturers to decide how to
test, nor can they manipulate the results for the cars. � Same thing
for the water heaters.- Hide quoted text -

no the manufactuers knowing the test procedures tweak the product to
look as good as possible

Yes, some of that can certainly be going on. But trying to change
the design of the product slightly to come out better in the standard
EPA test is a lot different than claiming the tests themselves are not
uniform because the manufacturer gets to decide the test method, how
the test is done, etc, and then manipulates the results they publish.

On Feb 15, 10:33Â*am, wrote:
On Feb 15, 8:43Â*am, " wrote:

-

The tests are performed by independent labs to the EPA test procedures
and standards. � It's not up to the maufacturers to decide how to
test, nor can they manipulate the results for the cars. � Same thing
for the water heaters.- Hide quoted text -

no the manufactuers knowing the test procedures tweak the product to
look as good as possible

Yes, some of that can certainly be going on. Â* But trying to change
the design of the product slightly to come out better in the standard
EPA test is a lot different than claiming the tests themselves are not
uniform because the manufacturer gets to decide the test method, how
the test is done, etc, and then manipulates the results they publish.

well everyone knew the old tests werent valid yet it took many years
to get them changed

wrote:
....
well everyone knew the old tests werent valid yet it took many years
to get them changed

Which old tests weren't valid, specifically? And why?

That they weren't necessarily representative of average driving doesn't
mean they were "invalid tests"; it simply means they were of value only
as comparative to each other for those circumstances. Assuming you're
talking of the previous EPA Standard tests, that's no different than the
current tests--only the test conditions have changed, nothing about the
administration or control of the test data, etc.

--

Lou wrote:
snip
And let's not forget that in order to drive, s/he needs a vehicle, one that
is probably more or less dedicated to the business, and that has to be paid
for also.

According to http://www.careeroverview.com/plumbing-careers.html the median
wage for a plumber in 2002 was $19.30/hour. Assuming a 40 hour work week
for 50 weeks a year, that comes to $38,600/year. Doesn't sound like a way
to get rich quick.

The wage to the technician is just a starting point, since few are
independent contractors. Most work for larger concerns who also must
pay ancillary personnel.

A question on the cost of the permit - how much would it cost if you went to
the town office and got the permit yourself?


A cost that nobody seems to have factored in, is removal and disposal of
the old water heater. In some areas of this country, that can be
substantial. In others...well, I've seen a lot of old water heaters
littering the countryside.

Also, access is a serious issue in many structures; and this applies
equally to both removal and installation. I could easily replace the
unit in my basement; but I once had a shop where the heater was mounted
in the attic. That one would have required a couple of guys for a
couple of hours to replace--involving ropes & pulleys, not to mention a
significant amount of risk--in addition to the normal procedures.

jak

On Feb 15, 1:17�pm, jakdedert wrote:
Lou wrote:

snip And let's not forget that in order to drive, s/he needs a vehicle, one that
is probably more or less dedicated to the business, and that has to be paid
for also.

According tohttp://www.careeroverview.com/plumbing-careers.htmlthe median
wage for a plumber in 2002 was $19.30/hour. �Assuming a 40 hour work week
for 50 weeks a year, that comes to $38,600/year. �Doesn't sound like a way
to get rich quick.

The wage to the technician is just a starting point, since few are
independent contractors. �Most work for larger concerns who also must
pay ancillary personnel.

A question on the cost of the permit - how much would it cost if you went to
the town office and got the permit yourself?

A cost that nobody seems to have factored in, is removal and disposal of
the old water heater. �In some areas of this country, that can be
substantial. �In others...well, I've seen a lot of old water heaters
littering the countryside.

Also, access is a serious issue in many structures; and this applies
equally to both removal and installation. �I could easily replace the
unit in my basement; but I once had a shop where the heater was mounted
in the attic. �That one would have required a couple of guys for a
couple of hours to replace--involving ropes & pulleys, not to mention a
significant amount of risk--in addition to the normal procedures.

jak

scrap steel has value everywhere, minimial but still a little money.
so you haul the junk heater and get candy bar money. around here trash
takes them but they often get picked up before that

The wage to the technician is just a starting point, since few are
independent contractors. Most work for larger concerns who also must pay
ancillary personnel.


I understand a business has to make money, but I don't, I have a fulltime
job, I do this stuff as a favor for friends, hence the substantially lower
price.



A cost that nobody seems to have factored in, is removal and disposal of
the old water heater. In some areas of this country, that can be
substantial. In others...well, I've seen a lot of old water heaters
littering the countryside.


Cost? I get money for the old units at the recycler, it's an insignificant
amount, but probably enough to cover the fuel spent getting it there.

James Sweet wrote:
The wage to the technician is just a starting point, since few are
independent contractors. Most work for larger concerns who also must pay
ancillary personnel.


I understand a business has to make money, but I don't, I have a fulltime
job, I do this stuff as a favor for friends, hence the substantially lower
price.

I understand that, in your case. The thread had to do with commercial
installers. If we all had a 'buddy named James' there would be no need
for businesses which do this day in/out. In fact, that's the way most
things were done, 'back when', but it's not the norm anymore.

A cost that nobody seems to have factored in, is removal and disposal of
the old water heater. In some areas of this country, that can be
substantial. In others...well, I've seen a lot of old water heaters
littering the countryside.


Cost? I get money for the old units at the recycler, it's an insignificant
amount, but probably enough to cover the fuel spent getting it there.


That's because you have access to the recycler, know where it is, and
have a vehicle suitable to transport...also the time. I know it's
trivial to many--but monumental to others. I'd be hard-pressed to get a
50 gallon water heater in my old Corolla, although it could be done
(it's a station wagon). I'd want to put in several layers of padding
and some waterproofing. Many would not want to do so in their late
model Whizzmobiles.

Like I said, I've seen a lot of discarded water heaters....

jak

Old water heater tanks can be converted into useful things.B B Q
grills.cookers, air pressure tanks, sand blasting tanks, floatation
things for the water/lakes/ponds, etc.
cuhulin

Funny the title of this discussion was quick basic advice and now has
over 160 posts

yep er quick and basic Lots of useful info!!

"Tony Hwang" wrote in message
news:Nt6tj.40274$Ly.30911@pd7urf1no...

Hi,
EPA figure is based on sea level wht IDEAL driving condition, weather,
road, wind, temp., etc.

Considering that the EPA's National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory is
located in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and that Ann Arbor is about 840 feet above
sea level, and that the EPA conducts its own tests at this facility, I think
your claim that the mileage figures are based on sea level conditions is
suspect.

Considering that starting in 2008 supplementary tests are conducted to
estimate the effects of high speed (up to 80 mph), use of air conditioning,
and cold temperatures (down to 20 degrees F), the claim that current figures
represent ideal conditions also seem somewhat out of sync with the facts.

wrote in message
...

EPA figure is based on sea level wht IDEAL driving condition, weather,
road, wind, temp., etc.

EPA numbers are bogus the worst were on vehicles like PRIUS.

tests always favor the manufacturer..........


According to the EPA's fuel economy guide for 2008, the Prius is rated at
48/45 for city/highway. The 2008 model year isn't very far advanced and
there's only 23 2008 models listed in the shared fuel economy estimates, but
those drivers claim actual mileage of 35 to 56 mpg, with an average of 43.5,
I'd say the estimates aren't that bad. The best driver claims an average of
56.2 mpg for 38% stop and go and 62% highway driving - that car is driven in
Arizona. The worst driver claims a mere 35.1 for a car driven in
California - no percentages for city/highway are given.

"Only Just" ifixit2@hotmail(dot)com wrote in message
...

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
t...

"Vic Smith" wrote in message

Whichever figure is right and whatever the explanation, it still seems
to
me
that the mileage estimates published by the EPA are too low, and it's
seemed
that way ever since I started paying attention (way too many years
ago).

Might be they don't account for your driving style. Might be
something else - not interested enough to look into it, but I'm
sure they lab test versus "real world."


The news 2008 figures take real life into consideration and are much
closer to reality. Previous figures were ideal lab conditions.


It all points down to the fact that average Joe citizen can't tell the
difference unless he can find out exactly how they take all these
measurements (The method used and exactly what figures) that each company
used and how (If they did) manipulated those figures to get the result as
they publish. The main thing that the Government is interested in is a
standard across the relevant industry so everyone can make a comparison.
Justy.

Anyone with access to the web can look up how the tests are done. The
testing protocols are federally mandated, everyone must use the same test,
10%-15% of the tests are confirmed by the EPA, and the only mileage figures
the manufacturers can advertise are the ones coming out of the tests.
Vehicles weighing over 8500 pounds (vehicle, all fluids, maximum carrying
capacity) are exempt from testing.

wrote in message
...
On Feb 15, 10:33 am, wrote:
On Feb 15, 8:43 am, " wrote:

-

The tests are performed by independent labs to the EPA test procedures
and standards. ? It's not up to the maufacturers to decide how to
test, nor can they manipulate the results for the cars. ? Same thing
for the water heaters.- Hide quoted text -

no the manufactuers knowing the test procedures tweak the product to
look as good as possible

Yes, some of that can certainly be going on. But trying to change
the design of the product slightly to come out better in the standard
EPA test is a lot different than claiming the tests themselves are not
uniform because the manufacturer gets to decide the test method, how
the test is done, etc, and then manipulates the results they publish.

well everyone knew the old tests werent valid yet it took many years
to get them changed

Yes, they weren't valid - the numbers they gave were to low - my mileage was
always better than the EPA estimates.

A cost that nobody seems to have factored in, is removal and disposal of
the oldwaterheater.

Cost? I get money for the old units at the recycler, it's an insignificant
amount, but probably enough to cover the fuel spent getting it there.

Somewhere I saw the cost as 10 dollars at Home Depot for removal of
the old heater.
That's of course if you pay the 400 dollars for installation in the
first place.
Otherwise, the cost is to leave it outside for a week until someone
with a pickup takes it to the recyclers for you.

Lou wrote:
snip


Considering that starting in 2008 supplementary tests are conducted to
estimate the effects of high speed (up to 80 mph), use of air conditioning,
and cold temperatures (down to 20 degrees F), the claim that current figures
represent ideal conditions also seem somewhat out of sync with the facts.

20 degrees F cold? It is high time that automotive design and testing
accommodate the northern climates where cars last about as long as a snowflake
on a hot radiator. Test in International Falls in February on a track
laden with salt and urea at minus 20 degrees F.

Michael

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:15:51 -0500, "Lou"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Feb 15, 10:33 am, wrote:
On Feb 15, 8:43 am, " wrote:

-

The tests are performed by independent labs to the EPA test procedures
and standards. ? It's not up to the maufacturers to decide how to
test, nor can they manipulate the results for the cars. ? Same thing
for the water heaters.- Hide quoted text -

no the manufactuers knowing the test procedures tweak the product to
look as good as possible

Yes, some of that can certainly be going on. But trying to change
the design of the product slightly to come out better in the standard
EPA test is a lot different than claiming the tests themselves are not
uniform because the manufacturer gets to decide the test method, how
the test is done, etc, and then manipulates the results they publish.

well everyone knew the old tests werent valid yet it took many years
to get them changed

Yes, they weren't valid - the numbers they gave were to low - my mileage was
always better than the EPA estimates.

Well, they got farther from your experience. They now say your
highway mileage is even lower.

--Vic

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 06:34:01 -0800 (PST), N8N
wrote:



I still post there occasionally, but a lot of the intelligent regulars
have left and a lot of idiots and trolls have moved in The Impala
is a company provided vehicle, I don't have any MoPars at the moment
as my old Dart was a complete beater and not worth restoring, and
prices of good ones are rising. I do have a Porsche 944 that I bought
as a daily beater before I got a job with a company car, and my "real"
car is a '55 Studebaker - just as bulletproof as a MoPar, but
apparently not as collectible yet, so prices are still reasonable. Of
course, it's still somewhat apart after I lost my mind after a simple
gasket replacement turned into a drivetrain replacement...

nate

BTW, I found that the Impala never came with a 3.1.
It's a 3.4 or 3.8.

--Vic

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:16:27 -0600, jakdedert
wrote:


That's because you have access to the recycler, know where it is, and
have a vehicle suitable to transport...also the time. I know it's
trivial to many--but monumental to others. I'd be hard-pressed to get a
50 gallon water heater in my old Corolla, although it could be done
(it's a station wagon). I'd want to put in several layers of padding
and some waterproofing. Many would not want to do so in their late
model Whizzmobiles.

Like I said, I've seen a lot of discarded water heaters....

All depends on locale. I replaced mine last year and the old one was
gone in a couple hours. Night before garbage pickup the scavengers
tour this area.
My Corsica sedan isn't much bigger than your car, and I tied the
new one to the roof to get it home, saving 50 bucks delivery.
I use blankets on the roof and lots of rope sideways and fore and aft
when I do that, so it's a bit of a hassle. But I don't want another
vehicle for hauling, since I seldom do it. Don't have space for a
trailer.
If I lived where I had to haul away the old tank, I might just pay for
the install and avoid the hassle.

--Vic

Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 06:34:01 -0800 (PST), N8N
wrote:



I still post there occasionally, but a lot of the intelligent regulars
have left and a lot of idiots and trolls have moved in The Impala
is a company provided vehicle, I don't have any MoPars at the moment
as my old Dart was a complete beater and not worth restoring, and
prices of good ones are rising. I do have a Porsche 944 that I bought
as a daily beater before I got a job with a company car, and my "real"
car is a '55 Studebaker - just as bulletproof as a MoPar, but
apparently not as collectible yet, so prices are still reasonable. Of
course, it's still somewhat apart after I lost my mind after a simple
gasket replacement turned into a drivetrain replacement...

nate


BTW, I found that the Impala never came with a 3.1.
It's a 3.4 or 3.8.

--Vic

Duh, brain fart on my part. It is indeed a 3.4, which is a 2.8/3.1
based engine. Same basic engine, but larger displacement.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

N8N wrote:
On Feb 14, 11:16 pm, Vic Smith
wrote:
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 20:53:12 -0500, "Lou"

wrote:

Whichever figure is right and whatever the explanation, it still
seems to me that the mileage estimates published by the EPA are too
low, and it's seemed that way ever since I started paying attention
(way too many years ago).

Might be they don't account for your driving style. Might be
something else - not interested enough to look into it, but I'm
sure they lab test versus "real world."
Think you said you had an Impala, and the 3.1 engine coupled with the
GM lockup trans is an efficient combo. I consistently get 30-31 mpg
highway with mine ('97 Lumina) over a long stretch of varied terrain.
Measured by actual gas pumped into the tank over many thousands of
miles. My '88 Celebrity with the 2.8 did about 28 mpg, but always had
a heavier passenger load.

--Vic

It is HEAVILY dependent on driving style. In daily commuting (DC
traffic, lots of accelerating/slowing down) I get horrible mileage but
I too was getting about 30 MPG over the holidays, driving back and
forth to visit my parents (90% highway) same drivetrain as you, '05
Impala, 3.1/auto.

Wholly agree! my principal motor is an '02 Ford Focus 1.8 diesel - yes, I
know you don't have that across The Pond. It has just turned 125k miles
today and during that time has done 43.3 miles to the US gallon - close to
the brochure figure though I can't remember the exact number at this moment.
It's been a cracking good motor with little to complain about. If it lives
up to the performance of the two Fiesta diesels I've had, it should be good
for 250k before I either send it to its maker in the sky or sell it for
peanuts.

I gather from recent press comments here in Europe that you are about to be
exposed to high quality diesel motors from Europe soon. They are good and do
not have the air quality problems that you might associate with diesel
trucks. Have you noticed the tightening emission standards for them - both
in the US and Europe? Done me proud with shares in Johnson Matthey!

Diesel needs less refining than gas and therefore less energy in production,
emits less CO2 per gallon and has higher mpg, plus in real life has more
grunt than petrol (gas) units. Go for it!

They also display less variation in mpg between the urban and long distance
figures. In case you think I'm grossly biased, I also run a Peugeot 306
petrol and an 07 Peugeot 206cc diesel - now that's a little monster in
sheep's clothing - either 115 or 125 bhp in a shopping trolley. Great fun
and approx. 45 mp USg. Little too early to call having only done less than
3000 miles as yet.

PS I log all fuel and average over the entire life of the unit.

wrote:
On Feb 15, 8:43 am, " wrote:
-



The tests are performed by independent labs to the EPA test
procedures and standards. ? It's not up to the maufacturers to
decide how to test, nor can they manipulate the results for the
cars. ? Same thing for the water heaters.- Hide quoted text -

no the manufactuers knowing the test procedures tweak the product to
look as good as possible

Yes, some of that can certainly be going on. But trying to change
the design of the product slightly to come out better in the standard
EPA test is a lot different than claiming the tests themselves are not
uniform because the manufacturer gets to decide the test method, how
the test is done, etc, and then manipulates the results they publish.

Agreed, like installing a gearbox that suits the test conditions rather than
every day use.

on hot water tanks, in pennsylvania theres no sales tax on a installed
tank, but 7% if you take home and install yourself.

$28 on a 400 buck tank. that taken off install price can make doing it
yourself not worth the effort.

sales tax has lots of wierd rules

wrote:
on hot water tanks, in pennsylvania theres no sales tax on a installed
tank, but 7% if you take home and install yourself.

$28 on a 400 buck tank. that taken off install price can make doing it
yourself not worth the effort.

sales tax has lots of wierd rules

Yup, sure does. Even here in the UK, we have problems fathoming out Value
Added Tax (VAT) rules. However, I'm sure you didn't mean to respond to my
post!

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 21:30:25 -0500, Nate Nagel
wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:

BTW, I found that the Impala never came with a 3.1.
It's a 3.4 or 3.8.

--Vic

Duh, brain fart on my part. It is indeed a 3.4, which is a 2.8/3.1
based engine. Same basic engine, but larger displacement.

I was thinking about an Impala as my next used car, but have to check
out the 3.4 first. Might go for a Malibu which I can get with a 3.1.
In 2005 I rented a Malibu with 2.2 for a Florida trip and got 34mpg
highway. Seemed less thirsty in the city than a six, and had plenty
of power for me. I was surprised when I checked the oil before the
trip, and found it was a 2.2. A lot different than the 2.2 I have in
the '90 Corsica. Much quieter and more powerful.

--Vic

wrote in message

well everyone knew the old tests werent valid yet it took many years
to get them changed

Valid in the manner they were tested. A real auto enthusiast knew they were
not real life accurate but they were consistent. If Brand A said 25 mpg and
brand B was rated at 30 mpg, you knew brand A was a realistic 21 mpg and the
other was a realistic 25. The trouble comes from the people that actually
believed the numbers and were disappointed when they could not achieve them.

A for getting them changed, it was a lose/win situation. Marketing would
lose because they could not brag about the high mileage cars they sold, but
the dealer would have to win with fewer complaints about not getting what
the sticker said they'd get.

wrote in message
...
on hot water tanks, in pennsylvania theres no sales tax on a installed
tank, but 7% if you take home and install yourself.

$28 on a 400 buck tank. that taken off install price can make doing it
yourself not worth the effort.

sales tax has lots of wierd rules

But the state got their tax from the installer when he bought it to resell
to you.

On Feb 15, 11:18�pm, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:
wrote in message

...

on hot water tanks, in pennsylvania theres no sales tax on a installed
tank, but 7% if you take home and install yourself.

$28 on a 400 buck tank. that taken off install price can make doing it
yourself not worth the effort.

sales tax has lots of wierd rules

But the state got their tax from the installer when he bought it to resell
to you.

no when a business buys something for resale theres no sales tax,

in pennsylvania theres no tax on clothes, cold food no tax, hot food
taxable......

wrote in message
to you.

no when a business buys something for resale theres no sales tax,

Not true. I had a business in PA and when I bought material to install it, I
had to pay the tax. I did not have to charge the customer tax on either the
merchandise or my labor.

In my other business, I was a reseller and charged the tax I would then
file a tax exemption and not pay to my supplier, but I had to collect and
forward the tax to the state.

If you look at the tax exemption form, certain items are exempt, such as
material used in manufacturing. Office supplies are taxable, as are
computers, etc. If sales tax is not due, use tax is. Businesses are
audited on a regular basis. As a consumer, you may avoid the tax on mail
order buys, but a business will be caught faster than the home consumer.

PA Form 1220 spells out the exemptions. Manufacturing, mining, farming,
shipbuilding, and specificaly points out no exemption for property used in
contructing, repairing, remodeling.



in pennsylvania theres no tax on clothes, cold food no tax, hot food
taxable......

The differentiantion is not hot or cold, it is ingredient versus prepared
foods, be they hot or cold. That cold sandwich is still taxable.

I know about quickies,,,, but a mamasan near Ton San Nhut was chewing
me out about being long time.
cuhulin
www.tsna.org

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:17:48 -0600, jakdedert wrote:
A cost that nobody seems to have factored in, is removal and disposal of
the old water heater.

Home depot hauls away the old water heater as part of the cost of the
installation.

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:37:35 -0600, Bob Shuman wrote:
I already posted my thoughts on warranty as well in a previous reply. The
bottom line here is you certainly know more than enough to make an informed
choice.

Hi Bob,
My husband returns tomorrow.
I'll give him all your information and then tell him what choice to make!
Donna

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 18:55:22 -0800 (PST), wrote:
sales tax has lots of wierd rules

Home depot told me there was sales tax on everything except the permit.

They tax the heater at 8.75%, they tax the $400 service at the same rate so
just the tax is about $70 USD (assuming a $400 heater + $400 service).

Given the permit is a tax of its own kind, I'm kind'a surprised they don't
tax the tax out here.

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:37:20 -0800 (PST), wrote:

in pennsylvania theres no tax on clothes, cold food no tax, hot food
taxable......

In California, the only thing they don't tax is death and taxes.

Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:17:48 -0600, jakdedert wrote:
A cost that nobody seems to have factored in, is removal and disposal of
the old water heater.

Home depot hauls away the old water heater as part of the cost of the
installation.

I figured that. I was referring to the uncounted costs of doing it oneself.

jak

Donna,

Why should a water heater be any different then any other purchasing
decision? (Referring to your telling your husband what to do on this...)



Bob


"Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator" wrote in
message t...
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:37:35 -0600, Bob Shuman wrote:
I already posted my thoughts on warranty as well in a previous reply.
The
bottom line here is you certainly know more than enough to make an
informed
choice.

Hi Bob,
My husband returns tomorrow.
I'll give him all your information and then tell him what choice to make!
Donna

Vic Smith wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 21:30:25 -0500, Nate Nagel
wrote:


Vic Smith wrote:


BTW, I found that the Impala never came with a 3.1.
It's a 3.4 or 3.8.

--Vic

Duh, brain fart on my part. It is indeed a 3.4, which is a 2.8/3.1
based engine. Same basic engine, but larger displacement.


I was thinking about an Impala as my next used car, but have to check
out the 3.4 first. Might go for a Malibu which I can get with a 3.1.
In 2005 I rented a Malibu with 2.2 for a Florida trip and got 34mpg
highway. Seemed less thirsty in the city than a six, and had plenty
of power for me. I was surprised when I checked the oil before the
trip, and found it was a 2.2. A lot different than the 2.2 I have in
the '90 Corsica. Much quieter and more powerful.

--Vic

I'm not particularly enamored of the Impala to be perfectly honest with
you... it's a little underpowered, doesn't handle well, is very loud
inside, and has lots of little ergonomic glitches. Plus I've heard the
3800 is the engine to get, not the 3.4. The newer (06-up) cars have a
3.5 as the base engine and at least one of my complaints (awful door
handles that eat your fingernails) has been fixed, although I haven't
driven one...)

Of course, I may be biased as my previous two daily drivers were a
Porsche 944 and a VW GTI 1.8T, so I may be slightly spoiled by good cars...

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Donna Ohl, Grady Volunteer Coordinator wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:37:35 -0600, Bob Shuman wrote:

I already posted my thoughts on warranty as well in a previous reply. The
bottom line here is you certainly know more than enough to make an informed
choice.


Hi Bob,
My husband returns tomorrow.
I'll give him all your information and then tell him what choice to make!
Donna

Please don't do that when I'm drinking coffee... my nose is burning
now... Somehow I seriously doubt you're related to SWMBO but you
certainly sound like you could be!

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel