In article ,
Logan Shaw wrote:

http://afdcmap.nrel.gov/locator/LocatePane.asp

ahh... i see they closed the amoco CNG site near me... Strictly DOE
facilities and the brookfield zoo.

..max

don't forget to kill too.

..max

wrote:

Why would anyone buy a car with 90,000 miles on it anyway? At that
mileage even conventional cars are often in need of costly repairs.
such as drive train and engine. Even when I was first driving and needed
a really cheap clunker I don't think I ever bought anything with more
than 65,000 miles on it or kept it more than two years. Even today I can
pick up a good midsized car with less than 60,000 miles on it for less
than $3000.00 in Canadian funds.


I think I have only bought one vehicle with less than 100,000 miles on
it. My current commuter I bought with 170k on it. I have driven it
for over a year(~28k) and it has cost me nothing. Regular oil changes
and some other basic maintenance. My TCO of this vehicle is a few
pennies above what fuel costs me(on a per mile basis). If you are
selective, it is relatively easy to find very high mileage older cars
that will run for a long time. I have taken several vehicles well past
the 200k mark. One may have cleared the 250k(not sure as odometer
quit).

I would much rather have a 5 year old 150k mile vehicle than a 20yr old
15k vehicle that Granny drove to chuch on Sundays. Short driving is
much harder on a vehicle than long trips that get everything up to
operating temps.

JW


A lot depends on where you live I suppose, where I am it's common to see
cars 6 years old beginning to rust out, by ten the floors are gone and
the doors are flapping in the breeze. Not only that we have a "drive
clean" program where you have to get your car's emission systems checked
every two years or your permit is not renewed. If your car doesn't pass
you have to get it repaired immediately. It's simply not worth keeping a
car when the repairs exceed it's replacement cost. Case in point, I had
a 1990 ford tempo I retired three years ago in which the engine was
still good at 130,000 miles,but the exhaust system was punched, the
clutch was on it's way out, the brakes need to be done ( rotors, pads
and calipers)and it had extensive rust in the floors doors and hood. As
a trade it was worth $150.00, the cost of repairs would have exceeded
what I would have to pay for the equivalent of a 1995 model with 60,000
miles on it.

"Ted B." wrote in message
enews.net...


It's about playing the odds. Could you get a Chevy to last 20 years?
Yes.
Would you improve your odds by buying a Toyota instead? GREATLY.

Is this really true? How about a cite?


How about using your own eyes. Every time you drive, count how many old
cars are on the road. Make a game of it. Every 80's model domestic
vehicle
scores 100 points. Every 80's model Japanese vehicle scores 10 points.
Any
pre-1996 vehicle scores 10 points, also. Keep a tally of DOMESTIC vs. JAP
IMPORTS. If you see a Jap import that you know was assembled in the U.S.,
score it the same as a Jap Import. A good design will last long,
regardless
of where it is assembled.

So if I say I've done that, and my eyeballs contradict your statement, where
do we go next?

You've made a sweeping statement, one that is in accord with the popular
wisdom. If it's really true, it should be possible to back it up with some
hard numbers.

I've offered what numbers I could find. While not directly addressing your
claim, they would seem to argue against it. How about offering some of your
own?

Ok, fair enough. But I don't think you are looking at this as a daily
driver. But maybe you are. :)

My point was that mileage,in itself is not a complete factor to
determine condition and long term reliability of a vehicle.

JW

"Bob Ward" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 09:59:52 -0400, "Lou"
wrote:


"anon" wrote in message
. ..
same here. I have a 95 Geo Prizm 1.8L stick. They
say 29 city, but over the life of the car so far it's been
33 city. Generally their numbers are way too high, not
too low.

The EPA's numbers don't match my experience.


Mine neither. I have a 2005 Impala LS. Automatic transmission, electric
everything. This is what the EPA classifies as a large car, and the
mileage
rating is 22/30 city/highway. I'm consistently getting over 30 mpg in
mixed
driving - last week, for instance, I drove 440 and a fraction miles, and
got
36.2 miles per gallon according to the average mileage gauge the car
comes
equipped with.

In my experience over the last 10 - 20 years, the EPA ratings are low.


Have you ever compared actual mileage to the computerized average?

I don't even know what that statement is supposed to mean. I've posted on
this subject before - the gauge tallies pretty well with the odometer and
the pump reading at the gas station. I can take the gallons used reading
and the trip odometer reading and do the division myself. When I do, my
result agrees with the average mileage display - no surprise there.

It's not an exact match - the gauge can say I've burned 12 gallons and the
gas pump says it dispensed 13, or vice versa. I presume that's because a
"full" tank varies - you can stop when the automatic cutoff shuts off the
pump, or baby it along and fill it up right to the gas cap. In NJ there is
no self service gas, so I have no control over how full the attendant
actually fills it.

Before I had this car, I had to compute mileage the old fashioned way, by
hand, using the odometer and gas pump readings. I'd been doing that on an
occasional basis (not every fill up, maybe once a month or so) since a
bought my first new car (a VW Beetle) back in 1967. No EPA estimates back
then (no EPA for that matter), but ever since those estimates have been
published, I've done as well or better.

Have I kept records of gas bought and mileage since I've owned the car? No.

wrote:

Ok, fair enough. But I don't think you are looking at this as a daily
driver. But maybe you are. :)

My point was that mileage,in itself is not a complete factor to
determine condition and long term reliability of a vehicle.

JW


I've always looked at vehicles from cost factor, I've got a 1968 MGB
I've had since 1981, and have done a lot of work on it over the years
mainly as a labor of love. But seeing how I paid $1800.00 for it
(restored condition) and now a comparable mgb sells for over $12,000 CAN
it has been a good investment ;~) Daily drivers I scrap as soon as they
become a money hole.

Ted B. wrote:

It's about playing the odds. Could you get a Chevy to last 20 years?
Yes.
Would you improve your odds by buying a Toyota instead? GREATLY.

Is this really true? How about a cite?


How about using your own eyes. Every time you drive, count how many old
cars are on the road. Make a game of it. Every 80's model domestic vehicle
scores 100 points. Every 80's model Japanese vehicle scores 10 points. Any
pre-1996 vehicle scores 10 points, also. Keep a tally of DOMESTIC vs. JAP
IMPORTS. If you see a Jap import that you know was assembled in the U.S.,
score it the same as a Jap Import. A good design will last long, regardless
of where it is assembled.

Even if you give the 80's domestic vehicles 100 points a pop (vs. 10 points
for the jap imports from the same period), the Jap imports will still
embarras the Hell out of the domestics, if you are scoring them based on
longevity.

Are there 80's model domestic vehicles still on the road? (keep in mind
that some of them would only be about 17 years old) Yes. But it's so
uncommon that you really NOTICE, when you see one. Twenty year old (and
older) jap imports still on the road are quite common. -Dave


Depends on where you live and the original population of domestic vs
import. Where I live(Midwest), everyone(generalization) owns a
domestic pickup. Most also own a sedan of simililar make. Go out
west, most own an import.

If we ran the same game here and in LA, I would say you could reduce
the time to 5 years and our tallys would be diametrically opposed.

JW

Lou wrote:

The best I've been able to come up with is that the US, as a country, does
pretty well in the vehicle longevity department. In the US, cars last an
estimated average of 160,000 miles. It's 145,000 in Australia, 125,000 in
the UK, Canada and France do 115,000, the rest of Europe manages 105,000.
Curiosly, Japan manages a meager 70,000. (From
http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/What_is_the_average_car's_lifetime_mileage ) I'm
unable to find average mileage or age by manufacturer. Since you're so
(snip)

FYI, unlike the US, there are law work against owning older car in
Japan. Not sure about elsewhere. So in Japan one will spend more money
to maintain an older car than purchase a new one. I read an article at
one time about some people in China imported the junked car from Japan
as scrap metal (to avoid import tax) then fixed them up and sold 'em as
used vehicle.

FC

FC wrote:

Lou wrote:

The best I've been able to come up with is that the US, as a country,
does
pretty well in the vehicle longevity department. In the US, cars last an
estimated average of 160,000 miles. It's 145,000 in Australia,
125,000 in
the UK, Canada and France do 115,000, the rest of Europe manages 105,000.
Curiosly, Japan manages a meager 70,000. (From
http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/What_is_the_average_car's_lifetime_mileage )
I'm
unable to find average mileage or age by manufacturer. Since you're so

(snip)

FYI, unlike the US, there are law work against owning older car in
Japan. Not sure about elsewhere. So in Japan one will spend more money
to maintain an older car than purchase a new one. I read an article at
one time about some people in China imported the junked car from Japan
as scrap metal (to avoid import tax) then fixed them up and sold 'em as
used vehicle.

FC

Many European counties have very tough environmental standards and laws
regarding the condition of your car, so there is no point in keeping it
longer. Many vehicles you see running around in the states would not be
allowed on the road in Europe.

Bob Ward wrote:
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 22:27:34 GMT, SMS
wrote:


It's always amusing to see the "lasts the life of the vehicle"
statements by automakers. Yep, when the battery dies, the life of the
vehicle is over, and the battery lasted the life of the vehicle. As
Toyota stated regarding the RAV 4 EV, "The cost to replace the battery
is more than the value of the vehicle." We've seen similar idiotic
statements from automakers regarding other components, i.e. Saturn
timing chains, which, when they break, usually mark the end of the
vehicle ('see, we told you that the timing chain would last the life of
the vehicle!').


Timing CHAINS generally outlast timing BELTS by a considerable margin.
A Saturn with a timing CHAINwill generally oulast a VW's timing BELT.

In general, timing chains outlasted timing belts. But there are design
issues with the chains in the older model Saturns (SCx,SLx) that caused
them to stretch and fail prematurely. Even when the owner caught it
prior to breakage, and replaced the chain without the engine damage that
a broken chain would have caused, the replacement cost was much higher
than a belt.

Click and Clack now state that belts are more reliable than chains, due
to a couple of reasons.

"Belts do have their advantages. They're cheaper, quieter, lighter and
easier to replace. They're also better able to handle the longer run
necessary for overhead- cam engines. In the old days, a timing chain
only had to be a foot long. Now, with overhead-cam engines, it has to be
3 or 4 feet long, and for that kind of length, a belt is not only a lot
quieter, but more reliable, too. When you use a chain for that kind of
length, it's more likely to loosen up, slap around and eventually break."

(PeteCresswell) wrote:

Per Ford Prefect:

The cost of repairs
exceed the replacement value, you'd be a fool to keep it.


That could depend on your mechanical confidence/expertise.

The current beater might be more of a known quantity - i.e. you've been driving
it for five years and know it's weak points. The next used car might be newer
and not cost much more than a trans overhaul on the beater, but it might have
other repairs looming - which some buyers may not spot until they become
necessary.

I've always done my own work, including bodywork, rebuilding engines,
transmissions, brake etc...., but at a certain point you still have to
buy the parts and factor in the the time you've spent repairing it. Weak
points on most cars is a known factor you can research* very easily, if
a car with 60,000k on it and it is not noted (no recalls, bad press)for
major problems then you can expect relatively trouble free driving for a
couple of years at a very low cost. Where I live you have to get your
vehicle safety checked before putting it on the road, if you buy one
"uncertified" you should be ;~)

* It's also a good idea to check the price of parts for things that tend
to wear out early, like exhaust systems, transaxles, wheel bearings,
rotors etc. before you buy a car, some vehicles have horrendous parts
pricing.

"Ted B." wrote in message
eenews.net...


How many low-end cars last 10 years/150,000 miles?


My daily commuter is a '96 metro with 188k miles. Beyond the normal
service, the only thing I have replaced has been a timing belt (might be
consider normal service, I caught it before it broke), idle control motor
(from a junkyard), broken turn signal light (hit a dog), and a wiper
bushing. It used to get 42 mpg, but now I get about 38.


There ya go. Suzuki quality. You should consider keeping it till at
least 250 or 300K. -Dave


You snipped the part:

"I am ready to replace it at any time, but as long as it keeps going without
expensive maintenance, I will keep using it. "

I go about 18k miles per year. I figure at least two more years is highly
likely, five is tops. Go to a junk yard and the metro's that didn't get
smushed all have 250k plus on them.

Matthew

"Ford Prefect" wrote in message
...


wrote:

Ok, fair enough. But I don't think you are looking at this as a daily
driver. But maybe you are. :)

My point was that mileage,in itself is not a complete factor to
determine condition and long term reliability of a vehicle.

JW


I've always looked at vehicles from cost factor, I've got a 1968 MGB
I've had since 1981, and have done a lot of work on it over the years
mainly as a labor of love. But seeing how I paid $1800.00 for it
(restored condition) and now a comparable mgb sells for over $12,000 CAN
it has been a good investment ;~) Daily drivers I scrap as soon as they
become a money hole.

So that looks like a return of around 8% compounded monthly. Not bad but
not spectacular, depending on how much time and money "a lot of work"
amounts to.

"FC" wrote in message
...
Lou wrote:

The best I've been able to come up with is that the US, as a country,
does
pretty well in the vehicle longevity department. In the US, cars last
an
estimated average of 160,000 miles. It's 145,000 in Australia, 125,000
in
the UK, Canada and France do 115,000, the rest of Europe manages
105,000.
Curiosly, Japan manages a meager 70,000. (From
http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/What_is_the_average_car's_lifetime_mileage )
I'm
unable to find average mileage or age by manufacturer. Since you're so
(snip)

FYI, unlike the US, there are law work against owning older car in
Japan. Not sure about elsewhere. So in Japan one will spend more money
to maintain an older car than purchase a new one. I read an article at
one time about some people in China imported the junked car from Japan
as scrap metal (to avoid import tax) then fixed them up and sold 'em as
used vehicle.

I'm unaware of that situation, but if it's true, that would tend to make
Japanese cars less long lived, wouldn't it? After all, what's the point of
spending the money to manufacture (or buy) something that will last 20 years
if it's going to be scrapped in 6?

wrote:
Agreed. ALL daily drivers are a money hole. It is just a matter of
minimizing that vs the benefit of providing transportation(reliably) to
and from A to B.

I have a beater that gets me to work and back daily.

I have a nice car for weekends and long distance travelling. I could
buy a nice car for daily driving, but IMHO would be waste of money. A
$20k new car does not offer me anything that my $500 beater does not
accomplish. It gets good gas mileage. It gets me from A to B. The
heat works and I can roll down the windows in the summer. For the
equivalant of one car payment(including insurance), my car is paid for
and I have nothing else(above operating expenses) to worry about.

When I bought it I figured if it lasted more than 3 mos I was money
ahead. I have had it over a year now and it is still going. Saving me
money every day. If I would have bought a new car I would still be
making payments.(not really as I WILL NOT take a car loan, but that is
a different story)

JW


Been there and done that to ;~)But I'm tired of fixing old beaters.
The last beater I had was 1990 year old Ford I drove for four years
1998-2002 and put 50,000 miles on, but was averaging more than $300.00
per month to maintain ( insurance, gas, license small repairs)
and was coming up to needing a major cash outlay to keep it on the road.
I picked up a two year old Saturn with 10,000 miles on it for $229.00
per month, get much better gas mileage and I haven't put a cent in
repairs into it in over three years. The big difference is I feel
comfortable I could drive the Saturn across the country, the beater Ford
I'd be reluctant to drive a couple of hundred miles ;~)

Per Ford Prefect:
The cost of repairs
exceed the replacement value, you'd be a fool to keep it.

That could depend on your mechanical confidence/expertise.

The current beater might be more of a known quantity - i.e. you've been driving
it for five years and know it's weak points. The next used car might be newer
and not cost much more than a trans overhaul on the beater, but it might have
other repairs looming - which some buyers may not spot until they become
necessary.
--
PeteCresswell

"SoCalMike" wrote...

yeah. neat. to break it down... if you cant get (or dont want) a VW
diesel, or a hybrid, the geo metro is the cheapest choice, followed by a
civic hatch.

It's funny to hear recommendations for such cars on a rural group. I
identify more with the desire for a Suburban, especially if I could only
have one vehicle.

That site leaves out the class of car, or at least the feature, that I
always look for first. I need 4WD.

Tina

That site leaves out the class of car, or at least the feature, that I
always look for first. I need 4WD.

Tina


Here ya go, Tina

http://www.toyota.com/matrix/specs.html

Christina Peterson wrote:

"SoCalMike" wrote...


yeah. neat. to break it down... if you cant get (or dont want) a VW
diesel, or a hybrid, the geo metro is the cheapest choice, followed by a
civic hatch.


It's funny to hear recommendations for such cars on a rural group. I
identify more with the desire for a Suburban, especially if I could only
have one vehicle.

That site leaves out the class of car, or at least the feature, that I
always look for first. I need 4WD.

Tina


I've found a fwd will get you anywhere you need to go short of back in
the woods. Here in the snow belt I'd often seen 4wd suv's in the ditch
when there was only a foot of snow on the road. My wife's grandfather
used to have a saying about four wheel drive, " you get twice as far off
the road before you get stuck " ;~)

Ford Prefect wrote:
FC wrote:

Lou wrote:

The best I've been able to come up with is that the US, as a
country, does
pretty well in the vehicle longevity department. In the US, cars
last an estimated average of 160,000 miles. It's 145,000 in
Australia, 125,000 in
the UK, Canada and France do 115,000, the rest of Europe manages
105,000. Curiosly, Japan manages a meager 70,000. (From
http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/What_is_the_average_car's_lifetime_mileage
) I'm
unable to find average mileage or age by manufacturer. Since
you're so

(snip)

FYI, unlike the US, there are law work against owning older car in
Japan. Not sure about elsewhere. So in Japan one will spend more
money to maintain an older car than purchase a new one. I read an
article at one time about some people in China imported the junked
car from Japan as scrap metal (to avoid import tax) then fixed them
up and sold 'em as used vehicle.

Many European counties have very tough environmental standards and laws
regarding the condition of your car, so there is no point in keeping it
longer.

Another lie, very few on a population basis, actually.

Many vehicles you see running around in the states
would not be allowed on the road in Europe.

Another lie.

That site leaves out the class of car, or at least the feature, that I
always look for first. I need 4WD.

Tina


I've found a fwd will get you anywhere you need to go short of back in the
woods. Here in the snow belt I'd often seen 4wd suv's in the ditch
when there was only a foot of snow on the road. My wife's grandfather used
to have a saying about four wheel drive, " you get twice as far off the
road before you get stuck " ;~)

Hey, I've gone off-roading with small (low ground clearance) FWD vehicles.
I've taken them places that would scare the hell out of the average 4WD
driver. I think many people buy 4WD because they lack confidence in their
own driving abilities. True story . . . when I was a teenager, I went to
visit a friend of mine during a bad snowstorm (over a foot on the ground
already, still piling up fast). I drove down his steep driveway without
thinking twice about it. His parents owned a 4WD SUV and there were a
couple of FWD vehicles in the household. Everyone in the family was SNOWED
IN, as they couldn't get up their own driveway. They thought I was stuck
there for the night, also. I easily drove my RWD Chevy Chevelle right up
the driveway a few hours later. Of course, I had good snow tires on the
back, but . . .

Another true story . . . many years ago, was driving a small FWD vehicle
through a blizzard. Again, snow piling up more than a foot already and
still coming down. Stopped to help a driver of a 4WD vehicle get his
vehicle unstuck. He was stuck ON the road, the same road that I'd been
driving down with my much smaller FWD vehicle. At the time, the tires on
THAT FWD vehicle I was driving were no-seasons (aka all season). :)

Terrain, weather conditions, type of vehicle and number/configuration of
drive wheels are all pretty much irrelevant. Put good tires on it and a
good driver behind the wheel, and it will GO where it needs to go. Hell,
put a good driver behind the wheel and it STILL might make it, good tires or
not.

Someone points a gun at my head and tells me to choose a vehicle type
QUICKLY, without knowing what it will be used for, I'll specify a RWD
vehicle with good snow tires on the rear. Not that RWD is any better than
AWD, FWD or 4WD. It's just that RWD is so darned fun to drive anyway, I'd
choose it first no matter what. :) Some would argue that good tires should
be on all 4 corners, and they are right. But half the fun is having uneven
traction!!!!!!!!!! (evil grin)

Some people say that they all (FWD, RWD, AWD, 4WD) have certain strengths
and weaknesses. Not really. Whatever you have the most experience driving
will feel (to you) like it is performing better than all others. There are
no significant differences between them, unless you tweak the driver a bit.
:) -Dave

So if I say I've done that, and my eyeballs contradict your statement,
where
do we go next?


It won't happen, if you are honest with yourself. -Dave

Brad wrote:
Ford Prefect wrote:
FC wrote:

Lou wrote:

The best I've been able to come up with is that the US, as a
country, does
pretty well in the vehicle longevity department. In the US, cars
last an estimated average of 160,000 miles. It's 145,000 in
Australia, 125,000 in
the UK, Canada and France do 115,000, the rest of Europe manages
105,000. Curiosly, Japan manages a meager 70,000. (From
http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/What_is_the_average_car's_lifetime_mileage
) I'm
unable to find average mileage or age by manufacturer. Since
you're so

(snip)

FYI, unlike the US, there are law work against owning older car in
Japan. Not sure about elsewhere. So in Japan one will spend more
money to maintain an older car than purchase a new one. I read an
article at one time about some people in China imported the junked
car from Japan as scrap metal (to avoid import tax) then fixed them
up and sold 'em as used vehicle.

Many European counties have very tough environmental standards and laws
regarding the condition of your car, so there is no point in keeping it
longer.

Another lie, very few on a population basis, actually.

Many vehicles you see running around in the states
would not be allowed on the road in Europe.

Another lie.

Brad=Rod Speed. What a dickhead.

'Simon', 'Brad', and 'BRD' are all Rod Speed, right? Just want to be sure
before I killfile them.... Any other aliases I missed?

aem sends...

Ted B. wrote:
Another true story . . . many years ago, was driving a small FWD vehicle
through a blizzard. Again, snow piling up more than a foot already and
still coming down. Stopped to help a driver of a 4WD vehicle get his
vehicle unstuck. He was stuck ON the road, the same road that I'd been
driving down with my much smaller FWD vehicle. At the time, the tires on
THAT FWD vehicle I was driving were no-seasons (aka all season). :)

This reminds me of the time in high school I went "mudding" with a friend
who drove an Isuzu Trooper II, I believe the 4WD version.

There was a field near where we lived, and it had rained, so he had the
idea of driving around in this field for grins. We all hopped in the
car, and we were having a fun time. My friend said something about how
he'd heard the secret to not getting stuck was to not slow down too
much when going through the really muddy parts. Not long after saying
that, he realized he'd gone off course a little bit and missed the area
he wanted to drive through, so he decided to make a relatively sharp
turn to come back around where he wanted to be. Naturally, he slowed
down. He didn't want to take the turn too quickly. And it was muddy.
And we got stuck.

We tried a few things that ultimately accomplished nothing other than
getting our clothes really muddy. Eventually we walked to a phone and
called for a tow truck.

The tow truck eventually arrived, and its driver decided to take things
slow and easy and be very, very careful about exactly where he drove
so as not to get stuck. As a result, he did basically the same thing
as my friend did: he went too slow in the really muddy parts.
And he got stuck.

So, the driver of the tow truck got on the radio and asked for advice,
but it was too late for advice to do any good. Eventually a second tow
truck came out. The second truck was identical to the first. The driver's
technique, however, was not the same at all. After rolling his eyes
and griping at the first driver a bit, he pulled up and stopped short
of the muddy area, surveyed the land for a second or two, and then got
in his car and drove like a bat out of hell all the while giving the
truck plenty of gas as he slid somewhat haphazardly through the mud.
He came to rest on a spot of high (less muddy) ground near where the
first tow truck was stuck, and he pulled it out with a winch, and drove
it out of the mud. Then he repeated the process and got my friend
and I out.

The moral of the story? Well, what was the difference between those
two tow trucks? There was no difference between the trucks at all,
but the second driver knew WTF he was doing, which is why he was able
to get us all out of the mud. And a good time was had by all.

Also, in a number of separate incidents, I learned to control my own car
and not panic even after having partially or completely lost traction,
whether intentionally or uninentionally. As a result, if I'm driving
around in the rain or something and traction goes bye-bye, I do not freak
out and slam on the brakes and go sliding into a stationary object.
I won't say that driving around with a little unintentional sliding
here and there is perfectly safe, but it doesn't have to be a crisis
situation once you get used to it.

- Logan

"ameijers" wrote in message
...

'Simon', 'Brad', and 'BRD' are all Rod Speed, right? Just want to be sure
before I killfile them.... Any other aliases I missed?

aem sends...


Forget about killfiling it, unless you were planning to upgrade your hard
drive anyway. -Dave

This reminds me of the time in high school I went "mudding" with a friend
who drove an Isuzu Trooper II, I believe the 4WD version.

(snip)

The moral of the story? Well, what was the difference between those
two tow trucks? There was no difference between the trucks at all,
but the second driver knew WTF he was doing, which is why he was able
to get us all out of the mud. And a good time was had by all.

Also, in a number of separate incidents, I learned to control my own car
and not panic even after having partially or completely lost traction,
whether intentionally or uninentionally. As a result, if I'm driving
around in the rain or something and traction goes bye-bye, I do not freak
out and slam on the brakes and go sliding into a stationary object.
I won't say that driving around with a little unintentional sliding
here and there is perfectly safe, but it doesn't have to be a crisis
situation once you get used to it.

- Logan

Deep snow is somewhat similar to mud . . . KEEP MOVING! In fact, sometimes
you have to bend a few rules in deep snow, such as not quite stopping for
stop signs, etc. (Hey, it's better than getting stuck, and safe if done
carefully)

The ONLY way to truly master driving is to go beyond the limits of traction
(frequently) and learn how to recover. You can't do it right until you know
how to do it WRONG, and then skillfully get yourself out of trouble.

Now watch all the 'speed kills' idiots flame me for saying that wild driving
makes good drivers. -Dave

But when the inevitable happens and he's sideways, you just slow way down,
wait
for the smoke to stop coming off his drive wheels, slip it in 4WD, and
slowly
ease past.... smiling, of course...
--
PeteCresswell

It's even more fun when you do it in a similar 2WD vehicle. Because then
you know that the other driver has no excuse. -Dave

"Dave C." wrote in message
ink.net...
This reminds me of the time in high school I went "mudding" with a
friend
who drove an Isuzu Trooper II, I believe the 4WD version.

(snip)

The moral of the story? Well, what was the difference between those
two tow trucks? There was no difference between the trucks at all,
but the second driver knew WTF he was doing, which is why he was able
to get us all out of the mud. And a good time was had by all.

Also, in a number of separate incidents, I learned to control my own car
and not panic even after having partially or completely lost traction,
whether intentionally or uninentionally. As a result, if I'm driving
around in the rain or something and traction goes bye-bye, I do not
freak
out and slam on the brakes and go sliding into a stationary object.
I won't say that driving around with a little unintentional sliding
here and there is perfectly safe, but it doesn't have to be a crisis
situation once you get used to it.

- Logan

Deep snow is somewhat similar to mud . . . KEEP MOVING! In fact,
sometimes
you have to bend a few rules in deep snow, such as not quite stopping for
stop signs, etc. (Hey, it's better than getting stuck, and safe if done
carefully)

The ONLY way to truly master driving is to go beyond the limits of
traction
(frequently) and learn how to recover. You can't do it right until you
know
how to do it WRONG, and then skillfully get yourself out of trouble.

Now watch all the 'speed kills' idiots flame me for saying that wild
driving
makes good drivers. -Dave

I quite agree, practice makes perfect. However, the rub is, most people have
little access to good places and times to practice. I remember once as a
kid, practicing in a totally empty fresh-fallen parking lot, late at night,
and getting rousted by the local law, who Really Wanted to write me up for
reckless driving, which is a real big deal when you are a teenage driver.
Still not sure how I talked them out of it.

aem sends...

Per Christina Peterson:
That site leaves out the class of car, or at least the feature, that I
always look for first. I need 4WD.

I drove 2WD for a lot of years and never got stuck in the snow...concluding, not
illogically, that I had no need for 4WD.

Now I've got 4WD and I have to say that it reduces the anxiety/tension of
driving in snow behind other drivers by about 98%.

Driving alone, it's a wash - I seldom drive around in 4WD anyhow unless the
snow's fresh and deep (like 24" or more...) in which case the vehicle tends to
wander off following hidden ruts in 2WD. I tend to make a game out of it
now..."Hmmmm, lets see what I can do without getting stuck in 2WD...". Usually
it takes a particularly bone-headed maneuver like turning uphill into deep ruts
at low speed....

But when I get behind one of those guys that's just *determined* to get stuck
and I know that I'll probably be behind him when he finally gets stuck; 4WD is
*such* a trip. You just sit back there and relax while somebody comes to a
dead stop at the intersection in the middle of all the ruts..... and when he
floors it on the hill, you just sort of smile to yourself and wait...

But when the inevitable happens and he's sideways, you just slow way down, wait
for the smoke to stop coming off his drive wheels, slip it in 4WD, and slowly
ease past.... smiling, of course...
--
PeteCresswell

I quite agree, practice makes perfect. However, the rub is, most people
have
little access to good places and times to practice. I remember once as a
kid, practicing in a totally empty fresh-fallen parking lot, late at
night,
and getting rousted by the local law, who Really Wanted to write me up for
reckless driving, which is a real big deal when you are a teenage driver.
Still not sure how I talked them out of it.


Yup, that really sucks that you can't practice driving without running afoul
of the law. Some of MY practice was on nights when nobody (not even cops)
was crazy enough to be out on the streets. We're talking GLARE ICE
conditions, and not just a thin coating. :)

The ironic thing is, if you don't go through that crazy experimental phase,
you never learn what works and (more importantly) what DOES NOT WORK behind
the wheel. So later on in life, you end up as an adult with very high car
insurance bills due to lots of at-fault accidents, because certain boo-boos
which COULD have been avoided by a better driver just snuck up on you, and
you aren't even sure what happened, really.

Good example posted earlier was about starting to hydroplane and nailing the
brakes, FORCING the car to lose all semblance of control. If you are used
to the car getting a little fishy, your first reaction is to lift off the
accelerator smoothly and NOT hit the brakes. If you are really good, you
might even steer in the direction your back wheels are sliding by reflex
long before you even THINK that it might be a good idea. But the folks who
never went through that crazy experimental phase will just hit the brakes
and hope for the best as their car does a 360 through several other cars, an
exit sign and a guardrail. :) -Dave

I'm unaware of that situation, but if it's true, that would tend to make
Japanese cars less long lived, wouldn't it? After all, what's the point
of
spending the money to manufacture (or buy) something that will last 20
years
if it's going to be scrapped in 6?

That's one way to look at it. Or you could look at it like this . . . Japs
design cars to last 6 years (apparently), and those cars designed to last 6
years actually last 20 or 30 years, if well maintained. Meanwhile, Ford and
Chevy try to design a car to last 6 years, but they don't last more than 2
or 3 even IF well maintained. Yes, I'm exaggerating. Don't flame me.
:) -Dave

Lou wrote:
"FC" wrote in message
...
(snip)

FYI, unlike the US, there are law work against owning older car in
Japan. Not sure about elsewhere. So in Japan one will spend more money
to maintain an older car than purchase a new one. I read an article at
one time about some people in China imported the junked car from Japan
as scrap metal (to avoid import tax) then fixed them up and sold 'em as
used vehicle.


I'm unaware of that situation, but if it's true, that would tend to make
Japanese cars less long lived, wouldn't it? After all, what's the point of
spending the money to manufacture (or buy) something that will last 20 years
if it's going to be scrapped in 6?

I took it the article I read wasn't made up but I don't have the detail
since I never lived there. Have you considered the following scenario:
If Japs law makes opening a Garage right next to impossible. Then each
time one needs to fix something in his/her car will cost him/her an arm
and a leg. So one might as well drive the car till the warranty expired
and the first "major" trouble shows. In turn the car manufacturer will
design the car to make sure car owner has at least 5 absolutely trouble
freed years.

FC

Per Dave C.:
Now watch all the 'speed kills' idiots

I try to remind them that it's not speed that kills: it's *difference* in speed.

Witness the 35 mph car and the 0 mph oak tree.
--
PeteCresswell

Lou wrote:
"FC" wrote in message
...
Lou wrote:

The best I've been able to come up with is that the US, as a
country, does pretty well in the vehicle longevity department. In
the US, cars last an estimated average of 160,000 miles. It's
145,000 in Australia, 125,000 in the UK, Canada and France do
115,000, the rest of Europe manages 105,000. Curiosly, Japan
manages a meager 70,000. (From
http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/What_is_the_average_car's_lifetime_mileage
) I'm unable to find average mileage or age by manufacturer. Since
you're so (snip)

FYI, unlike the US, there are law work against owning older car in
Japan. Not sure about elsewhere. So in Japan one will spend more
money to maintain an older car than purchase a new one. I read an
article at one time about some people in China imported the junked
car from Japan as scrap metal (to avoid import tax) then fixed them
up and sold 'em as used vehicle.

I'm unaware of that situation, but if it's true,

It is.

that would tend to make Japanese cars less long lived, wouldn't it?

Nope.

After all, what's the point of spending the money to manufacture (or
buy) something that will last 20 years if it's going to be scrapped in 6?

Basically you dont save any money designing them to last for that shorter time.

(PeteCresswell) wrote
Dave C wrote

Now watch all the 'speed kills' idiots

I try to remind them that it's not speed
that kills: it's *difference* in speed.

Witness the 35 mph car and the 0 mph oak tree.

Mindlessly silly. There is the same DIFFERENCE
in speed between the car and the road surface
too and that doesnt kill much at all.

In article ,
Lou wrote:
The best I've been able to come up with is that the US, as a country, does
pretty well in the vehicle longevity department. In the US, cars last an
estimated average of 160,000 miles. It's 145,000 in Australia, 125,000 in
the UK, Canada and France do 115,000, the rest of Europe manages 105,000.
Curiosly, Japan manages a meager 70,000. (From
http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/What_is_the_average_car's_lifetime_mileage ) I'm

Looks like the lower lifetime mileage countries are more packed together,
which may mean that cars spend more time in the city (lower mileage but
more wear).

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

Timothy J. Lee wrote
Lou wrote

The best I've been able to come up with is that the US, as a
country, does pretty well in the vehicle longevity department.
In the US, cars last an estimated average of 160,000 miles.
It's 145,000 in Australia, 125,000 in the UK, Canada and
France do 115,000, the rest of Europe manages 105,000.
Curiosly, Japan manages a meager 70,000. (From
http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/What_is_the_average_car's_lifetime_mileage

Looks like the lower lifetime mileage countries are more packed together,

Thats completely silly with the UK, Canada and France.

which may mean that cars spend more time
in the city (lower mileage but more wear).

Still makes absolutely no sense. Australia is in fact one of the
most urbanised first world countrys around, even tho it is quite
large, so the bulk of the cars are actually used in citys that
arent very different at all to most first world citys.

"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in message
...
Per Christina Peterson:
That site leaves out the class of car, or at least the feature, that I
always look for first. I need 4WD.

I drove 2WD for a lot of years and never got stuck in the
snow...concluding, not
illogically, that I had no need for 4WD.

Now I've got 4WD and I have to say that it reduces the anxiety/tension of
driving in snow behind other drivers by about 98%.

Driving alone, it's a wash - I seldom drive around in 4WD anyhow unless
the
snow's fresh and deep (like 24" or more...) in which case the vehicle
tends to
wander off following hidden ruts in 2WD. I tend to make a game out of it
now..."Hmmmm, lets see what I can do without getting stuck in 2WD...".
Usually
it takes a particularly bone-headed maneuver like turning uphill into deep
ruts
at low speed....

But when I get behind one of those guys that's just *determined* to get
stuck
and I know that I'll probably be behind him when he finally gets stuck;
4WD is
*such* a trip. You just sit back there and relax while somebody comes
to a
dead stop at the intersection in the middle of all the ruts..... and when
he
floors it on the hill, you just sort of smile to yourself and wait...

But when the inevitable happens and he's sideways, you just slow way down,
wait
for the smoke to stop coming off his drive wheels, slip it in 4WD, and
slowly
ease past.... smiling, of course...
--
PeteCresswell

It's not so much the long Alaskan winters that I want 4wd for, it's the
times before and after.

Winter here is cold of course, but interior Alaska is actually a desert.
Not much precip at all, so going through deep snow isn't often a problem.
And at the very low temperatures, the roads aren't all that slick. (Though
at our winter temps here we don't have to use that stinky methane smelling
winter fuel -- it's too harmful to the lungs, nervous system).

And we've made improvements on the driveway, and the hill was resurfaced
with a less slickening material a few years back. But still, the
environment is hostile enough that getting stuck could mean getting dead.

I know what you mean about driving off road. Heck, around here, sometimes
of the only available roads are worse than off road conditions. And my poor
old Subaru Legacy looks it. I don't use the 4wd much. After all, I don't
want to just be stuck twice as far from home! But, yeah, when the car in
front of you just won't take a run at the hill, or something equally silly,
that 4wd really helps.

I saw that the mileage site did give stats on SUVs, but I'm not interested
in being saddled with some behemoth. Not looking for macho, just safety.

The site Ted referred me to for the Toyota Matrix was interesting. It
reminds me that when I lived in the Yukon Terr 30 years ago, the Toyota Land
Cruiser was a sort of prototype for what the SUVs are now. Kind of a cross
between a passenger vehicle and the International Harvester safari type
vehicles.

The leaves have all pretty much turned here now. Got the firewood supply
in. Winter has its pleasures too.

Tina