"The estimated 250,000 cars flooded by Superstorm Sandy on the East Coast
will drive up used-car prices, even as far away as California. The supply
shortage comes on the heels of an already tightened used-car market in the
wake of the recession, when new car sales dried up. Some experts say prices
could rise $700 to $1,000 on the typical used car in the short term.
Although those effects will be felt most acutely near the flood zone, the
increasingly digital and national market for used cars will spread the price
shocks widely."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...0,244965.story

And watch out for cars that were flooded also on the market.

On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 18:46:19 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

And watch out for cars that were flooded also on the market.


DON"T buy a used car from Larry the Lounge Lizard, dressed in a
Leisure suit.

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 07:03:51 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Same deal with real estate, and houses in the area? Undamaged housing with a
genrator should command good prices.

Christopher A. Young

It will be interesting to see how that shakes out, especially in
Staten Island and New Jersey. Many of the shore homes on the barrier
islands are second homes so the people have a place to live. In a few
places, they are primary homes and the land is gone so no possibility
of rebuilding. Those families will want permanent housing, probably
inland like Kansas.

On Nov 10, 7:49*am, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 07:03:51 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"

wrote:
Same deal with real estate, and houses in the area? Undamaged housing with a
genrator should command good prices.

Christopher A. Young

It will be interesting to see how that shakes out, especially in
Staten Island and New Jersey. *Many of the shore homes on the barrier
islands are second homes so the people have a place to live. *In a few
places, they are primary homes and the land is gone so no possibility
of rebuilding. *Those families will want permanent housing, probably
inland like Kansas.

homes in vulnerable areas shouldnt be rebuilt, and if rebuilt should
never be elegible for flood insurance.

given predictions for higher sea levels its dumb to rebuild when you
know it will happen agan

bob haller wrote in
:

On Nov 10, 7:49*am, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 07:03:51 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"

wrote:
Same deal with real estate, and houses in the area? Undamaged
housing wi
th a
genrator should command good prices.

Christopher A. Young

It will be interesting to see how that shakes out, especially in
Staten Island and New Jersey. *Many of the shore homes on the barrier
islands are second homes so the people have a place to live. *In a
few places, they are primary homes and the land is gone so no
possibility of rebuilding. *Those families will want permanent
housing, probably inland like Kansas.

homes in vulnerable areas shouldnt be rebuilt, and if rebuilt should
never be elegible for flood insurance.

given predictions for higher sea levels its dumb to rebuild when you
know it will happen agan

There will be disposable chicken coops masquerading as summer rentals ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 11/10/2012 6:49 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 07:03:51 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Same deal with real estate, and houses in the area? Undamaged housing with a
genrator should command good prices.

Christopher A. Young

It will be interesting to see how that shakes out, especially in
Staten Island and New Jersey. Many of the shore homes on the barrier
islands are second homes so the people have a place to live. In a few
places, they are primary homes and the land is gone so no possibility
of rebuilding. Those families will want permanent housing, probably
inland like Kansas.


I wonder if The Love Canal housing area will take off? ^_^

TDD

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 14:34:20 -0500, wrote:


Many different data [oints to look at.

Yeah, and lots of apples and oranges. For instance, whether you can
do repairs yourself or not.
And it seems you don't see as many with bad cosmetics for sale.
Like a creased fender or 2 can lower the price a lot but are easy to
replace.
Used cars look a lot better, don't know why. Maybe because I don't go
to lots any more.

In 1969, when I bought my first car, a 10 year old car was junk - and
could be bought for $60 here in Ontario. Bought my 1961 mini for $60
and though I got a good deal. I likely spent another $60 by the time
I had it on the road. At that time a licenced mechanic made, mabee, $4
an hour - and as an apprentice I made $1.35 to start - so that was
60/1.35= 44.4 pre-tax hours of work.


All true. In '68 I bought an old Chevy for my mom when her car broke
down. $25 bucks. The guy told me it was a smoker, but I didn't know
squat. First day she took it to work she got a ticket driving it on
the x-way. Junked it the next day. Man. that was stupid. And it was
hard to get a ticket for that in '68.


Convert that to today's $10.75? minimum wage, and 44.4 hours is about
$477. An apprentice makes more than minimum wage - let's say $14 per
hour - and you are looking at close to $625.

A kid can still buy a fixable junker for $625 - but it is going to be
more than 10 years old.

I generally buy 10 year old cars in half decent condition - and pay
$5000 for them, more or less. In driveable condition.

You will generally pay a sizeable premium for a good small car - the
land yachts go cheaper - but if you don't put on many miles, the lower
cost more than ballances the lifetime fuel cost - and the bigger cars
often cost less to maintain over, say, 200,000 miles.

What I go by mostly is book price, usually Kelly's, private seller,
good condition.. Example is when I bought my '97 Lumina 8 years ago
the book was about $3k for that 8 year old car. Now the equivalent
8 year old replacement would be a 2005 Malibu. Book is about $5k.
Big jump.

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 14:46:58 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 14:34:20 -0500, wrote:


Many different data [oints to look at.

Yeah, and lots of apples and oranges. For instance, whether you can
do repairs yourself or not.
And it seems you don't see as many with bad cosmetics for sale.
Like a creased fender or 2 can lower the price a lot but are easy to
replace.
Used cars look a lot better, don't know why. Maybe because I don't go
to lots any more.

In 1969, when I bought my first car, a 10 year old car was junk - and
could be bought for $60 here in Ontario. Bought my 1961 mini for $60
and though I got a good deal. I likely spent another $60 by the time
I had it on the road. At that time a licenced mechanic made, mabee, $4
an hour - and as an apprentice I made $1.35 to start - so that was
60/1.35= 44.4 pre-tax hours of work.


All true. In '68 I bought an old Chevy for my mom when her car broke
down. $25 bucks. The guy told me it was a smoker, but I didn't know
squat. First day she took it to work she got a ticket driving it on
the x-way. Junked it the next day. Man. that was stupid. And it was
hard to get a ticket for that in '68.


Convert that to today's $10.75? minimum wage, and 44.4 hours is about
$477. An apprentice makes more than minimum wage - let's say $14 per
hour - and you are looking at close to $625.

A kid can still buy a fixable junker for $625 - but it is going to be
more than 10 years old.

I generally buy 10 year old cars in half decent condition - and pay
$5000 for them, more or less. In driveable condition.

You will generally pay a sizeable premium for a good small car - the
land yachts go cheaper - but if you don't put on many miles, the lower
cost more than ballances the lifetime fuel cost - and the bigger cars
often cost less to maintain over, say, 200,000 miles.

What I go by mostly is book price, usually Kelly's, private seller,
good condition.. Example is when I bought my '97 Lumina 8 years ago
the book was about $3k for that 8 year old car. Now the equivalent
8 year old replacement would be a 2005 Malibu. Book is about $5k.
Big jump.
But the lumina was a POS to start with - so it lost value very
quickly. The 2005 Malibu may have held a larger percentage of vale.
You want apples to apples take blue book of a 98 civic in 2005 and
current blue book for a 2005 civic.

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:15:09 -0500, wrote:


But the lumina was a POS to start with - so it lost value very
quickly. The 2005 Malibu may have held a larger percentage of vale.
You want apples to apples take blue book of a 98 civic in 2005 and
current blue book for a 2005 civic.


Uh, nothing wrong with my Lumina. What's wrong with yours?
Part of doing well with used cars is knowing something about them.
So if you got burned, that's your fault.
I'm sure there's plenty or random know-nothings who will say the
Malibu is a POS, so that levels that nonsense noise out.
As I said, the Malibu is the equivalent of the Lumina.
Besides, even the Lumina prices haven't fallen as much as I would
expect for a car that hasn't been produced for a dozen years, and it's
clear to me that used car prices are "unusually" high.
Why would I look at Honda prices when I don't want Honda?
I don't get your logic here. Maybe you can explain.
You're welcome to post your own Honda benchmarks if you care to.

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:05:34 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:15:09 -0500, wrote:


But the lumina was a POS to start with - so it lost value very
quickly. The 2005 Malibu may have held a larger percentage of vale.
You want apples to apples take blue book of a 98 civic in 2005 and
current blue book for a 2005 civic.


Uh, nothing wrong with my Lumina. What's wrong with yours?
Part of doing well with used cars is knowing something about them.
So if you got burned, that's your fault.

I knew enough to stay away - but I know lots of people who had them.
I DID have a TransSport van - of all the used cars I've owned, perhaps
the most dissapointing. I happen to know quite a bit about used cars -
having been a mechanic for several decades.
I'm sure there's plenty or random know-nothings who will say the
Malibu is a POS, so that levels that nonsense noise out.
As I said, the Malibu is the equivalent of the Lumina.
Which year Malibu?
Besides, even the Lumina prices haven't fallen as much as I would
expect for a car that hasn't been produced for a dozen years, and it's
clear to me that used car prices are "unusually" high.

Based on what? Yes, in real dollars they are high - but as a
percentage of the original cost they are more reasonable.
Why would I look at Honda prices when I don't want Honda?
I don't get your logic here. Maybe you can explain.
You're welcome to post your own Honda benchmarks if you care to.

OK. If you are too thisk to get "apples to apples" compare the 5 year
old value of a 1998 impala to the 5 year old value of a 2004 impala,
and a 2008 impala.

Comparing the comparative value of different generations of Malibu's
is not as good, because the different generations are totally
different cars with the same nameplate. The Lumina and the Malibu are
totally different vehicles as well.
As far as loosing value, the 2000 Lumina averages out at $3125. Only
$325 less for the 99, $125 less for the '98, $75 less for a '97, $50
less for a '96, the '95 is the same value as the '96, $50 less for the
earlier generation '94, $125 less for the '93, and $175 less($2125)
for the '92 - which is as far back as KBB goes.

That's the bottom end. $300 difference between bottom and top for the
'92, and no difference between top and bottom condition of a 2012.

Pretty much tells the story - Fully depreciatied at 12 years.
In comparison, a Ford Taurus ranges from $2400 for a 1990, to $5070
for a 2000.

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:56:49 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:05:34 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:15:09 -0500, wrote:


But the lumina was a POS to start with - so it lost value very
quickly. The 2005 Malibu may have held a larger percentage of vale.
You want apples to apples take blue book of a 98 civic in 2005 and
current blue book for a 2005 civic.


Uh, nothing wrong with my Lumina. What's wrong with yours?
Part of doing well with used cars is knowing something about them.
So if you got burned, that's your fault.

I knew enough to stay away - but I know lots of people who had them.
I DID have a TransSport van - of all the used cars I've owned, perhaps
the most dissapointing. I happen to know quite a bit about used cars -
having been a mechanic for several decades.

Wait a minute. You're not making sense. You say you were a mechanic,
and know used cars, but you drove a TransSport and weren't happy with
it. How did that happen?
I haven't bought a used car anywhere close to "disappointing" in 40
years.
Besides, I have no idea what a TranSport has to do with a Lumina. The
TranSport is a mini-van. The Lumina is a sedan..
Maybe you can set up something for me to knock down.
I'll just tell you now I don't respect anything you've got to say to
me about used cars. I've got a better track record.
Reminds me of how you were telling me about the "only right way" to
wire an inverter. Didn't make sense for my application, but that
didn't stop you.
And besides all that, you trashed the '97 Lumina and now admit you
neither owned one or put a wrench to one.
A "real" professional mechanic who actually knows something about cars
says something like,, "expect to change the water pump at 60k miles,"
or "the original 3.8 and 3.1 intake manifold gaskets are known to
fail."
Not you. Just blindly call a car a POS. I know more than you ever
will about the cars I buy and drive, that's for sure. That's natural
because I wrench them myself, and it's something you should get used
to. You won't catch me telling you about your cars that I know
nothing about.
Watch your arrogance. Most folks don't like that.

I'm sure there's plenty or random know-nothings who will say the
Malibu is a POS, so that levels that nonsense noise out.
As I said, the Malibu is the equivalent of the Lumina.
Which year Malibu?
Besides, even the Lumina prices haven't fallen as much as I would
expect for a car that hasn't been produced for a dozen years, and it's
clear to me that used car prices are "unusually" high.

Based on what? Yes, in real dollars they are high - but as a
percentage of the original cost they are more reasonable.
Why would I look at Honda prices when I don't want Honda?
I don't get your logic here. Maybe you can explain.
You're welcome to post your own Honda benchmarks if you care to.

OK. If you are too thisk to get "apples to apples" compare the 5 year
old value of a 1998 impala to the 5 year old value of a 2004 impala,
and a 2008 impala.

Comparing the comparative value of different generations of Malibu's
is not as good, because the different generations are totally
different cars with the same nameplate. The Lumina and the Malibu are
totally different vehicles as well.

No sense complicating this. As models are discontinued you compare
brand and size platforms. Chevy discontinued the "mid-size family
sedan" Celebrity, and replaced it with the Lumina. They discontinued
the Lumina and the replacement is the Malibu. It's the only sensible
way I know of to measure my used car costs, because that's how I roll.
I'll let Civic/Corolla, Accord/Camry folks use their own methods, but
despite keeping the same model names, their platform changes are more
extreme than the Chevy models I mentioned over the same time period.
So I disagree about who is being "thick" here about apples and
oranges.

As far as loosing value, the 2000 Lumina averages out at $3125. Only
$325 less for the 99, $125 less for the '98, $75 less for a '97, $50
less for a '96, the '95 is the same value as the '96, $50 less for the
earlier generation '94, $125 less for the '93, and $175 less($2125)
for the '92 - which is as far back as KBB goes.

That's the bottom end. $300 difference between bottom and top for the
'92, and no difference between top and bottom condition of a 2012.

Pretty much tells the story - Fully depreciatied at 12 years.

Yeah, but I never buy 12 year old fully depreciated cars. My sweet
spot used to be 7-8. It's about to change to 3-6 because of the
changing prices as they relate to age and milage.
I thought I already told you the book on my '97 was about $3k when it
8 years old, not fully depreciated. The 2000 Lumina figure you give
is about the same for a 12 year old car. Get it?
Used car prices are UP.

In comparison, a Ford Taurus ranges from $2400 for a 1990, to $5070
for a 2000.

I'll take your word for that. But it has nothing to do with the
subject at hand.

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 22:34:48 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:



Besides, I have no idea what a TranSport has to do with a Lumina. The
TranSport is a mini-van. The Lumina is a sedan..

Same vehicle, different sheet metal.

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 14:37:13 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 11:16:38 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 00:38:00 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 22:34:48 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:



Besides, I have no idea what a TranSport has to do with a Lumina. The
TranSport is a mini-van. The Lumina is a sedan..

Same vehicle, different sheet metal.

I don't know why you confuse a U-body mini-van with a W-body sedan.
But you do. Nobody mentioned Lumina APV or mini-van.
And "sedan" was specified above.
I suspect you and Clare are the same type of "mechanic."

What do you think those bodies are sitting on? What do you think the
drivetrain and the like are? Stylist go to great lengths to fool
people into thinking car makers offer a big line of cars, not just a
few. Worked for you.

Ever compare a Ford Contour and Jaguar? In the case of older Jags,
ever check the Chevy tranny in them?

WTF? Now you say a Jag is a Chevy. When will it end?
BTW, the sheet metal you mentioned above?
The mini-vans had plastic body panels.
Next you'll be saying an F-150 is the same as a Taurus.
Get real. And quit digging with a teaspoon in competition with
somebody operating a backhoe.
What is you drive, Hyudai?
Stick to what you know.

On 2012-11-11, Vic Smith wrote:

WTF? Now you say a Jag is a Chevy. When will it end?

"In May 1977, it was announced that automatic transmission version of
the twelve-cylinder cars would be fitted with a General Motors
three-speed THM 400 transmission in place of the British built
Borg-Warner units used hitherto."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_XJ

Go **** up a rope, dolt.

nb

--
Definition of objectivism:
"Eff you! I got mine."
http://www.nongmoproject.org/

On 11 Nov 2012 20:46:24 GMT, notbob wrote:

On 2012-11-11, Vic Smith wrote:

WTF? Now you say a Jag is a Chevy. When will it end?

"In May 1977, it was announced that automatic transmission version of
the twelve-cylinder cars would be fitted with a General Motors
three-speed THM 400 transmission in place of the British built
Borg-Warner units used hitherto."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_XJ

Go **** up a rope, dolt.


Wow. Another one saying a Jaguar is really a Chevy - because he reads
in Wiki that Jag used a GM trans. Never expected to such stupid ****.
So it looks like it will never end.
But it's all good. Dopes are always part of the mix.

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 22:34:48 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:56:49 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:05:34 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:15:09 -0500, wrote:


But the lumina was a POS to start with - so it lost value very
quickly. The 2005 Malibu may have held a larger percentage of vale.
You want apples to apples take blue book of a 98 civic in 2005 and
current blue book for a 2005 civic.


Uh, nothing wrong with my Lumina. What's wrong with yours?
Part of doing well with used cars is knowing something about them.
So if you got burned, that's your fault.

I knew enough to stay away - but I know lots of people who had them.
I DID have a TransSport van - of all the used cars I've owned, perhaps
the most dissapointing. I happen to know quite a bit about used cars -
having been a mechanic for several decades.

Wait a minute. You're not making sense. You say you were a mechanic,
and know used cars, but you drove a TransSport and weren't happy with
it. How did that happen?
I haven't bought a used car anywhere close to "disappointing" in 40
years.

It was a high mileage vehicle with a brand new crate engine in it.
Damn thing never did run what I would call well. The 17 foot travel
trailer we towed across north america behind a 3 liter Ford Aerostar
with no issues gave the 3.8 Pontiac fits. Put 3 O2 sensors in it -and
finally kept the CEL from coming on under normal driving - but still
could not tow the trailer. Sold the trailer.
Trip to Lakeland Florida from Ontario Canada the engine threw a code
and went into limp mode several times. Kept saying it was going lean.
Never gave an O2 sensor code. Third O2 sensor solved it. OEM parts.
The wiper motor went. Twice in 100,00km. The heater motor went bad.
The AC sprung leaks 3 times. Go over a bit of yough road surface at
under 1/4 tank and the engine would quit - drawing air because the
tank vibrated, aerating the gasoline. Had to bleed the fuel rail from
the schrader valve to get it going again. - so never let it get below
1/4 tank.

At 196000km on the AC DELCO crate engine it came apart on the highway
and I said good riddance.

That was the 3.8 -Generally known to be a pretty good engine: the 3.1
engines were known to be a lot worse.
Besides, I have no idea what a TranSport has to do with a Lumina. The
TranSport is a mini-van. The Lumina is a sedan..

The TransSport was Pontiac's version of the Chevy Lumina APV - which
was basically a Lumina station wagon. Same power train, and a lot of
other functional parts were also common to the sedan - including the
troublesome wiper motor and heater motor, and A/C parts.

I'll take a Ford or a Chrysler over ANY GM.

I generally buy my cars at 100,00km (60,000 miles) and about 10 years
old - for about $5000 to $6000 and drive them another10 years. Bough
my 2 aerostars a bit newer and paid a lot more for them, but the last
couple of Chryslers and the last 2 Ford cars have been to that
formula. Both Aerostars went over 240,000km. The 88 New Yorker went
over 240,000, and I sold it as a good looking and good running car.
The Mystique was 16 years old with low mileage and a lot of rust when
I scrapped it this summer. Only the second car I've ever owned that
went to scrap when I was finished with it - and it was still running
GREAT.
Maybe you can set up something for me to knock down.
I'll just tell you now I don't respect anything you've got to say to
me about used cars. I've got a better track record.
Reminds me of how you were telling me about the "only right way" to
wire an inverter. Didn't make sense for my application, but that
didn't stop you.
And besides all that, you trashed the '97 Lumina and now admit you
neither owned one or put a wrench to one.

My step-mother had one - and my kid brother still has one.
A "real" professional mechanic who actually knows something about cars
says something like,, "expect to change the water pump at 60k miles,"
or "the original 3.8 and 3.1 intake manifold gaskets are known to
fail."
Not you. Just blindly call a car a POS. I know more than you ever
will about the cars I buy and drive, that's for sure. That's natural
because I wrench them myself, and it's something you should get used
to. You won't catch me telling you about your cars that I know
nothing about.
Watch your arrogance. Most folks don't like that.

You know YOUR Lumina. Yes, they are cheap to buy used, and there are
good ones - but they were NEVER known as a fantastic car. Granted the
'95 and newer (second generation) were a LOT better than the first
generation (90 to 94) disaster-mobiles. Parts fell off all over (the
interior was really crappy) and the ride and handling were awfull,
even by American manufacturer's standards. The 3.1 engine was anemic -
After 1995 the 3.8 had the long-standing intake problems, and the 3.4
was a time-bomb, but they were definitely a much better car

Talking about the interior, the seats were AWFULL.

I'm sure there's plenty or random know-nothings who will say the
Malibu is a POS, so that levels that nonsense noise out.
As I said, the Malibu is the equivalent of the Lumina.
Which year Malibu?
Besides, even the Lumina prices haven't fallen as much as I would
expect for a car that hasn't been produced for a dozen years, and it's
clear to me that used car prices are "unusually" high.

Based on what? Yes, in real dollars they are high - but as a
percentage of the original cost they are more reasonable.
Why would I look at Honda prices when I don't want Honda?
I don't get your logic here. Maybe you can explain.
You're welcome to post your own Honda benchmarks if you care to.

OK. If you are too thisk to get "apples to apples" compare the 5 year
old value of a 1998 impala to the 5 year old value of a 2004 impala,
and a 2008 impala.

Comparing the comparative value of different generations of Malibu's
is not as good, because the different generations are totally
different cars with the same nameplate. The Lumina and the Malibu are
totally different vehicles as well.

No sense complicating this. As models are discontinued you compare
brand and size platforms. Chevy discontinued the "mid-size family
sedan" Celebrity, and replaced it with the Lumina. They discontinued
the Lumina and the replacement is the Malibu. It's the only sensible
way I know of to measure my used car costs, because that's how I roll.
I'll let Civic/Corolla, Accord/Camry folks use their own methods, but
despite keeping the same model names, their platform changes are more
extreme than the Chevy models I mentioned over the same time period.
So I disagree about who is being "thick" here about apples and
oranges.

As far as loosing value, the 2000 Lumina averages out at $3125. Only
$325 less for the 99, $125 less for the '98, $75 less for a '97, $50
less for a '96, the '95 is the same value as the '96, $50 less for the
earlier generation '94, $125 less for the '93, and $175 less($2125)
for the '92 - which is as far back as KBB goes.

That's the bottom end. $300 difference between bottom and top for the
'92, and no difference between top and bottom condition of a 2012.

Pretty much tells the story - Fully depreciatied at 12 years.

Yeah, but I never buy 12 year old fully depreciated cars. My sweet
spot used to be 7-8. It's about to change to 3-6 because of the
changing prices as they relate to age and milage.


I thought I already told you the book on my '97 was about $3k when it
8 years old, not fully depreciated. The 2000 Lumina figure you give
is about the same for a 12 year old car. Get it?
Used car prices are UP.

So are new car prices, up untill the crash.

In comparison, a Ford Taurus ranges from $2400 for a 1990, to $5070
for a 2000.

I'll take your word for that. But it has nothing to do with the
subject at hand.

On 11 Nov 2012 15:56:02 GMT, notbob wrote:

On 2012-11-10, Vic Smith wrote:

All true. In '68 I bought an old Chevy for my mom when her car broke
down. $25 bucks.

I got one of those. A '60 Rambler American w/ new rebuilt engine,
flathead straight six, in '73. One of the best cars I ever owned.
Still ran to beat the band when I sold it 4 yrs later, but the front
end needed a total rebuild and I didn't know spit about front ends,
then. I shoulda learned. Ugly as spit, but great rolling stock.
Sucker would cruise effortlessly at 75 all day long.

And no ball joints - all pins and trunions - NOT a nice front end to
work on. Tough car though!!

I'm one of those weirdos. I see a car as merely a tool, not a
personal statement. I'll buy an ugly heap in a heartbeat. Some of my
faves were the 66' Plym Satellite for $400. Drove it 60 mi day for
four years. A Rusty ol' VW Rabbit diesel, also $400, which I drove 70
mi per day, for 5 yrs, getting 40mpg! Most comfortable car seats ever
invented. Later, a '76 Plym Sat for $600. One of those classic 70s
4-doors they trashed a million of on TV cops shows. This one in
mint condition. A great family car. Five years, 70 mi per day.

You can keep yer $20K-$40K new cars. I can buy a house fer that.

nb
I've owned over 26 cars and 5 motorcycles - only bought ONE new.
From $60 to $15000 for the used ones. Last 6 or so less than $6500

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 11:16:38 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 00:38:00 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 22:34:48 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:



Besides, I have no idea what a TranSport has to do with a Lumina. The
TranSport is a mini-van. The Lumina is a sedan..

Same vehicle, different sheet metal.

Or in the case of the MPV/TransSprt - PLASTIC.

I don't know why you confuse a U-body mini-van with a W-body sedan.
But you do. Nobody mentioned Lumina APV or mini-van.
And "sedan" was specified above.
I suspect you and Clare are the same type of "mechanic."

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 14:07:21 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 14:37:13 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 11:16:38 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 00:38:00 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 22:34:48 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:



Besides, I have no idea what a TranSport has to do with a Lumina. The
TranSport is a mini-van. The Lumina is a sedan..

Same vehicle, different sheet metal.

I don't know why you confuse a U-body mini-van with a W-body sedan.
But you do. Nobody mentioned Lumina APV or mini-van.
And "sedan" was specified above.
I suspect you and Clare are the same type of "mechanic."

What do you think those bodies are sitting on? What do you think the
drivetrain and the like are? Stylist go to great lengths to fool
people into thinking car makers offer a big line of cars, not just a
few. Worked for you.

Ever compare a Ford Contour and Jaguar? In the case of older Jags,
ever check the Chevy tranny in them?

WTF? Now you say a Jag is a Chevy. When will it end?
BTW, the sheet metal you mentioned above?
The mini-vans had plastic body panels.
Next you'll be saying an F-150 is the same as a Taurus.
Get real. And quit digging with a teaspoon in competition with
somebody operating a backhoe.
What is you drive, Hyudai?
Stick to what you know.
Some Jags were Lincolns, some were Contours, and some (pre ford
days) WERE Jags. The "platforms" used today are used by many models
from the same manufacturer - which can cross not only models but
brands.

Same with engines. The "world" 2.4 is used by hyundai, mitsubishi
Chrysler,and Kia. A few yeara ago the V6 used by Peugot, Renault,
Citreon, DeLorean, and Volvo was all the same engine (Douvrin).

The Cadillac Caterra was an Opel - as is the current Malibu and some
of the last saturns. Also known as a Vauxhaul or Holden, depending
where you are.

The malibu Epsilon platform was used on the Opel Vectra and Signum,
the Pontiac G6, the Saturn Aura, etc.

Most of the smaller GMs share DNA with either Suzuki or Daewoo.

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 15:41:04 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On 11 Nov 2012 20:46:24 GMT, notbob wrote:

On 2012-11-11, Vic Smith wrote:

WTF? Now you say a Jag is a Chevy. When will it end?

"In May 1977, it was announced that automatic transmission version of
the twelve-cylinder cars would be fitted with a General Motors
three-speed THM 400 transmission in place of the British built
Borg-Warner units used hitherto."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_XJ

Go **** up a rope, dolt.


Wow. Another one saying a Jaguar is really a Chevy - because he reads
in Wiki that Jag used a GM trans. Never expected to such stupid ****.
So it looks like it will never end.
But it's all good. Dopes are always part of the mix.

Rolls used the Hydramatic too - doesn't make it a Chevy. BUT that does
not negate the fact that many "platforms" are shared between
"manufacturers"

On 11/11/2012 5:32 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 15:41:04 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On 11 Nov 2012 20:46:24 GMT, notbob wrote:

On 2012-11-11, Vic Smith wrote:

WTF? Now you say a Jag is a Chevy. When will it end?

"In May 1977, it was announced that automatic transmission version of
the twelve-cylinder cars would be fitted with a General Motors
three-speed THM 400 transmission in place of the British built
Borg-Warner units used hitherto."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_XJ

Go **** up a rope, dolt.


Wow. Another one saying a Jaguar is really a Chevy - because he reads
in Wiki that Jag used a GM trans. Never expected to such stupid ****.
So it looks like it will never end.
But it's all good. Dopes are always part of the mix.

Rolls used the Hydramatic too - doesn't make it a Chevy. BUT that does
not negate the fact that many "platforms" are shared between
"manufacturers"


Na, now they're VW or BMW or is it the other way around? O_o

TDD

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 17:47:08 -0500, wrote:


It was a high mileage vehicle with a brand new crate engine in it.

IOW, drivability and code-throwing means somebody did a butcher job.
Hope you got it cheap


At 196000km on the AC DELCO crate engine it came apart on the highway
and I said good riddance.


AFAIK, AC/Delco crate engines are remans. I wouldn't trust my dog
with a reman. I had my mech put a GM V-8 crate engine in my son's
car. It was a Goodwrench, all new, 3 year, 100k mile GM warranty.
No problems at all. But he was a good mech. Wasn't cheap either.

That was the 3.8 -Generally known to be a pretty good engine: the 3.1
engines were known to be a lot worse.

Sounds like know-nothing talk. Real specific, like "POS."


Besides, I have no idea what a TranSport has to do with a Lumina. The
TranSport is a mini-van. The Lumina is a sedan..

The TransSport was Pontiac's version of the Chevy Lumina APV - which
was basically a Lumina station wagon. Same power train, and a lot of
other functional parts were also common to the sedan - including the
troublesome wiper motor and heater motor, and A/C parts.


Blah, blah, blah. I know all this. Mostly that you're talking out of
your ass. The APV wiper motor is a different motor than on the sedan.
Jesus, what are those, 36' wiper arms on the TransPort/APV acres of
windshield?
And I looked up the motors to make sure I'm not bull****ting like you.
And the 3.8 A/C compressor isn't the same one on as a 3.1, which by
far is the most common sedan engine. The condenser and evap are
probably different too, but I'm not going to bother to look them up.
A van and a sedan have a lot of system design differences. I've owned
and torn down both. Damn, just look at the engine bays.
And I've wrenched both 3.1 and 3.8, addressing their main issues.
In sedans, not mini-vans.

I'll take a Ford or a Chrysler over ANY GM.


There you go! Why didn't you just say you're a brand fanboi in the
first place? It's okay to be a GM hater here.
Nonsense doesn't fly.

You know YOUR Lumina. Yes, they are cheap to buy used, and there are
good ones - but they were NEVER known as a fantastic car.

It's a ****ing mid-level Chevy. Isn't supposed to be "fantastic."
Even mine is only "great."

Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:56:49 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:05:34 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:15:09 -0500, wrote:


But the lumina was a POS to start with - so it lost value very
quickly. The 2005 Malibu may have held a larger percentage of vale.
You want apples to apples take blue book of a 98 civic in 2005 and
current blue book for a 2005 civic.


Uh, nothing wrong with my Lumina. What's wrong with yours?
Part of doing well with used cars is knowing something about them.
So if you got burned, that's your fault.

I knew enough to stay away - but I know lots of people who had them.
I DID have a TransSport van - of all the used cars I've owned, perhaps
the most dissapointing. I happen to know quite a bit about used cars -
having been a mechanic for several decades.

Wait a minute. You're not making sense. You say you were a mechanic,
and know used cars, but you drove a TransSport and weren't happy with
it. How did that happen?
I haven't bought a used car anywhere close to "disappointing" in 40
years.
Besides, I have no idea what a TranSport has to do with a Lumina. The
TranSport is a mini-van. The Lumina is a sedan..
Maybe you can set up something for me to knock down.
I'll just tell you now I don't respect anything you've got to say to
me about used cars. I've got a better track record.
Reminds me of how you were telling me about the "only right way" to
wire an inverter. Didn't make sense for my application, but that
didn't stop you.
And besides all that, you trashed the '97 Lumina and now admit you
neither owned one or put a wrench to one.
A "real" professional mechanic who actually knows something about cars
says something like,, "expect to change the water pump at 60k miles,"
or "the original 3.8 and 3.1 intake manifold gaskets are known to
fail."
Not you. Just blindly call a car a POS. I know more than you ever
will about the cars I buy and drive, that's for sure. That's natural
because I wrench them myself, and it's something you should get used
to. You won't catch me telling you about your cars that I know
nothing about.
Watch your arrogance. Most folks don't like that.

I'm sure there's plenty or random know-nothings who will say the
Malibu is a POS, so that levels that nonsense noise out.
As I said, the Malibu is the equivalent of the Lumina.
Which year Malibu?
Besides, even the Lumina prices haven't fallen as much as I would
expect for a car that hasn't been produced for a dozen years, and it's
clear to me that used car prices are "unusually" high.

Based on what? Yes, in real dollars they are high - but as a
percentage of the original cost they are more reasonable.
Why would I look at Honda prices when I don't want Honda?
I don't get your logic here. Maybe you can explain.
You're welcome to post your own Honda benchmarks if you care to.

OK. If you are too thisk to get "apples to apples" compare the 5 year
old value of a 1998 impala to the 5 year old value of a 2004 impala,
and a 2008 impala.

Comparing the comparative value of different generations of Malibu's
is not as good, because the different generations are totally
different cars with the same nameplate. The Lumina and the Malibu are
totally different vehicles as well.

No sense complicating this. As models are discontinued you compare
brand and size platforms. Chevy discontinued the "mid-size family
sedan" Celebrity, and replaced it with the Lumina. They discontinued
the Lumina and the replacement is the Malibu. It's the only sensible
way I know of to measure my used car costs, because that's how I roll.
I'll let Civic/Corolla, Accord/Camry folks use their own methods, but
despite keeping the same model names, their platform changes are more
extreme than the Chevy models I mentioned over the same time period.
So I disagree about who is being "thick" here about apples and
oranges.

As far as loosing value, the 2000 Lumina averages out at $3125. Only
$325 less for the 99, $125 less for the '98, $75 less for a '97, $50
less for a '96, the '95 is the same value as the '96, $50 less for the
earlier generation '94, $125 less for the '93, and $175 less($2125)
for the '92 - which is as far back as KBB goes.

That's the bottom end. $300 difference between bottom and top for the
'92, and no difference between top and bottom condition of a 2012.

Pretty much tells the story - Fully depreciatied at 12 years.

Yeah, but I never buy 12 year old fully depreciated cars. My sweet
spot used to be 7-8. It's about to change to 3-6 because of the
changing prices as they relate to age and milage.
I thought I already told you the book on my '97 was about $3k when it
8 years old, not fully depreciated. The 2000 Lumina figure you give
is about the same for a 12 year old car. Get it?
Used car prices are UP.

In comparison, a Ford Taurus ranges from $2400 for a 1990, to $5070
for a 2000.

I'll take your word for that. But it has nothing to do with the
subject at hand.

Fully depreciated at 12 years ? My cavalier just got totaled. They gave me
$4450 which had my deducible already subtracted. Was a 2001 .

Just bought a 1998 olds 88 74k miles at $3k and 1999 outback for $5k 100k
miles, it was very clean, and had timing belt replacement already done.
Should be good for another 70k.

I don't think private sell vehicles will jump price much here. There was
a lot of good buys lately, over last summer. They must be buying new
vehicles, or downsizing.

Greg

gregz wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:56:49 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:05:34 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:15:09 -0500, wrote:


But the lumina was a POS to start with - so it lost value very
quickly. The 2005 Malibu may have held a larger percentage of vale.
You want apples to apples take blue book of a 98 civic in 2005 and
current blue book for a 2005 civic.


Uh, nothing wrong with my Lumina. What's wrong with yours?
Part of doing well with used cars is knowing something about them.
So if you got burned, that's your fault.

I knew enough to stay away - but I know lots of people who had them.
I DID have a TransSport van - of all the used cars I've owned, perhaps
the most dissapointing. I happen to know quite a bit about used cars -
having been a mechanic for several decades.

Wait a minute. You're not making sense. You say you were a mechanic,
and know used cars, but you drove a TransSport and weren't happy with
it. How did that happen?
I haven't bought a used car anywhere close to "disappointing" in 40
years.
Besides, I have no idea what a TranSport has to do with a Lumina. The
TranSport is a mini-van. The Lumina is a sedan..
Maybe you can set up something for me to knock down.
I'll just tell you now I don't respect anything you've got to say to
me about used cars. I've got a better track record.
Reminds me of how you were telling me about the "only right way" to
wire an inverter. Didn't make sense for my application, but that
didn't stop you.
And besides all that, you trashed the '97 Lumina and now admit you
neither owned one or put a wrench to one.
A "real" professional mechanic who actually knows something about cars
says something like,, "expect to change the water pump at 60k miles,"
or "the original 3.8 and 3.1 intake manifold gaskets are known to
fail."
Not you. Just blindly call a car a POS. I know more than you ever
will about the cars I buy and drive, that's for sure. That's natural
because I wrench them myself, and it's something you should get used
to. You won't catch me telling you about your cars that I know
nothing about.
Watch your arrogance. Most folks don't like that.

I'm sure there's plenty or random know-nothings who will say the
Malibu is a POS, so that levels that nonsense noise out.
As I said, the Malibu is the equivalent of the Lumina.
Which year Malibu?
Besides, even the Lumina prices haven't fallen as much as I would
expect for a car that hasn't been produced for a dozen years, and it's
clear to me that used car prices are "unusually" high.

Based on what? Yes, in real dollars they are high - but as a
percentage of the original cost they are more reasonable.
Why would I look at Honda prices when I don't want Honda?
I don't get your logic here. Maybe you can explain.
You're welcome to post your own Honda benchmarks if you care to.

OK. If you are too thisk to get "apples to apples" compare the 5 year
old value of a 1998 impala to the 5 year old value of a 2004 impala,
and a 2008 impala.

Comparing the comparative value of different generations of Malibu's
is not as good, because the different generations are totally
different cars with the same nameplate. The Lumina and the Malibu are
totally different vehicles as well.

No sense complicating this. As models are discontinued you compare
brand and size platforms. Chevy discontinued the "mid-size family
sedan" Celebrity, and replaced it with the Lumina. They discontinued
the Lumina and the replacement is the Malibu. It's the only sensible
way I know of to measure my used car costs, because that's how I roll.
I'll let Civic/Corolla, Accord/Camry folks use their own methods, but
despite keeping the same model names, their platform changes are more
extreme than the Chevy models I mentioned over the same time period.
So I disagree about who is being "thick" here about apples and
oranges.

As far as loosing value, the 2000 Lumina averages out at $3125. Only
$325 less for the 99, $125 less for the '98, $75 less for a '97, $50
less for a '96, the '95 is the same value as the '96, $50 less for the
earlier generation '94, $125 less for the '93, and $175 less($2125)
for the '92 - which is as far back as KBB goes.

That's the bottom end. $300 difference between bottom and top for the
'92, and no difference between top and bottom condition of a 2012.

Pretty much tells the story - Fully depreciatied at 12 years.

Yeah, but I never buy 12 year old fully depreciated cars. My sweet
spot used to be 7-8. It's about to change to 3-6 because of the
changing prices as they relate to age and milage.
I thought I already told you the book on my '97 was about $3k when it
8 years old, not fully depreciated. The 2000 Lumina figure you give
is about the same for a 12 year old car. Get it?
Used car prices are UP.

In comparison, a Ford Taurus ranges from $2400 for a 1990, to $5070
for a 2000.

I'll take your word for that. But it has nothing to do with the
subject at hand.

Fully depreciated at 12 years ? My cavalier just got totaled. They gave me
$4450 which had my deducible already subtracted. Was a 2001 .

Just bought a 1998 olds 88 74k miles at $3k and 1999 outback for $5k 100k
miles, it was very clean, and had timing belt replacement already done.
Should be good for another 70k.

I don't think private sell vehicles will jump price much here. There was
a lot of good buys lately, over last summer. They must be buying new
vehicles, or downsizing.

Greg

Before I bought 1998 olds, was fixing a 1995 olds with the 1.5 obd.
It's not my car, but unfortunately I could not for see all the problems,
including upper and lower head gaskets, brake lines, other stuff spending
$2 k and it's still a POS. Now the power steering leaking and transmission
lines. 177k miles. If it had new shocks, it would ride nice. Learning
experience.

Greg

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:30:15 -0500, wrote:



Same with engines. The "world" 2.4 is used by hyundai, mitsubishi
Chrysler,and Kia. A few yeara ago the V6 used by Peugot, Renault,
Citreon, DeLorean, and Volvo was all the same engine (Douvrin).


I've not tracked down the origins, but I'm sure my 2.0 Turbo is shared
by others too. Mitsubishi, Audi, and a few others have the same size.

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 14:07:21 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:




WTF? Now you say a Jag is a Chevy. When will it end?

No, you are making things up. I said the Jag used Chevy
transmissions. That was before they ware bought by Ford.



What is you drive, Hyudai?
Stick to what you know.

Yes, a 2013 Sonata with the turbo engine. Nice car, and fast too.

You may want to check out the Sonata/Santa Fe and Elantra/Tucson
underpinnings. Pretty much the same idea as the Lumina/TranSport
family

On Nov 11, 8:07*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 14:37:13 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 11:16:38 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 00:38:00 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 22:34:48 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

Besides, I have no idea what a TranSport has to do with a Lumina. *The
TranSport is a mini-van. *The Lumina is a sedan..

Same vehicle, different sheet metal.

I don't know why you confuse a U-body mini-van with a W-body sedan.
But you do. *Nobody mentioned Lumina APV or mini-van.
And "sedan" was specified above.
I suspect you and Clare are the same type of "mechanic."

What do you think those bodies are sitting on? *What do you think the
drivetrain and the like are? *Stylist go to great lengths to fool
people into thinking car makers offer a big line of cars, not just a
few. *Worked for you.

Ever compare a Ford Contour and Jaguar? *In the case of older Jags,
ever check the Chevy tranny in them?

WTF? *Now you say a Jag is a Chevy. *When will it end?
BTW, the sheet metal you mentioned above?
The mini-vans had plastic body panels.
Next you'll be saying an F-150 is the same as a Taurus.
Get real. *And quit digging with a teaspoon in competition with
somebody operating a backhoe.
What is you drive, Hyudai?
Stick to what you know.

Well now. Ford owned Jaguar for a while and a much modified Ford V8
engine was fitted to Jaguars and still is in some models.
The Buick 3500cc engine has been fitted (extensively modified)to
(Land) Rover for decades.
Many parts for cars are "off the shelf" and not specifically made for
any particular car or even make of car.

**** American cars are well known to be just different bodywork fitted
to mechanics years old. This is why the US car industry is in
trouble. Lack of developement. Old technology. And the oil
companies.

Happens when accountants are put in charge of things instead of
engineers/enthusiasts.

On Nov 12, 12:42*am, The Daring Dufas the-daring-du...@stinky-
finger.net wrote:
On 11/11/2012 5:32 PM, wrote:









On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 15:41:04 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On 11 Nov 2012 20:46:24 GMT, notbob wrote:

On 2012-11-11, Vic Smith wrote:

WTF? *Now you say a Jag is a Chevy. *When will it end?

"In May 1977, it was announced that automatic transmission version of
the twelve-cylinder cars would be fitted with a General Motors
three-speed THM 400 transmission in place of the British built
Borg-Warner units used hitherto."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_XJ

Go **** up a rope, dolt.

Wow. *Another one saying a Jaguar is really a Chevy - because he reads
in Wiki that Jag used a GM trans. *Never expected to such stupid ****.

On Nov 12, 2:28*am, gregz wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:56:49 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:05:34 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:15:09 -0500, wrote:

But the lumina was a POS to start with - so it lost value very
quickly. The 2005 Malibu may have held a larger percentage of vale.
You want apples to apples take blue book of a 98 civic in 2005 and
current blue book for a 2005 civic.

Uh, nothing wrong with my Lumina. *What's wrong with yours?
Part of doing well with used cars is knowing something about them.
So if you got burned, that's your fault.

I knew enough to stay away - but I know lots of people who had them.
I DID have a TransSport van - of all the used cars I've owned, perhaps
the most dissapointing. I happen to know quite a bit about used cars -
having been a mechanic for several decades.

Wait a minute. *You're not making sense. *You say you were a mechanic,
and know used cars, but you drove a TransSport and weren't happy with
it. *How did that happen?
I haven't bought a used car anywhere close to "disappointing" in 40
years.
Besides, I have no idea what a TranSport has to do with a Lumina. *The
TranSport is a mini-van. *The Lumina is a sedan..
Maybe you can set up something for me to knock down.
I'll just tell you now I don't respect anything you've got to say to
me about used cars. *I've got a better track record.
Reminds me of how you were telling me about the "only right way" to
wire an inverter. *Didn't make sense for my application, but that
didn't stop you.
And besides all that, you trashed the '97 Lumina and now admit you
neither owned one or put a wrench to one.
A "real" professional mechanic who actually knows something about cars
says something like,, "expect to change the water pump at 60k miles,"
or "the original 3.8 and 3.1 intake manifold gaskets are known to
fail."
Not you. *Just blindly call a car a POS. *I know more than you ever
will about the cars I buy and drive, that's for sure. *That's natural
because I wrench them myself, and it's something you should get used
to. *You won't catch me telling you about your cars that I know
nothing about.
Watch your arrogance. *Most folks don't like that.

I'm sure there's plenty or random know-nothings who will say the
Malibu is a POS, so that levels that nonsense noise out.
As I said, the Malibu is the equivalent of the Lumina.
*Which year Malibu?
Besides, even the Lumina prices haven't fallen as much as I would
expect for a car that hasn't been produced for a dozen years, and it's
clear to me that used car prices are "unusually" high.

Based on what? Yes, in real dollars they are high - but as a
percentage of the original cost they are more reasonable.
Why would I look at Honda prices when I don't want Honda?
I don't get your logic here. *Maybe you can explain.
You're welcome to post your own Honda benchmarks if you care to.

OK. If you are too thisk to get "apples to apples" compare the 5 year
old value of a 1998 impala *to the 5 year old value of a 2004 impala,
and a 2008 impala.

Comparing the comparative value of different generations of Malibu's
is not *as good, because the different generations are totally
different cars with the same nameplate. *The Lumina and the Malibu are
totally different vehicles as well.

No sense complicating this. *As models are discontinued you compare
brand and size *platforms. * Chevy discontinued the "mid-size family
sedan" Celebrity, and replaced it with the Lumina. *They discontinued
the Lumina and the replacement is the Malibu. *It's the only sensible
way I know of to measure my used car costs, because that's how I roll.
I'll let Civic/Corolla, Accord/Camry folks use their own methods, but
despite keeping the same model names, their platform changes are more
extreme than the Chevy models I mentioned over the same time period.
So I disagree about who is being "thick" here about apples and
oranges.

*As far as loosing value, the 2000 Lumina averages out at $3125. Only
$325 less for the 99, $125 less for the '98, $75 less for a '97, *$50
less for a '96, the '95 is the same value as the '96, $50 less for the
earlier generation '94, $125 less for the '93, *and $175 less($2125)
for the '92 - which is as far back as KBB goes.

That's the bottom end. $300 difference between bottom and top *for the
'92, and no difference between top and bottom condition of a 2012.

Pretty much tells the story - Fully depreciatied at 12 years.

Yeah, but I never buy 12 year old fully depreciated cars. *My sweet
spot used to be 7-8. *It's about to change to 3-6 because of the
changing prices as they relate to age and milage.
I thought I already told you the book on my '97 was about $3k when it
8 years old, not fully depreciated. *The 2000 Lumina figure you give
is about the same for a 12 year old car. *Get it?
Used car prices are UP.

In comparison, a Ford Taurus ranges from $2400 for a 1990, to $5070
for a 2000.

I'll take your word for that. *But it has nothing to do with the
subject at hand.

Fully depreciated at 12 years ? My cavalier just got totaled. *They gave me
$4450 which had my deducible already subtracted. Was a 2001 .

Just bought a 1998 olds 88 74k miles at $3k and 1999 outback for $5k 100k
miles, it was very clean, and had timing belt replacement already done.
Should be good for another 70k.

*I don't think private sell vehicles will jump price much here. *There was
a lot of good buys lately, over last summer. They must be buying new
vehicles, or downsizing.

Greg

Or walking.

On 11/12/2012 3:21 AM, harry wrote:
On Nov 12, 12:42 am, The Daring Dufas the-daring-du...@stinky-
finger.net wrote:
On 11/11/2012 5:32 PM, wrote:









On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 15:41:04 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On 11 Nov 2012 20:46:24 GMT, notbob wrote:

On 2012-11-11, Vic Smith wrote:

WTF? Now you say a Jag is a Chevy. When will it end?

"In May 1977, it was announced that automatic transmission version of
the twelve-cylinder cars would be fitted with a General Motors
three-speed THM 400 transmission in place of the British built
Borg-Warner units used hitherto."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_XJ

Go **** up a rope, dolt.

Wow. Another one saying a Jaguar is really a Chevy - because he reads
in Wiki that Jag used a GM trans. Never expected to such stupid ****.
So it looks like it will never end.
But it's all good. Dopes are always part of the mix.

Rolls used the Hydramatic too - doesn't make it a Chevy. BUT that does
not negate the fact that many "platforms" are shared between
"manufacturers"

Na, now they're VW or BMW or is it the other way around? O_o

TDD

Rolls Royce cars was sold off to BMW. I think the gearbox was German
even before that though.


I read something about BMW getting Rolls and VW getting Bentley with all
sorts of machinations going on about BMW supplying V12 engines for
the big cars. O_o

TDD

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 22:32:37 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 14:07:21 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

-snip-
What is you drive, Hyudai?
Stick to what you know.

Yes, a 2013 Sonata with the turbo engine. Nice car, and fast too.

A friend has a 2011 or 12 & I have long though it was a fine looking
car--- Then I saw a 2013-- Gotta give them credit for that one. I'm
a GM guy, but I hear the siren's song. . . . Hope my 2001 Impala is
nice to me for 4-5 more years.

Jim

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:42:26 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 11/11/2012 5:32 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 15:41:04 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On 11 Nov 2012 20:46:24 GMT, notbob wrote:

On 2012-11-11, Vic Smith wrote:

WTF? Now you say a Jag is a Chevy. When will it end?

"In May 1977, it was announced that automatic transmission version of
the twelve-cylinder cars would be fitted with a General Motors
three-speed THM 400 transmission in place of the British built
Borg-Warner units used hitherto."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_XJ

Go **** up a rope, dolt.


Wow. Another one saying a Jaguar is really a Chevy - because he reads
in Wiki that Jag used a GM trans. Never expected to such stupid ****.
So it looks like it will never end.
But it's all good. Dopes are always part of the mix.

Rolls used the Hydramatic too - doesn't make it a Chevy. BUT that does
not negate the fact that many "platforms" are shared between
"manufacturers"


Na, now they're VW or BMW or is it the other way around? O_o

TDD
Interestingly, VW paid millions for Rolls Royce - but did not do
their due dilligence. They got everything except the NAME. They can
NOT build Rolls Royce cars. That's whay they are all Bentleys. No
Rolls Royce cars being built any more - and very possibly never will
be.

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 19:18:47 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:


I'll take a Ford or a Chrysler over ANY GM.


There you go! Why didn't you just say you're a brand fanboi in the
first place? It's okay to be a GM hater here.

Not a fanboi.
I've owned and driven just about all the majors -AMC, Chrysler, Ford,
GM, Toyota, Peugot, VW, Renault, Fiat- and worked on most of the
others - -including Jag, Rolls, Moscovitch, Lada, Nissan/Datsun,
Mitsubishi, etc

Right now, I find the Ford product to be the better vehicle. Years ago
I preferred Chrysler.
I'd rather be driving a Toyota, but the premium you pay for a good
used one is too high. Same for Honda. THEY are overpriced,
particularly on the used market.
For what the GM vehicles are, I think they are overpriced too - but
that's just my opinion.

I know to you that doesn't count - but your opinion and $2 bucks might
buy ME a small coffee
Nonsense doesn't fly.

You know YOUR Lumina. Yes, they are cheap to buy used, and there are
good ones - but they were NEVER known as a fantastic car.

It's a ****ing mid-level Chevy. Isn't supposed to be "fantastic."
Even mine is only "great."


To each his own. The Lumina is a cheap car. Some decent ones from '95
up, but on the whole not considered a "desireable" car - as the price
reflects. GM killed off the name and brought back the Malibu moniker
because the Lumina name had been so badly sullied by the early years
they needed to retire it. You are not likely to see the Lumina name
plate revived - ever.

The Taurus is a mid-level Ford. Ford retired the Taurus name and went
with the "retro" Ford 500 nameplate - and had to bring back the Taurus
name to sell it (and yes, the early (generation 1) Taurus WAS a
pretty lousy car, in comparison).

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 02:28:34 +0000 (UTC), gregz
wrote:

Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 20:56:49 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:05:34 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 16:15:09 -0500, wrote:


But the lumina was a POS to start with - so it lost value very
quickly. The 2005 Malibu may have held a larger percentage of vale.
You want apples to apples take blue book of a 98 civic in 2005 and
current blue book for a 2005 civic.


Uh, nothing wrong with my Lumina. What's wrong with yours?
Part of doing well with used cars is knowing something about them.
So if you got burned, that's your fault.

I knew enough to stay away - but I know lots of people who had them.
I DID have a TransSport van - of all the used cars I've owned, perhaps
the most dissapointing. I happen to know quite a bit about used cars -
having been a mechanic for several decades.

Wait a minute. You're not making sense. You say you were a mechanic,
and know used cars, but you drove a TransSport and weren't happy with
it. How did that happen?
I haven't bought a used car anywhere close to "disappointing" in 40
years.
Besides, I have no idea what a TranSport has to do with a Lumina. The
TranSport is a mini-van. The Lumina is a sedan..
Maybe you can set up something for me to knock down.
I'll just tell you now I don't respect anything you've got to say to
me about used cars. I've got a better track record.
Reminds me of how you were telling me about the "only right way" to
wire an inverter. Didn't make sense for my application, but that
didn't stop you.
And besides all that, you trashed the '97 Lumina and now admit you
neither owned one or put a wrench to one.
A "real" professional mechanic who actually knows something about cars
says something like,, "expect to change the water pump at 60k miles,"
or "the original 3.8 and 3.1 intake manifold gaskets are known to
fail."
Not you. Just blindly call a car a POS. I know more than you ever
will about the cars I buy and drive, that's for sure. That's natural
because I wrench them myself, and it's something you should get used
to. You won't catch me telling you about your cars that I know
nothing about.
Watch your arrogance. Most folks don't like that.

I'm sure there's plenty or random know-nothings who will say the
Malibu is a POS, so that levels that nonsense noise out.
As I said, the Malibu is the equivalent of the Lumina.
Which year Malibu?
Besides, even the Lumina prices haven't fallen as much as I would
expect for a car that hasn't been produced for a dozen years, and it's
clear to me that used car prices are "unusually" high.

Based on what? Yes, in real dollars they are high - but as a
percentage of the original cost they are more reasonable.
Why would I look at Honda prices when I don't want Honda?
I don't get your logic here. Maybe you can explain.
You're welcome to post your own Honda benchmarks if you care to.

OK. If you are too thisk to get "apples to apples" compare the 5 year
old value of a 1998 impala to the 5 year old value of a 2004 impala,
and a 2008 impala.

Comparing the comparative value of different generations of Malibu's
is not as good, because the different generations are totally
different cars with the same nameplate. The Lumina and the Malibu are
totally different vehicles as well.

No sense complicating this. As models are discontinued you compare
brand and size platforms. Chevy discontinued the "mid-size family
sedan" Celebrity, and replaced it with the Lumina. They discontinued
the Lumina and the replacement is the Malibu. It's the only sensible
way I know of to measure my used car costs, because that's how I roll.
I'll let Civic/Corolla, Accord/Camry folks use their own methods, but
despite keeping the same model names, their platform changes are more
extreme than the Chevy models I mentioned over the same time period.
So I disagree about who is being "thick" here about apples and
oranges.

As far as loosing value, the 2000 Lumina averages out at $3125. Only
$325 less for the 99, $125 less for the '98, $75 less for a '97, $50
less for a '96, the '95 is the same value as the '96, $50 less for the
earlier generation '94, $125 less for the '93, and $175 less($2125)
for the '92 - which is as far back as KBB goes.

That's the bottom end. $300 difference between bottom and top for the
'92, and no difference between top and bottom condition of a 2012.

Pretty much tells the story - Fully depreciatied at 12 years.

Yeah, but I never buy 12 year old fully depreciated cars. My sweet
spot used to be 7-8. It's about to change to 3-6 because of the
changing prices as they relate to age and milage.
I thought I already told you the book on my '97 was about $3k when it
8 years old, not fully depreciated. The 2000 Lumina figure you give
is about the same for a 12 year old car. Get it?
Used car prices are UP.

In comparison, a Ford Taurus ranges from $2400 for a 1990, to $5070
for a 2000.

I'll take your word for that. But it has nothing to do with the
subject at hand.

Fully depreciated at 12 years ? My cavalier just got totaled. They gave me
$4450 which had my deducible already subtracted. Was a 2001 .

Just bought a 1998 olds 88 74k miles at $3k and 1999 outback for $5k 100k
miles, it was very clean, and had timing belt replacement already done.
Should be good for another 70k.

I don't think private sell vehicles will jump price much here. There was
a lot of good buys lately, over last summer. They must be buying new
vehicles, or downsizing.

Greg
I'd have to agree - since the "rebound", as slow and mild as it has
been, more people ARE buying new cars - so more used are hitting the
market again - so at least untill the flood, used car prices were
softening a bit. Doesn't hurt that the new cars have been heavily
discounted - and even the MSRP has dropped in many cases.

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 21:56:30 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:30:15 -0500, wrote:



Same with engines. The "world" 2.4 is used by hyundai, mitsubishi
Chrysler,and Kia. A few yeara ago the V6 used by Peugot, Renault,
Citreon, DeLorean, and Volvo was all the same engine (Douvrin).


I've not tracked down the origins, but I'm sure my 2.0 Turbo is shared
by others too. Mitsubishi, Audi, and a few others have the same size.


Just because AMC and GM both had a 327 does NOT mean they were the
same engine. Even Pontiac, Buick, Chevy and Olds used to have their
own totally separate 350 (and 400 I believe) and checy had both BBC
and SBC 400 engines at the same time.

Of course today there is a LOT more cross-polination than there was
back then. The "world engine" DOES come in many different
displacements - shared among the same players. Audi and Mits do not
share. Mits does share with Chrysler, Hyundai/Kia ( and possiblya
couple of others)

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 01:07:13 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Nov 11, 8:07Â*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 14:37:13 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 11:16:38 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 00:38:00 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 22:34:48 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

Besides, I have no idea what a TranSport has to do with a Lumina. Â*The
TranSport is a mini-van. Â*The Lumina is a sedan..

Same vehicle, different sheet metal.

I don't know why you confuse a U-body mini-van with a W-body sedan.
But you do. Â*Nobody mentioned Lumina APV or mini-van.
And "sedan" was specified above.
I suspect you and Clare are the same type of "mechanic."

What do you think those bodies are sitting on? Â*What do you think the
drivetrain and the like are? Â*Stylist go to great lengths to fool
people into thinking car makers offer a big line of cars, not just a
few. Â*Worked for you.

Ever compare a Ford Contour and Jaguar? Â*In the case of older Jags,
ever check the Chevy tranny in them?

WTF? Â*Now you say a Jag is a Chevy. Â*When will it end?
BTW, the sheet metal you mentioned above?
The mini-vans had plastic body panels.
Next you'll be saying an F-150 is the same as a Taurus.
Get real. Â*And quit digging with a teaspoon in competition with
somebody operating a backhoe.
What is you drive, Hyudai?
Stick to what you know.

Well now. Ford owned Jaguar for a while and a much modified Ford V8
engine was fitted to Jaguars and still is in some models.
The Buick 3500cc engine has been fitted (extensively modified)to
(Land) Rover for decades.
Many parts for cars are "off the shelf" and not specifically made for
any particular car or even make of car.

**** American cars are well known to be just different bodywork fitted
to mechanics years old. This is why the US car industry is in
trouble. Lack of developement. Old technology. And the oil
companies.

Happens when accountants are put in charge of things instead of
engineers/enthusiasts.
So what killed the British car industry????

On 2012-11-12, wrote:

Of course today there is a LOT more cross-polination than there was
back then.

There were plenty, even back then. My parent's '64 Saab was powered by a Ford V4.
Perhaps not a factory offering, but Jag XJ's with small block Chevy
engines are a common mod in CA. So much so, you can shop for one.
Ford made Anglia's in UK starting in the late 30s. Opel was a German
subsidary of GM... yada yada....

nb

--
Definition of objectivism:
"Eff you! I got mine."
http://www.nongmoproject.org/

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:20:05 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:42:26 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 11/11/2012 5:32 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 15:41:04 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On 11 Nov 2012 20:46:24 GMT, notbob wrote:

On 2012-11-11, Vic Smith wrote:

WTF? Now you say a Jag is a Chevy. When will it end?

"In May 1977, it was announced that automatic transmission version of
the twelve-cylinder cars would be fitted with a General Motors
three-speed THM 400 transmission in place of the British built
Borg-Warner units used hitherto."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_XJ

Go **** up a rope, dolt.


Wow. Another one saying a Jaguar is really a Chevy - because he reads
in Wiki that Jag used a GM trans. Never expected to such stupid ****.
So it looks like it will never end.
But it's all good. Dopes are always part of the mix.

Rolls used the Hydramatic too - doesn't make it a Chevy. BUT that does
not negate the fact that many "platforms" are shared between
"manufacturers"


Na, now they're VW or BMW or is it the other way around? O_o

TDD
Interestingly, VW paid millions for Rolls Royce - but did not do
their due dilligence. They got everything except the NAME. They can
NOT build Rolls Royce cars. That's whay they are all Bentleys. No
Rolls Royce cars being built any more - and very possibly never will
be.
OK - looks like I got that wrong.

Looks like VW bought the Bentley and Rolls manufacturing rights etc
but not the Rolls name - as I stated - BUT, the Rolls name was
"licenced" to BMW - so BMW can build a car and call it a Rolls, but
they cannot build the old rolls - while VW can build the old Rolls,
but has to sell it as a Bentley.

What a screwed up sale that was.

Rolls was devided into Rolls PLC and Rolls Motors. back in 1973.
Renamed Bentley Motors it was sold to VW in 1998. Bentleys were using
BMW engines at that time - and BMW and VW battled for what was then
still known as Rolls Royce Motors - VW won - but did not get the
Rolls Royce name, and now operates as Bentley Motors. Rolls Royce
PLC licenced the Rolls Royce name to BMW who then formed RollsRoyce
Motor Cars as a wholly owned subsidiary

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 13:23:10 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:36:01 -0500, wrote:

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 19:18:47 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:


I'll take a Ford or a Chrysler over ANY GM.


There you go! Why didn't you just say you're a brand fanboi in the
first place? It's okay to be a GM hater here.

Not a fanboi.
I've owned and driven just about all the majors -AMC, Chrysler, Ford,
GM, Toyota, Peugot, VW, Renault, Fiat- and worked on most of the
others - -including Jag, Rolls, Moscovitch, Lada, Nissan/Datsun,
Mitsubishi, etc

Right now, I find the Ford product to be the better vehicle. Years ago
I preferred Chrysler.

See, that's silly to me. Saying any used car brand is "better"
without talking about year, model, engine, trans, and cost. Then, you
have to add wrenching capability.
I would never recommend a car without knowing all that.
The only exception I make is for women on a tight budget whose car I
won't be maintaining.
I just tell them to get a new Corolla.

I'd rather be driving a Toyota, but the premium you pay for a good
used one is too high. Same for Honda. THEY are overpriced,
particularly on the used market.
For what the GM vehicles are, I think they are overpriced too - but
that's just my opinion.

I know to you that doesn't count - but your opinion and $2 bucks might
buy ME a small coffee
Nonsense doesn't fly.

You know YOUR Lumina. Yes, they are cheap to buy used, and there are
good ones - but they were NEVER known as a fantastic car.

It's a ****ing mid-level Chevy. Isn't supposed to be "fantastic."
Even mine is only "great."


To each his own. The Lumina is a cheap car. Some decent ones from '95
up, but on the whole not considered a "desireable" car - as the price
reflects. GM killed off the name and brought back the Malibu moniker
because the Lumina name had been so badly sullied by the early years
they needed to retire it. You are not likely to see the Lumina name
plate revived - ever.

The Taurus is a mid-level Ford. Ford retired the Taurus name and went
with the "retro" Ford 500 nameplate - and had to bring back the Taurus
name to sell it (and yes, the early (generation 1) Taurus WAS a
pretty lousy car, in comparison).

Again, it's all in your personal perspective, and what's important to
you. If you have it in your head you don't like a car, it will never
satisfy you. Sometimes you have good reason, sometimes it's just in
your head. I like it that a car like the Lumina is "cheap" in your
head. Because of that and millions of other similar heads, I got it
cheap.

Same thing I liked about the 1972 Pontiac Firenza (Vauxhaul HC 2300
Magnum) The old saying was "any F'renza yours aint no friends o'mine"
- I bought the thing dirt cheap - I drove the wheels off it, lent it
to my best man to drive to seminary while his Lotus Cortina was torn
apart, then gave it to my wife, and then passed it on to a friend of
hers - virtually trouble free, and the parts that WERE needed were
dirt cheap - because NOBODY wanted a Firenza. Friend ended up
scrapping it in about 1992 when the steering rack gave trouble and
parts were too hard to find - and it still looked and ran as well as
when I bought it in 1979 for $75.00

One of my brothers is a GM hater, so he bought a used Taurus, couple
years old, old of warranty. Trans failed. He had it fixed.
So he buys another similar Taurus for his wife. Trans failed.
Cost him thousands. Made Luminas cheaper to buy.
It's all good to me, and to my brother. He still buys Fords.
And I'm not knocking Fords. The AXOD "incidents" were "unfortunate."
I just happen to have concentrated on GM as my used car of choice.
Been good to me. I've studied them Next will probably be a used
Malibu with a 2.4. There will be no "surprises" if I can help it.
Remember, you're wealthier than me, if what you spend on cars is an
indication.
So I have a different perspective.

I buy $5000 cars and drive them 10 years, on average - with very
little spent on service and repairs (other than regular oil changes)

Car cost, $500 per year. Service cost, less than $500 per year over
the last 20 years - not counting that Pontiac. Even averaging in that
pontiac it's not much higher -I paid as much , including the engine
and transmission, as I generally pay for a car - and the repairs while
I owned it were not TERRIBLY expensive - just extremely irritating. It
just didn't last as long as average (or expected). And there are
always 2 cars on the go. Mine and my wife's (which my #1 daughter
also drives when she is "in country") Second daughter owns her own
cars - on car #3 - $2000 Colt, then $5000 Neon, then a brand new Honda
Civic. (over 300,000km in 12 year period) - and she only buys and
drives standard. trans cars.

When I bought the TransSport, I was really prepared to like it. After
a Ford Aerostar, who couldn't like a plastic/fiberglass/rustproof
body?? ( the body rust was the only thing I really did NOT like on
either of my 2 Aerostars) It was loaded - leather seats and all - and
it did ride less like a truck than the Aerostar. It also had a lot
less room in it than the long Aerostars. But it never lived up to my
expectations. The fact that the steel UNDER the plastic body still
rusted didn't help either - - - . The Aerostars got tough looking, but
remained solid. The TransSport stayed looking pretty, but I had to
weld the underbody/frame. Dispite it's problems I LIKED the damned
thing. It was just the "worst" vehicle I had ever owned here in North
America. (gave me the most problems - ) I guess I'd been spoiled by
all the (many) other cars I'd owned before.

The 1967 Peugeot and the 1949 VW I owned and drove in Zambia in the
seventies gave more trouble, and were over-all worse cars - but they
were BEAT when I bought them - as was my first car - a 1961 Mini with
$196,000 miles that I bought for $60. There were no expectations to
the contrary with either of those 3. They were all 3 virtually theft
proof.

I replaced the Pontiac with a PT Cruiser. Similar mission. Less power
with the 2.4L 4 cyl. Less space. Not a whole lot better gas mileage.
Virtually trouble free. I liked it too, but I got tired of it, and
since I was using it more as a truck than as a car recently, and we
had just replaced my wife's car, I kept my eyes open for a nice
compact pickup - and bought myself a Ford Ranger - sold the PT to a
neighbour.

On Mon, 12 Nov 2012 07:34:23 -0500, Jim Elbrecht
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 22:32:37 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sun, 11 Nov 2012 14:07:21 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

-snip-
What is you drive, Hyudai?
Stick to what you know.

Yes, a 2013 Sonata with the turbo engine. Nice car, and fast too.

A friend has a 2011 or 12 & I have long though it was a fine looking
car--- Then I saw a 2013-- Gotta give them credit for that one. I'm
a GM guy, but I hear the siren's song. . . . Hope my 2001 Impala is
nice to me for 4-5 more years.

Jim

I drove mostly GM for many years. The last one, 2001 LebSabre, turned
to crap in my driveway. When thing started going bad after two years
(but more than 36k miles) GM was no help. They wanted to give me a few
bucks off a new car.

Heated seat (they wanted $672 to replace it), transmission, power
windows, heat and AC, brake lines, wheel bearings, steering wheel
controls, bunch of other stuff in five years. I finally just gave it
away. No more GM here.

I'm on my third trouble free Hyundai.