thanks; they seem to be popular rental cars. In a "I wouldn't want to own one, but it's nice to visit" kind of way

I dated a guy that had a bra on his car. Huge pain in the ass to remove to lift the hood - and the bra itself caused paint wear in the spots where it rubbed.

Turns out he was actually gay too.



The Mazda and Kia wagons look like minivans to me, without the sliding doors, which is the best feature of minivans to begin with.

the Mazda 5 has the sliding doors though I think. I didn't think about the lifting the hood thing.

Went to the Toyota/Scion place today. Took a look at the Scion Xb. I was disappointed--I didn't like it as much as I thought I would. The dash is laid out weird, and the driving position seems uncomfortable. I also looked at the Toyota Rav4, which is, and has been a pretty nice car.

can you put "too much down" on a car? One of the articles I read listed this as a car buying mistake. How could that be a bad move?

perhaps I'm misinterpreting what this means?

If you are getting zero percent financing, I would put as little down as possible. But if you pay any interest at all, money you put down is reducing what you will pay in interest over the lifetime of the loan. The higher the interest rate, the more you would probably want to put down because you would be saving more.

well, that's what I thought. And I won't be getting any 0% financing, either. They say only 20% of buyers qualify for that kind of deal.

also, most lenders will only lend a certain amount versus the actual value of a car. Capital One, for example won't go over 120% of the invoice or NADA trade value including everything. tax tags, warranties, gap, everything.

Putting minimal cash down limits the dealer's ability to really crack you over the head.

conversely, they set rates based on equity position.....so you could get rates as low as 2.69% for 48 on < 70% LTV (loan to value) ratio deals. There are a lot of factors that go into whether or not putting big money down makes sense.....not the least of which is the availability of said cash....

okay, I'm not sure I understood all that. I'm hoping to put at least 50% down. You see any problem with that?

not as long as you negotiate price separately from payment, and get a payment calculator app for your iphone to check the payments the salesman is giving you. It is a common practice to put 'air' in a payment to make the bump in finance easier. negotiate only price and rate/term. figure the payments out yourself. dinkytown.net is a good resource. get a good warranty, and negotiate that too.

Already got the loan calculator app! getting all my ducks in a row. Told you it was going to take me some time, though.

Cloud, just buy the car from lumberjim - then you won't have to worry about the details.

long ride home....

road trip! (laf!)

Buy it from Jim and I will drive it over for the gas. It'll be about $250. Jim's dealership will pay the one-way ticket back from ABQ, which will be similar, so it's even-steven.

not ready, though, guys! I want to save a bit more money and see if I can improve my credit score first. And I need to figure out how to fix and sell my present car.

You know . . . I'm the kind of person who, if I need a white blouse, will go to the mall, go to the most likely store and find a nice white blouse, then--will have to look at every other store in the mall that could contain a white blouse just in case.

Very annoying. But then, sometimes, when I'm ready, I'm ready!

I'm the same way, Cloud, especially with expensive items (i.e. anything more than about $20).

Here's an article I thought interesting on fuel economy myths, and a site where you can compare the official numbers:

Top 10 misconceptions about fuel economy

fueleconomy.gov

Check out http://www.fordcustomgraphics.com/cars.php Ford has a new program in which they'll install vinyl graphics on certain cars. You can play around with the colors and graphics, which is pretty fun. I'd probably have to get a Fiesta, which makes me cringe, since I had an old Fiesta which was a piece of crap. The new ones look a bit better tho.

Over the weekend I went to a couple more car places.

Went to another Chevy place to drool over the HHRs.

Went to the Honda place--the fit is still OK, 'tho the salesman said the front passenger seat doesn't fold flat anymore, which I'm not sure is true. Still liked the Element.

Went to the Nissan place. Kinda liked the Cube, tho it's not on the CR recommended list and they only had one '09 one. Loved the Murano--very nice car, but prolly too expensive; and the Rogue might be a possibility.

Sill on my list: Mazda, Hyundai, and possibly VW

only buy a VW if the VIN begins with a W.

srsly

for West Germany?

I wonder if I will ever be able to use that information.

I never knew! It's so cool to know. I'm in the know now.

I'm rambling...I'm tired.

very interesting! tire codes are also quite useful to know

TIRES:

P255 75 R 15

P= PASSENGER CAR
255= MILLIMETERS WIDE
75 = SIDE WALL HEIGHT, % OF WIDTH (191.25MM IN THIS CASE)
R= SPEED/WEIGHT RATING
15= INNER DIAMETER

wait, I thought there was part of the tire code that showed the year manufactured? No time to look for it now tho

okay, found the info on the year made on CR (at the end of this stuff). I remembered this from last time I bought tires.

I think I heard that they stop doing that thing with the year.

hmm. the information still seems current on the NHTSA and safercar.gov sites.

maybe they stopped putting the plain date, and switched to a code..... It was something

sorry, further investigation reveals that i was talking out my ass.

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tirete...jsp?techid=172

it's a federal requirement apparently.

I bet the tire manufacturers wanted it taken off. too bad, so sad!

How do you compare/evaluate engines? I get 4/6/8 cylinders; but what about capacity in liters? Is an engine with a bigger capacity always more powerful? And there seems to be lots of other fancy terms I don't understand. I feel like I'm comparing apples to oranges.

I don't want a car with a wimpy little engine. I'd rather get one with a medium powered engine that will get me up my hill and not fade on me as time goes on.

Better to compare what the engine does than how big it is.

What is the horsepower? What is the torque? How fast does it accelerate? What is the MPG? Those numbers will tell you how powerful and efficient the engine is.

There are all sorts of tricks to get power out of an engine, and engine size is only one of them. An important one, but not the only one.

Better still is to drive the damn thing and see if it's good enough for you.

Thanks, glatt, I will look at those numbers. But I don't understand exactly what torque is. "Torque" to me means twisted--but what does it mean for an engine?

Of course I will be eventually driving the cars I'm interested in, and I understand that is a good way to evaluate the engines in a practical way (as long as it's a proper test drive and not around the block),

Torque is what produces the seat of the pants feeling of acceleration. Horsepower measurements are taken at the maximum the engine will produce and usually it's produced at higher engine RPM than you will ever see in normal driving, which makes it kind of a useless measurement for anything but racing and bragging rights. Torque is what you feel.

Trading an '07 HHR LT with 38k on it for $8500 right now.

ooh! (makes frustrated face)

oops! they had to bump it up to $9000... made a mistake on the rebate amount. d'oh!

[joepescivoice]They fuck you on the trade-in![/joepescivoice]

Only buy a VW if the engine is in the back, a 4 banger, and aircooled. The rest of them suck.

I don't think my car aesthetic filter is the same as everyone else's. I like the Element, the HHR, I don' t mind the Rogue and Murano's "smile," and I think the Nissan Juke is really cool looking! It comes out in the fall and looks like a really neat car.

http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&s...=&oq=&gs_rfai=

but then, why be like everyone else?

I agree Cloud.
And I also like the looks of the Juke, and cool that theyre offering a diesel.

By all means, please yourself. :thumb:

do you thinking buying a new model in its first year is a good idea, though?

I guess it really depends on how much you trust who's doing it, and how much of the car is actually new. If they are hanging new sheet metal on a proven design, if would probably be a safer bet than an entirely new design. Of course entirely new designs are rarer than hen's teeth.

I think you should wait until she's at least 18.

You should have read (here) the expression "Horsepower per liter". That is the very first number to obtain. It tends to say how long the car will last, how durable the interior, how long the tires will last, and how few times it must go into the shop.

To do same as a four cylinder Toyota, GM had to build six cylinder cars. GM would not let engineers design. Therefore Hp/liter identified GM cars as the world's worst even 30 years ago.

A minimum standard for fuel injection is 70 Hp/liter. Any car that does less than that means he should pay you to take the car. Go to Consumer Report to do that arithmetic. Many automakers that made crap would not put both numbers on the sales sticker. They fear you might do the arithmetic - might be informed. The first indicator that a car may be crap - the sticker does not have both Horsepower and Liters.

SUVs typically have the crappiest engines. Do the HP/liter number to appreciate why V-8s still exist. SUV is the excuse to put low technology (1968 designed) engines in a vehicle and hype it as 'cool'. Hp/liter quickly identifies shittiest products.

Minimum for fuel injection is 70. Minimum for turbo charged is 85. Minimum for super charged is 100. GM - the world's most anti-American cars - once sold supercharged engines that were only 65 Hp/liter. Why? They are selling to people who only do what propaganda tells them to believe. Who also knew Saddam had WMDs. It's supercharged. Therefore it must be high performance? No. It is 65 Hp/liter. Therefore the Toyota Tercel even has higher performance.

Honda's S2000 is a performance champion with only a 2 Liter 4 cylinder engine. Its 120 Horsepower per liter engine means those 2 liters do more than a 5 liter V-8 Mustang. But then Mustangs and Camaros often got crappy low performance engines. They were being marketed to people who could even knew Saddam had WMDs. Who are most easily brainwashed.

Another indicator is noise. Patriotic, reliable, longer lasting, high tech cars make less noise. More noise from the engine means it is crap, has less horsepower, consumes more fuel, etc. How can you tell a Lexus is highest performance? It sneaks up behind you and you do not hear it. Lexus is so quiet due to its Hp/liter numbers - typically 83 for fuel injection.

Again, if a vehicle has a V-8, it is the automaker dumping on you the world's crappiest car. What GM did with V-8s, Toyota did same horsepower with V-6s.

Alan Mullay made an interesting comment last month in a meeting. Ford will have four cylinder options for every vehicle. Why? Today's four cylinder engines do what a 1975 big block V-8 did. To have same horsepower (and therefore have a faster car), today buy a four cylinder, 70+ Hp/liter engine. Mullay's statement says that in only ten years (because Ford engineers have only been designing again for 10 years), Ford will probably have replaced every anti-American crap engine with a 70 horsepower per liter version.

GM might have started that program now that Obama saved GM by firing Wagoner. Marchionne would be trying to do same in Chrysler. Now that the world has had that technology (developed in GM in 1975) for so long. 70 Hp/liter engines became the standard from only patriotic automakers starting about 1992.

Did you eyes glaze over with the numbers yet. Then you need to stop and read this again from the top. Every number (even 1992) is useful information for a 2010 car purchase.

Few cars need a V-6. No cars or light trucks need a V-8. Those engines exist so that they can sell a 1968 crap at 2010 prices. So that the most ignorant car buyers can spend more for crappier products and have higher profit margins. For all but vehicles designed to do towing, a minimally standard 4 cylinder engine is more than sufficient.

BTW, what is being discussed for the next generation Indy style racers for post 2012? Six cylinders. So that cars can have the same or more horsepower, be better designed, and do what has always been the mantra for any American patriot. Do more with less.

Gasoline mileage. Which cars will obtain and exceed EPA highway mileage numbers? Those with a high Hp/liter number. GM cars rarely obtained those mileage numbers because their products were doing only high 40's (Tahoe, Suburban, Silverado, Hummer), 52 (older sedans), and various levels of 60s (numbers when Rick Wagoner ruled). When GM was only doing 52 horsepower per liter in all cars, all Honda's and Toyotas were already doing 70.

The deceived have been brainwashed with nonsense such as torque. How to get a car with a higher torque? Downshift. Or change transmission gears so that first gear is even lower. Torque is bullshit used to promote V-8 engines to fools. GM needed you to believe that myth so that you will continue to buy the world's crappiest (1968 technology) engines. So that GM would not spend money on engineering. Torque is nonsense. Your first number in any auto purchase is 'Horsepower per liter'.

Cars that have more than 4 cylinders are often using crap technology. Or have more horsepower than a 1975 biggest block V-8 car. Nobody needs a car with that much horsepower.

The 4 cylinder engines of today match the hp of the V-8s of 1975, because they are controlled by a shitload of computers that all have to work together, as Cloud has already discovered.

They are simpler. Have less parts. Are machined to tenth of a thousandths of inch. Do not use crappy carburetors. Replaced mechanical advance and retard with electronics. Etc.

Cloud's problem were traceable to one not using his brain. A simple system - only one computer, wire and connectors, and a valve. Only three items. A perfectly good computer was replaced four times. Never once replaced the part that was probably sticking - the valve. Did so because failures are mostly traceable to human failure. A mechanic did shotgunning rather than use his brain.

Fixing cars today is so much easier than it was in the 1960s. Back then we would just keep replacing parts until something worked. Today, that computer error code quickly identified failure only traceable to one of three parts. And still that mechanic could not bother to replace a most likely suspect.

Friends kept having a glowing check engine light on a Honda. The mechanic said to ignore it - that was normal. Therefore he was lying. Eventually, they got stuck - had to be towed. Squirrels had eaten through fuel injection wires. Were using the engine as a warm sleeping area. The mechanic could not even bother to see messed up wires all over the top of the engine? Even the computer told him where a problem was. And he still could not see it. Humans are often the most common reason for failures.

Yeah, I had a friend trade in a year old Ford pickup because squirrels did $2,000 damage to the wiring harness. That didn't happen on 1975 pickups.

When the mechanic opened the hood on the 1957 Lincoln, all that remained was an orange cat tail. Repairs were expensive.

Yeah, I agree with Bruce on this, it's not completely black/white.
My Commander (XK) is a first year model, and I've definitely had more issues with it than my previous 2 Jeeps (WK and XJ) that it was designed from. BUT it is also more awesome than both those Jeeps in several ways. And later model year XKs were cheapened up a bit.

My biggest issue is the lack of a good Chrysler dealership service dept. around here.

I vote yea for new year's models in Nissan. The ex bought the first year of a new design of Altimas in 1994, and the car had a perfect repair record in almost every way* for a decade. The Cellar car is the first year of a fresh design for Maximas, and it is still an awesome vehicle at 175K miles.

* The interior heating/cooling fan developed a tiny noise. That is literally all that ever went wrong.

I'll take a Juke for a demo when they come out, cloud. I'll let you know how i like it.

Okay, there's some good and useful stuff to go through here. TW, I "heart" your taking the time to respond so thoroughly, but I'm just going to ignore the political comments, 'kay?

My check engine light is still on, btw. :(

thanks. May be too small for me, but that's coming trend, isn't it?

I can't speak for you, but being too small for me is definitely the trend.:blush:

I looked at the Nissan Juke, and all I have to say is YUK!!!

Well, you're not alone. The automotive press is very unkind to anything strange and unusual.

"But I, myself, am strange and unusual."