"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Don White" wrote in message
news
NOYB wrote:
"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 01:27:34 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:14:20 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

But I can assure you that in their latest
entries to the market, the American auto maufacturer's quality and
engineering is on par with the best of them again.

Let's talk again after 100,000 miles.

I'll be out of it before 40,000 miles. ;-)

see - thats what i don't understand. you dont gain anything by
leasing a vehicle for a stated length of time.



I gain a new car every 3-3 1/2 years. If I bought the car, but
financed it,
I'd barely be even in 3 years. If I paid cash, and traded it, I'd
lose
$25k
in depreciation in that time period.


we ordinarily keep our cars for at least 100k if not more than
that -
i think the grand marquis my wife had before the town car had 140k
on
it when we traded it in.

You're smarter than me. But I've got a soft spot for new cars. Your
way is
of course the smartest way to own a car.

Not necessarily......if you drive exactly the miles that the lease
alllows you every year, it is better to lease, at the end of the lease,
if market value is higher than the buy option, you simply buy it and
sell it, if it is lower, you let the auto company take the loss.


I search for leases with the highest residual value. The car I just
bought had a 59% residual value after 39 months. That's about 20
percentage points too high for what is realistic on that car. But it's
GMAC taking the hit...not me.



I was over to a local Toyota dealer recently and we were talking about
this. The saleslady said they aim for actual market value at the end of
the lease. Their higher payment schedule must reflect a more accurate
cost of the value you receive. Better I guess if you plan on buying the
vehicle at the end of the lease period.
Not sure if leasing is a good option for someone like me who drives 10K -
12K km per year.

Are you kidding!? You're the ideal candidate. Get a low mileage (10,000
mile per year) lease, and you'll save at least $150/month over financing
the same vehicle.

Consider this:
My car has an MSRP of just under $42k.
I paid $1800 to the dealer when I picked it up...plus another $422 for the
first month payment.

That's just under $18,500 in total out of pocket and monthly payments.

If I financed the same car for 66 months, rolled the sales tax into the
payment, and paid out the same $1800 when I picked up the car, my payment
would have been nearly $700/month. $700/mo * 39 months=$27,300. Add the
$1800, and you're at nearly $29k to drive that car for 39 months.


On a 66 month finance deal, with very little money down, you end up owing
after 3 years about the same amount as the car is worth. In other words,
you have zero equity and still owe $20k on a 3 year old car. And you've
paid out almost $10k more in cash over that time period!

The only way purchasing the car makes sense is if you keep it a year or
two past the last payment (ie--7 or 8 years). And hope that nothing
breaks when it's out of warranty.

OR.....like me, drive 20-30k miles a year.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...

If sales go up, profits should as well.

Not necessarily.


Why not? the fixed costs remain the same, so there should be higher
margins even.


There are too many reasons for increased sales, and too many different types
of businesses. Meat sock's blanket statement was silly.

On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 21:41:10 -0800, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...

Mine caught on fire one rainy evening returning from Ft. Leonard Wood to
Kansas City. That was it for me.

Lucas ignition. The English and electricity never seemed to get along.

Here's a sampling of Lucas ignition jokes:

The Lucas motto: "Get home before dark."

Lucas denies having invented darkness. But they still claim "sudden,
unexpected darkness"

Lucas--inventor of the first intermittent wiper.

Lucas--inventor of the self-dimming headlamp.

The three-position Lucas switch--DIM, FLICKER and OFF. The other three
switch settings--SMOKE, SMOULDER and IGNITE.

The original anti-theft devices--Lucas Electric products.

"I've had a Lucas pacemaker for years and have never experienced any
prob...

If Lucas made guns, wars would not start either

Did you hear about the Lucas powered torpedo? It sank.

It's not true that Lucas, in 1947, tried to get Parliament to repeal
Ohm's Law. They withdrew their efforts when they met too much =
resistance.

Did you hear the one about the guy that peeked into a Land Rover and
asked the owner "How can you tell one switch from another at night, =
since they all look the same?" "He replied, it doesn't matter which one
you = use, nothing happens!"

Back in the '70s Lucas decided to diversify its product line and began
manufacturing vacuum cleaners. It was the only product they = offered
which didn't suck.

Quality Assurance phoned and advised the Engineering guy that they had
trouble with his design shorting out. So he made the wires longer.

Why do the English drink warm beer? Lucas made the refrigerators, too.

Alexander Graham Bell invented the Telephone.
Thomas Edison invented the Light Bulb.
Joseph Lucas invented the Short Circuit.

Recommended procedure before taking on a repair of Lucas equipment:
check the position of the stars, kill a chicken and walk three times
sunwise around your car chanting: "Oh mighty Prince of Darkness protect
= your unworthy servant."

Lucas systems actually use AC current; it just has a random frequency.


As the former owner of an MGB-GT, I can state that everyone of those are
true.

Thanks, jps!
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 19:24:57 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Don White" wrote in message
news
NOYB wrote:
"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 01:27:34 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 00:14:20 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

But I can assure you that in their latest
entries to the market, the American auto maufacturer's quality and
engineering is on par with the best of them again.

Let's talk again after 100,000 miles.

I'll be out of it before 40,000 miles. ;-)

see - thats what i don't understand. you dont gain anything by
leasing a vehicle for a stated length of time.



I gain a new car every 3-3 1/2 years. If I bought the car, but
financed it,
I'd barely be even in 3 years. If I paid cash, and traded it, I'd
lose
$25k
in depreciation in that time period.


we ordinarily keep our cars for at least 100k if not more than that -
i think the grand marquis my wife had before the town car had 140k on
it when we traded it in.

You're smarter than me. But I've got a soft spot for new cars. Your
way is
of course the smartest way to own a car.

Not necessarily......if you drive exactly the miles that the lease
alllows you every year, it is better to lease, at the end of the lease,
if market value is higher than the buy option, you simply buy it and
sell it, if it is lower, you let the auto company take the loss.


I search for leases with the highest residual value. The car I just
bought had a 59% residual value after 39 months. That's about 20
percentage points too high for what is realistic on that car. But it's
GMAC taking the hit...not me.



I was over to a local Toyota dealer recently and we were talking about
this. The saleslady said they aim for actual market value at the end of
the lease. Their higher payment schedule must reflect a more accurate cost
of the value you receive. Better I guess if you plan on buying the
vehicle at the end of the lease period.
Not sure if leasing is a good option for someone like me who drives 10K -
12K km per year.

Are you kidding!? You're the ideal candidate. Get a low mileage (10,000
mile per year) lease, and you'll save at least $150/month over financing the
same vehicle.

Consider this:
My car has an MSRP of just under $42k.
I paid $1800 to the dealer when I picked it up...plus another $422 for the
first month payment.

That's just under $18,500 in total out of pocket and monthly payments.

If I financed the same car for 66 months, rolled the sales tax into the
payment, and paid out the same $1800 when I picked up the car, my payment
would have been nearly $700/month. $700/mo * 39 months=$27,300. Add the
$1800, and you're at nearly $29k to drive that car for 39 months.


On a 66 month finance deal, with very little money down, you end up owing
after 3 years about the same amount as the car is worth. In other words,
you have zero equity and still owe $20k on a 3 year old car. And you've
paid out almost $10k more in cash over that time period!

The only way purchasing the car makes sense is if you keep it a year or two
past the last payment (ie--7 or 8 years). And hope that nothing breaks when
it's out of warranty.


Which is why I keep cars and trucks for ten years or more. My Mustang will
go to a grandkid.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

Mike Hunter wrote:
You might want to do some research on gasket problems.

Don't need to, I realize that, the Ford 3.8 front drive is a prime
example... BUT

The gaskets are not responsible for the action of the DexCool gunking up
& "beaching" in low-flow areas, & erosion of cast iron head surfaces
that were just fine with glycol, or even plain water!


GM like ever other
manufacture had gasket problem. The result of the government mandate to
gasket manufactures to remove asbestos without giving the gasket
manufactures time to develop an alternative material. GM, Toyota, Chrysler,
Honda and every other manufacture were not at fault, they and their customer
were victims of a poorly planed government madate.

But asbestos was not a factor in the design of lower intake gaskets -
practically EVERY ONE with DexCool on GM V-6s & most V-8s is going to
fail to some extent - go out & look at yours. If it's under warranty -
go get it done - there are updated gaskets coming out now for more
recent vehicles - Rendezvous, etc...

Rob

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...


We have a cure for the energy problem. NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS! But the
enviro's got the building of same, outlawed.

No knee-jerk reactions, OK? Forget Yucca Mountain.

As it stands now, we are unable to control nuclear waste. I did not say
"dispose of". I said "CONTROL", meaning assure that is secured against
misuse. When we can do that, then MAYBE we can build nuclear power
plants the was Starbucks builds coffee shops.


Why worry about the control of the waste?

Step 1) Grab a Kleenex and wipe the drool off your chin.

Step 2) On the way home, buy the February issue of Scientific American.

Step 3) Read the article on managing unsecured nuclear materials.



Read the rest of the post you snipped!

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 23:03:55 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 22:02:32 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

A much stronger car of the 1960s...a TR4A-IRS. I had one of those,
too.
Great car. Not nearly as pretty as the MGA, but...it ran and ran and
ran.
Always wanted a red 'Healy 3000 from that era.

Indeed. An aluminum bodied 100-6. Love 'em.
pansies...

Not if you stuff a chevy in there. Was funny how years ago, people would
claim the AH 1000's would be turds in the handling area, when they had a
chevy small block replace that huge hunk of cast iron from England. Was
that they were not used to power. The small block engine was about 200#
less in weight.



Anathema. I've got an older English sports car with a straight six in it,
and it would lose tens of thousands in value if I replaced that engine
with a Chevy engine.

My old car is older than my wife. They've both still got their curves,
though.


But years ago, we swapped engines. The cars were not classics then. I
turned down buying a Ferrari GTO for $5500 in about 1967 as I figured I
could not afford the ZF replacement transmissions, etc. Was racing a 1964
Corvette in those days. Highest a GTO sold for was $16,500,000. Would have
been a good car to buy and store.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Fred Dehl" wrote in message
...

If sales go up, profits should as well.

Not necessarily.


Why not? the fixed costs remain the same, so there should be higher
margins even.


There are too many reasons for increased sales, and too many different
types of businesses. Meat sock's blanket statement was silly.


But with good management, the profits should go up.

The answer to all three is 'not even close' so therefor it's hardly equal,
is it?


NOYB wrote:
The actual answer was "yes" to 2 of the 3 questions.

It may be "yes" to all of the questions, but I haven't the time to lookup
what their budget was.

You're kidding right?

Here's the problem for you- reality. Name one lie and/or
slander published by moveon.org.

DSK

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...


We have a cure for the energy problem. NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS! But the
enviro's got the building of same, outlawed.

No knee-jerk reactions, OK? Forget Yucca Mountain.

As it stands now, we are unable to control nuclear waste. I did not say
"dispose of". I said "CONTROL", meaning assure that is secured against
misuse. When we can do that, then MAYBE we can build nuclear power
plants the was Starbucks builds coffee shops.


Why worry about the control of the waste?

Step 1) Grab a Kleenex and wipe the drool off your chin.

Step 2) On the way home, buy the February issue of Scientific American.

Step 3) Read the article on managing unsecured nuclear materials.



Read the rest of the post you snipped!


I read it, and then snipped it to make the next message less cluttered. The
things you said are only distantly related to the worst threats regarding
nuclear materials. Go back to step 2 and buy the magazine. You'll probably
be interested and surprised, as I was. I'd post the text, but I don't
subscribe to the digital version, which is $39.