5th Mar 2009, 16:50

"I'm a mechanic and car enthusiast, and my wife and I have almost always owned anywhere from 3 to 5 cars at any given time, so 35 cars in 35 years DOES NOT add up to one per year for us."

Well... mathematically it does :) It just means that, if you owned an average of 4 at a time, you owned each one for an AVERAGE of 4 yrs. Before trading it in. It still works out to 1 per year or 1 every other year if you count your wife separately.

The problem in the math comes in if you also claim that these vehicles were sold with over 100,000 miles on them (I've read other posts where you've also said that you put on well over that many before trading them in... you were responding to those who said that your vehicles were reliable because you didn't put on enough miles). The reason this is significant is that 35 in 35 years would REQUIRE you to drive 100,000+ miles a year. That's... Ahem... pretty darn impressive if you were also doing work. Your wife must be a serious driver 24/7.

Worse yet, the high mileage examples you cite mean that you would have had to have driven the remaining vehicles far less to make up for the afore-mentioned's long life, or... you drove even more than 100,000 miles per year. In fact, if you put 100,000 on the 35, your total mileage was 3.5 million miles plus the extra 500,000 miles you say you got out of your high mileage examples. 4 million miles? In 35 years? That works out to over 114,000 miles a year! And I thought we put on a lot of miles!!

I'm sure that you bought some of them used which helps, but you've also said before that you've been buying new because you're able to afford them now. You still had to have done some #$%^ serious driving (my best estimate is somewhere north of 75,000 miles AVERAGE a year). So either you bought only high mileage vehicles and drove them relatively few miles before trade-in (which is inconsistent with your stories) or you've actually been driving far more than most people consider likely. The average between the two mentioned scenarios is 94,500 miles per year. How did you do it?

"I've made this point on this forum so many times that you'd think at some point people just MIGHT catch on, but, NO, so I guess I'll explain again, for about the 700th time."

I wasn't the one who made the comment you were referring to, but I've been treated to the same reply in the past. Do you think that everyone just KNOWS who you are? Do you think that those who post are all regulars to this forum? How can anyone know for sure who you are? I recognize your story now because you must post more than anyone else. But a newbie won't. If you don't include part of your distinguishing story or prose, I won't either. So if you plan to continue to be the most prolific writer on these forums, you'll have to expect that there will be many more who don't recognize you and don't know your story...

5th Mar 2009, 20:08

If the U.S. auto industry doesn't survive, neither will the country as a whole. One of every 14 jobs in the U.S. is related directly or indirectly to the U.S. auto industry. A great example is parts provider Delphi, which was just bailed out by GM with part of ITS bail out money. Many false ideas are costing the U.S. dearly every day, and driving the entire country to the brink of bankruptcy. One of those ideas (promoted by import dealers) is that if a vehicle is built in the U.S., it is the same as buying a domestic. NOT TRUE. Only 9% of auto related jobs in the U.S. are tied to imports. That leaves 91% that ARE NOT. Also, only 1% of auto related jobs are supported by foreign auto makers. That means that 99% of indirectly related jobs are NOT supported in ANY WAY by any foreign auto company. That's 99 to 1 in favor of helping OUR OWN country by buying domestic products.

As for 50% taxes, I got a kick out of that. Studies have shown that the country with the HAPPIEST people is Norway. Its tax rate? 55%. Norway provides ALL its citizens (not just the wealthy) cradle-to-grave health care and free education for every child THROUGH COLLEGE. I'd gladly pay 50% of my income to be free of the stress of knowing I might be left to die outside an emergency room for lack of insurance, and with our outrageous college costs you'd come out better at a 50% tax rate. People want a free ride. They want roads, police, fire protection, etc., but don't want to pay for it.

If you REALLY want to see high taxes, just wait until the U.S. auto industry folds and 1 out of every 14 workers in the country are put out of work. With the resultant double-digit increase in our already high unemployment, just where are the necessary taxes coming from? Those of us who will (hopefully) still be working will have our taxes tripled to make up the losses. There won't be any other alternatives.

5th Mar 2009, 23:35

I too am baffled by the American consumer wanting to buy SUVs. They are a waste of natural resources and dangerous to other vehicles. But I can't bring myself to say they are a "rip off." The fact is people buy them because they want them. The auto companies offer much more sensible choices at lower cost. I feel like the auto companies are living up to that as an obligation, if indeed it is an obligation. And also, it is no secret what the SUVs are and what the mark up costs are.

I am equally baffled at what a nice sensible sized car the Toyota Camry was 15 years ago, versus the oversized pig it has become now. But it is the same with all the "family cars" both foreign and domestic. The last car I bought, I really wanted something 500 pounds lighter and 2 inches narrower and 10 inches shorter than what I ended up with. But all the smaller cars from every manufacturer, except the unreliable Europeans, don't have the nicer features.

Back when the Ford Explorer came out, my brother really wanted one. But deep down he knew that really it was a Ford Ranger pickup with a fancy cab on the back. So he bought the Ford Ranger.

It doesn't really make sense to criticize Ford, GM or Chrysler for making vehicles that people want to buy. That is their business after all and there is still no law against making a profit.

All I can really bring myself to think is, God bless all you people who spent $15,000 more than necessary just so you could pay the health care benefits and retiree pensions for union workers. The only thing I can really think of as unfair is all the regular workers in other industries that worked just as hard and have not enjoyed the same plush benefits that UAW workers have had.

The recent collapse of the car market has practically nothing to do with the auto makers themselves. It has to do with near criminal behavior by financial companies, politicians, bad government policies and common people getting sucked into land speculation. The billions the car companies have been tinkering with are small potatoes compared to the trillions in corruption and waste that was going on while in the financial markets when no one seemed to notice, not even our vaunted "free press."

I am interested in what you have to say about the "rip off" by the auto companies. I agree with some of what you say and the exchange is thought provoking.