Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org

Pszemol wrote:
> "jim beam" > wrote in message
> t...
>>> I know :-) You were talknig about one year old... :-)))
>>> But we were talking here in this thread about the sense in
>>> making mpg comparisons when buying almost 20 years old junker
>>> (93 civic).
>>
>> 1. 2008 - 1993 = 15. see my earlier comment about your math.
>
> 15 years old junker or 20 years old junker - what is really the difference?

the "difference" is that you don't know what you're talking about.


>
>> 2. you don't seem to understand that modern cars are much heavier than
>> the older ones, and thus, because the extra weight takes more energy
>> to move around, many modern cars lose their fuel efficiency advantage
>> compared to older ones. or at least, older hondas. a literally 20
>> year old crx hf can out-perform the current civic hybrid by some
>> margin in fuel economy ratings.
>
> I was never comparing her 93 to todays 2008 models but I was comparing her
> 93 now with 185k miles to *the same car* when young, with 10k miles in
> 1993.
> Do you really think her 93 with 185k burns less fuel than when it had
> 10k miles
> on the odometer? I certainly doubt it.

yes i do - at 10k, the motor is still tight and thus wastes more energy
on friction.

"jim beam" > wrote in message t...
> spot data is not average data. spot data is used to compile average data.

You should use data of the same kind when compiling average.
If you mix city mileage and highway mileage you will not get
either calculation improved by using average. You will get pretty
useless mixture/average of mileage changing in time with
no chanse of spoting the cause for increase/decrease.

> eh? you don't seem to have a very good grasp of math principles. but
> the education system today is not very effective so it's probably not
> your fault.

Are you trying to compensate some of your own education problems
with childish coments like this one?

"jim beam" > wrote in message t...
>> I was never comparing her 93 to todays 2008 models but I was comparing her
>> 93 now with 185k miles to *the same car* when young, with 10k miles in
>> 1993.
>> Do you really think her 93 with 185k burns less fuel than when it had
>> 10k miles
>> on the odometer? I certainly doubt it.
>
> yes i do - at 10k, the motor is still tight and thus wastes more energy
> on friction.

Can you point me to some source information on this subject?

"Grumpy AuContraire" > wrote in message
...
> You really don't know much do you?

Another with childish coments?

> A car with 10K on it will almost always be less fuel efficient than one with 50K or more...

Really? So the best days for a car start when the warranty ends :-))
Show me the source of your information about 50k, Master!

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 01:21:03 -0500, Pszemol > wrote:
>"Grumpy AuContraire" > wrote in message
...
>> You really don't know much do you?

>Another with childish coments?

>> A car with 10K on it will almost always be less fuel efficient than one with 50K or more...

>Really? So the best days for a car start when the warranty ends :-))

Only if you drive a yugo. Most cars come a warranty that is a bit
longer than 10K miles.

Pszemol wrote:
> "jim beam" > wrote in message
> t...
>> spot data is not average data. spot data is used to compile average
>> data.
>
> You should use data of the same kind when compiling average.
> If you mix city mileage and highway mileage you will not get
> either calculation improved by using average. You will get pretty
> useless mixture/average of mileage changing in time with
> no chanse of spoting the cause for increase/decrease.

that's spot data!!! it's spot data that comprises an average. [and
there's two t's in "spotting", two c's in "chance".]

spot data is is essential to acquire, but seems you don't understand the
concept of interpretation.


>> eh? you don't seem to have a very good grasp of math principles. but
>> the education system today is not very effective so it's probably not
>> your fault.
>
> Are you trying to compensate some of your own education problems
> with childish coments like this one?

education problems? [two m's in "comments", and your computer has a
spell checker.] no, i don't think i have education problems. i have a
problem with idiots that can't do math [or spell] though.

Pszemol wrote:
> "jim beam" > wrote in message
> t...
>>> I was never comparing her 93 to todays 2008 models but I was
>>> comparing her
>>> 93 now with 185k miles to *the same car* when young, with 10k miles
>>> in 1993.
>>> Do you really think her 93 with 185k burns less fuel than when it had
>>> 10k miles
>>> on the odometer? I certainly doubt it.
>>
>> yes i do - at 10k, the motor is still tight and thus wastes more
>> energy on friction.
>
> Can you point me to some source information on this subject?

absolutely. http://www.google.com

hth.

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 05:48:14 -0700, jim beam > wrote:
>Pszemol wrote:
>> "jim beam" > wrote in message
>> t...
>>>> I was never comparing her 93 to todays 2008 models but I was
>>>> comparing her
>>>> 93 now with 185k miles to *the same car* when young, with 10k miles
>>>> in 1993.
>>>> Do you really think her 93 with 185k burns less fuel than when it had
>>>> 10k miles
>>>> on the odometer? I certainly doubt it.
>>>
>>> yes i do - at 10k, the motor is still tight and thus wastes more
>>> energy on friction.
>>
>> Can you point me to some source information on this subject?

>absolutely. http://www.google.com

You expect somebody who was incapable of operating a web browser and visiting
google in the first place to be able to use it now?
You need to give him a search string. Obviously, he can't do it by himself.

Pez: try "engine break-in fuel economy"

AZ Nomad wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 05:48:14 -0700, jim beam > wrote:
>> Pszemol wrote:
>>> "jim beam" > wrote in message
>>> t...
>>>>> I was never comparing her 93 to todays 2008 models but I was
>>>>> comparing her
>>>>> 93 now with 185k miles to *the same car* when young, with 10k miles
>>>>> in 1993.
>>>>> Do you really think her 93 with 185k burns less fuel than when it had
>>>>> 10k miles
>>>>> on the odometer? I certainly doubt it.
>>>> yes i do - at 10k, the motor is still tight and thus wastes more
>>>> energy on friction.
>>> Can you point me to some source information on this subject?
>
>> absolutely. http://www.google.com
>
> You expect somebody who was incapable of operating a web browser and visiting
> google in the first place to be able to use it now?
> You need to give him a search string. Obviously, he can't do it by himself.

obviously. but all i'll help him with is kicking the chair out of the
way after he's put the noose around his own idiot neck.


>
> Pez: try "engine break-in fuel economy"

"AZ Nomad" > wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 01:21:03 -0500, Pszemol > wrote:
>>"Grumpy AuContraire" > wrote in message
...
>>> You really don't know much do you?
>
>>Another with childish coments?
>
>>> A car with 10K on it will almost always be less fuel efficient than one with 50K or more...
>
>>Really? So the best days for a car start when the warranty ends :-))
>
> Only if you drive a yugo. Most cars come a warranty that is a bit
> longer than 10K miles.

I am not sure if you noticed 50k there...
Usual warranty period is 36, sometimes 40 - very rarelly any longer.