Revitalized Malibu Takes on Accord and Camry

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Canuck57" > wrote in message
>> I think you missed Sharx35's point.
>>
>> For the price of one car payment or much less you can fix all of the
>> above. And brakes don't need to be replaced every month. Most people
>> spend far too much on autos and I too have been guilty of this, just not
>> as bad as most.
>
> No, I missed no point. Yes, you can fix all of the above for a car
> payment, but the car will still not be "mint". Black, white, not even a
> hint of gray.

Mint can be used as a noun or as an adjective.

Mint condition is a valid statement. Are you from the mountains in the
south?

"Nate Nagel" wrote

> If I have to spend hours of my day trapped in a rolling box, I might as
> well enjoy it, rather than making it feel like a chore...

...which is why I bought a 2004 Accord with an automatic, because I got sick
of years of shifting a 5-speed Civic through a 20-mile roundtrip commute
through the city each day. It's given me virtually no trouble. My only
complaint is the ride is noisy except on rubberized asphalt.

Howard Lester wrote:
> "Nate Nagel" wrote
>
>> If I have to spend hours of my day trapped in a rolling box, I might as
>> well enjoy it, rather than making it feel like a chore...
>
> ..which is why I bought a 2004 Accord with an automatic, because I got sick
> of years of shifting a 5-speed Civic through a 20-mile roundtrip commute
> through the city each day. It's given me virtually no trouble. My only
> complaint is the ride is noisy except on rubberized asphalt.
>

To me a stickshift is not a chore. But my commute typically only goes
stop and go for the last mile or two on my way home; it's mostly good
other than that. (and these days I'm driving an automatic anyway, not
by choice, but because that's what I'm given to drive. But I have only
bought four automatic vehicles in my life; one of which has been
converted to a four speed and one of which I'd collected the parts to
convert it to a three speed before I sold it. The others were a '67
Dart that was a rolling disaster and my F-150 which I don't drive enough
to worry about.)

It sounds like the noise you complain of is mostly tire noise, yes?
Might be able to get some better tires and make that go away. Some
tread patterns are just simply more noisy than others.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

"Nate Nagel" wrote

> It sounds like the noise you complain of is mostly tire noise, yes? Might
> be able to get some better tires and make that go away. Some tread
> patterns are just simply more noisy than others.

I got Goodyear Assurance Comfortreds with the hopes of cutting the noise
down vs. the OEM Michelins. I don't detect any improvement. Road noise has
been a perennial complaint with Accords, at least, per Consumer Reports.

"Canuck57" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Canuck57" > wrote in message
>>> Mint to me means well kept, not abused, low wear and tear and well
>>> maintained. Often used in the lax form, as not too many people buy
>>> them, then flat bed them to a warehouse for the strict use.
>>>
>>
>> That makes you wrong too. Talk to a collector and they will laugh at what
>> you call mint. By your definition, it may be Good or even Excellent, but
>> not Mint. Any visible wear takes it out of the Mint category.
>>
>> You can call a lump of coal a diamond, but it won't shine any brighter.
>
> By your definition, right off the lot it looses mint status. Thus no
> mints really exist. Tires for example rot where they sit.


Now you're catching on. It is not my definition, some dictionary writer
does that.
Mint condition is often used to describe a collectible item such as a model
figure, doll, or toy that has never been removed from its box (NRFB[1]), or
in some cases is as good as new without any scratches or other damage. The
term is also very widely used in record collecting and comic books.

The mis-use of a term does not change the definition. Well kept and not
abused cannot mean mint. It can mean excellent. I didn't make the rules,
but I'm going to follow them so we all know what we are talking about. I
hope others will also.

"Canuck57" > wrote in message
>
> Mint can be used as a noun or as an adjective.
>
> Mint condition is a valid statement. Are you from the mountains in the
> south?

It is a valid statement, but it does not apply to 10 year old cars. It can
apply to uncirculated coins, stamps, and similar items, but once a car is
driven thousands of miles, it cannot qualify.

I've heard this so many times by people looking for used cars. "The car was
advertised as being "mint condition" but when I looked at it, it was a piece
of crap" Expectations were high but when the product does not meet the
claims, interest is lost no matter how good the price is.

Mike Marlow wrote:
> "Tegger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Just don't ask your question of anybody in the "collector" auto circle. To
>>them, anything under 50 years-old is "modern", and they will sneer at you
>>aggressively for your impertinence.
>>
>
>
> Antiques and Classics are a whole different story. A 17 year old Honda or
> Toyota is not either one of those. It's just a 17 year old car.
>


But then there are the 1st and 2nd generation Civics of which two are
notable...

1983 Civic 1500 "S" which was the forerunner of the early CRX

and

1982-83 1300 Civic FE which was the forerunner of the early CRX(s) that
got great fuel economy.... 40+ MPG City and 55 MPG Highway in actual
real world tests..

JT

"Mike Marlow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tegger" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Just don't ask your question of anybody in the "collector" auto circle.
>> To
>> them, anything under 50 years-old is "modern", and they will sneer at you
>> aggressively for your impertinence.
>>
>
> Antiques and Classics are a whole different story. A 17 year old Honda or
> Toyota is not either one of those. It's just a 17 year old car.

Did I mention that I pay CASH for my cars?


>
> --
>
> -Mike-
>
>

"Grumpy AuContraire" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>> "Tegger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Just don't ask your question of anybody in the "collector" auto circle.
>>>To
>>>them, anything under 50 years-old is "modern", and they will sneer at you
>>>aggressively for your impertinence.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Antiques and Classics are a whole different story. A 17 year old Honda
>> or Toyota is not either one of those. It's just a 17 year old car.
>>
>
>
> But then there are the 1st and 2nd generation Civics of which two are
> notable...
>
> 1983 Civic 1500 "S" which was the forerunner of the early CRX
>
> and
>
> 1982-83 1300 Civic FE which was the forerunner of the early CRX(s) that
> got great fuel economy.... 40+ MPG City and 55 MPG Highway in actual real
> world tests..
>
> JT

Take your Honda **** to the Honda newsgroup, PLEASE.

"Mike Marlow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sharx35" > wrote in message
> news:XbwGl.24206$PH1.12979@edtnps82...
>>
>> Attitudes like THAT one are why so many people are only a payday or so
>> away from financial ruin.
>
> If you say so. Funny - I'm not a payday or so away from financial ruin.
> I simply see no reason to keep a car for 17 years. There are lots of
> reasons why that would make no sense - other than what some may consider
> bragging rights that they have a 17 year old car.
>
>> That TEN year old Camry only has 130,000 kilometres on it and is in MINT
>> condition. WHY should I get a newer vehicle?
>
> Maybe reading for content would benefit you - note that I did not say 10,
> I said 17.
>
>> It has ALL the features I want and rides and handles like a dream. My
>> frugality and values have allowed me to retire from full-time work at 42
>> (21 years ago) and build up a net worth of close to a million.
>
> Very good for you. That is a commendable thing. It does not change my
> position that keeping a car to age 17 still causes me to wonder why.
> There is a lot of ground between reckless financial behavior and miserly
> behavior. I'm just one person who does not see such great nobility in
> keeping something like a car to age 17 just so I can say I have a net
> worth of close to a million.
>
>>NEXT question?
>
> You're not as impressive as your question seeks to make you feel.
>
>> And, NO, I do NOT waste my money on things like bottled water, huge
>> screen TV's etc etc..
>>
>
> It's easy to begin to believe that any form of spending might be
> considered a waste by you. Oh well...
>
> --
>
> -Mike-
>
>

Inter yourself--then, for once, you will have contributed something to the
Earth.