Revitalized Malibu Takes on Accord and Camry

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:

> Well, we're talkin' 25 to 26 years of age here. And, the great thing is
> that they are "old school," I.E., no computer, no "check engine" light
> and even lack a PCV valve. Just right for an old fart like me to
> maintain and repair which really doesn't happen very often.
>
> Sometimes the latest and greatest ain't really so...

Still lots of late 1980's to early 1990's Accords and Camrys on the
road, still fetching 2-4K on the used market. You have to chuckle when
you see the ads from Ford and GM trying to compare initial purchase
prices of new vehicles, i.e. the Malibu, since they are forced to leave
longevity out of the equation. It's not just having to purchase 2x the
number of vehicles for the same time period, it's the resale value if
you do choose to sell after only 8-10 years.

Tegger wrote:

> "Mike Marlow" > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>"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.
>>
>
>
>
>
> The "antique" or "Classic" appelation is beside the point.
>
> To the purists, anything post-war is considered "modern". No post-war car
> is "antique" or "Classic".
>
> You're absolutely right that a 17 year-old Honda or Toyota is "just an old
> car". So were Model A's and '57 Chevrolets at one time too. All cars go
> through the "just an old car" phase before a few of them eventually get
> famous and valuable.


You're onto something here.

I often have people refer to my old, (1955 & 1956), Studebakers as
"Classics" which is just not so.

In fact, the Classic era covers the period from about 1927 to about 1948
and only unique cars (styling and engineering) are considered "full
classics." This is high brow **** and when I bought a 1931 Studebaker
President Q4 coupe about ten years ago I started to practice holdin' up
my end pinkies when sippin' high tea.

There's nuthin' like invoking the term "full classic" to start all kinds
of flame wars. Some folks just like denying the truth even though is
has snob appeal.

Needless to say, I never got around to restoring the car and sold it
about three years ago. Now, I'm content with playin' around with the two
"modern" Studebakers and a small flock of Gen II Honda Civics...

JT

Tegger wrote:

> "80 Knight" > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>"Sharx35" > wrote in message
>>news:kQUGl.23141$Db2.12169@edtnps83...
>
>
>>>Did I mention that I pay CASH for my cars?
>>
>>It wouldn't matter if you paid in gold. A 17 year old Honda is true
>>garbage.
>>
>
>
>
>
> Hey, that wasn't nice! You just hurt my 18 year-old Integra's feelings!


Fear not as by doing so, you have defeated the thinking of them thar'
PHd economists who calculate how often fools trade in their current ride
only to become a slave to the finance company.

Not many people have their priorities straight these days...

JT

"Grumpy AuContraire" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Sharx35 wrote:
>
>>
>> "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.
>
>
>
> Ahhhh, I see you reveal yourself for what you are... Uneducated,
> intolerant and just a general doofus!
>
> Congratulations!
>
> JT
>

Suck dick, cumwad. I don't go to a Toyota newsgroup to read about ricer junk
aka Honda products.

>

"Grumpy AuContraire" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>> "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
>>
>>
>> Hi JOAT - true, they are notable, but for all but the most eccentric,
>> they aren't cars that one would one would be driving at 17 years of age.
>> Still goes back to the matter of them being a 17 year old car, regardless
>> of what notable contribution they may have made to the annals of
>> automotive history.
>
>
>
> Well, we're talkin' 25 to 26 years of age here. And, the great thing is
> that they are "old school," I.E., no computer, no "check engine" light
> and even lack a PCV valve. Just right for an old fart like me to maintain
> and repair which really doesn't happen very often.
>
> Sometimes the latest and greatest ain't really so...
>
> JT
>

You ARE an old fart?? Could a fooled me. Figured as much because of your
grumpiness!! ROFL.

"SMS" > wrote in message
...
> Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>
>> Well, we're talkin' 25 to 26 years of age here. And, the great thing is
>> that they are "old school," I.E., no computer, no "check engine" light
>> and even lack a PCV valve. Just right for an old fart like me to
>> maintain and repair which really doesn't happen very often.
>>
>> Sometimes the latest and greatest ain't really so...
>
> Still lots of late 1980's to early 1990's Accords and Camrys on the road,
> still fetching 2-4K on the used market. You have to chuckle when you see
> the ads from Ford and GM trying to compare initial purchase prices of new
> vehicles, i.e. the Malibu, since they are forced to leave longevity out of
> the equation. It's not just having to purchase 2x the number of vehicles
> for the same time period, it's the resale value if you do choose to sell
> after only 8-10 years.

What you say makes sense--too made some are too dense to understand your
comments.

"Grumpy AuContraire" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Tegger wrote:
>
>> "80 Knight" > wrote in
>> :
>>>"Sharx35" > wrote in message
>>>news:kQUGl.23141$Db2.12169@edtnps83...
>>
>>
>>>>Did I mention that I pay CASH for my cars?
>>>
>>>It wouldn't matter if you paid in gold. A 17 year old Honda is true
>>>garbage.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hey, that wasn't nice! You just hurt my 18 year-old Integra's feelings!
>
>
> Fear not as by doing so, you have defeated the thinking of them thar' PHd
> economists who calculate how often fools trade in their current ride only
> to become a slave to the finance company.
>
> Not many people have their priorities straight these days...
>
> JT
>

But that is what I have been saying in many of my posts!! And you complained
to me.

Sharx35 wrote:
>
> "Grumpy AuContraire" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> Sharx35 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "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.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ahhhh, I see you reveal yourself for what you are... Uneducated,
>> intolerant and just a general doofus!
>>
>> Congratulations!
>>
>> JT
>>
>
> Suck dick, cumwad. I don't go to a Toyota newsgroup to read about ricer
> junk aka Honda products.
>

You do realize that he's probably posting from r.a.m.honda, yes? Or are
you really that refreshingly clue-free?

nate


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

Sharx35 wrote:

>> Still lots of late 1980's to early 1990's Accords and Camrys on the
>> road, still fetching 2-4K on the used market. You have to chuckle when
>> you see the ads from Ford and GM trying to compare initial purchase
>> prices of new vehicles, i.e. the Malibu, since they are forced to
>> leave longevity out of the equation. It's not just having to purchase
>> 2x the number of vehicles for the same time period, it's the resale
>> value if you do choose to sell after only 8-10 years.
>
> What you say makes sense--too made some are too dense to understand your
> comments.

Actually I think that most people do understand the whole longevity
versus initial purchase price issue, but they either don't care about
that aspect of ownership, or they don't want to admit that their
long-held beliefs have been debunked.

SMS wrote:
> Sharx35 wrote:
>
>>> Still lots of late 1980's to early 1990's Accords and Camrys on the
>>> road, still fetching 2-4K on the used market. You have to chuckle
>>> when you see the ads from Ford and GM trying to compare initial
>>> purchase prices of new vehicles, i.e. the Malibu, since they are
>>> forced to leave longevity out of the equation. It's not just having
>>> to purchase 2x the number of vehicles for the same time period, it's
>>> the resale value if you do choose to sell after only 8-10 years.
>>
>> What you say makes sense--too made some are too dense to understand
>> your comments.
>
> Actually I think that most people do understand the whole longevity
> versus initial purchase price issue, but they either don't care about
> that aspect of ownership, or they don't want to admit that their
> long-held beliefs have been debunked.

or they don't believe that *any* car will last significantly longer than
the warranty... I used to believe it was true but even brands I used to
know and trust (VW, BMW, etc.) have "turned Japanese" and over-contented
their vehicles to the point that they're all one big unrepairable mass
of electronics.

nate

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