Watch out for CARMAX

Dean Dark wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 00:47:02 GMT, Dan > wrote:
>
>> $150/hour?? If you really make $312,000/year you shouldn't be shopping
>> at Carmax.
>
> It's a naive and common mistake to assume that an hourly rate equates
> to the mechanic being paid at that rate for the whole year. It's an
> even more naive and foolish mistake to fail to account for the
> operating expenses of the business.
>
> I'm not defending Carmax or anyone else, I'm just pointing out that
> there's more to what you pay than just what the grease monkey gets in
> his pocket.
>
> Think about it.

He's referring to his lost time at work. It's naive and common to reply
without reading the entire post, too.

Well said. Thank-you!

Steve Firth wrote:
> wrote in message get a professional check on the
>vehicle?
>
>> Why didn't you buy a BMW?
>
>maybe he's not a nasty,pushy, arrogant little jerk who enjoys driving with
>his front fog lights on?

--
Message posted via CarKB.com
http://www.carkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/bmw/200706/1

Little man you have a filthy mouth. As an enthusiast I appreciate fine cars
but do not blindly defend them. Not all things Ford are horrible, just as not
all things BMW are brilliant.

wrote:
>>You must be one of the few POMS not to visit Florida- Bmw's are as useful
>>here as a Ferrari in Manhatten rush hour. And beyond warranty the costs are
>>eye-watering ($300 for a battery, $1500 for rotors that can't be shaved etc.)
>
>I thought we didn't top post here?
>
>Obviously you shop at the wrong stores. Or really is it just KNOCK BMW because
>you ****ed up!
>
>>>>The following is from a complaint I just register with the BBB. If you've
>>>>had similar problems please contact me...
>[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>>>
>>>Why didn't you buy a BMW?

--
Message posted via CarKB.com
http://www.carkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/bmw/200706/1

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 12:38:49 GMT, "Dom via CarKB.com" <u35099@uwe> wrote:

>Little man you have a filthy mouth. As an enthusiast I appreciate fine cars
>but do not blindly defend them. Not all things Ford are horrible, just as not
>all things BMW are brilliant.

How can you claim to be an enthusiast when we talk about the "Ford Jaguar". If
you were talking about a FORD FORD then I might agree as the new Mondeo here in
Euroland is a real nice bit of kit but when you get the Ford Jaguar being a
re-bodied Mondeo then it automatically becomes CRAP and not a JAGUAR.

Same goes for Aston Martin but Ford have now unloaded that to someone that will
take the care to maintain the breed. I admit Ford's intervention in Aston's
affairs, especially pumping more money than sense into it, saved their bacon and
it eventually became a better car but......... being a clone of the Jaguar XK-E
it was only bought by people with more money than sense the same as the new RR -
Land-Rover look alike.

Jaguar as a brand is failing here and sales are falling like snow in Colorado in
the winter. The engineering is great and I cannot fault it as the ideas are the
same as most prestige car makers using aluminium and space-age materials where
possible however, the insides are all FORD MONDEO clones albeit with leather and
wood but still available in the standard range of rep-mobiles or family cars
where there is no prestige in having one or even driving one.





>
wrote:
>>>You must be one of the few POMS not to visit Florida- Bmw's are as useful
>>>here as a Ferrari in Manhatten rush hour. And beyond warranty the costs are
>>>eye-watering ($300 for a battery, $1500 for rotors that can't be shaved etc.)
>>
>>I thought we didn't top post here?
>>
>>Obviously you shop at the wrong stores. Or really is it just KNOCK BMW because
>>you ****ed up!
>>
>>>>>The following is from a complaint I just register with the BBB. If you've
>>>>>had similar problems please contact me...
>>[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>>>>
>>>>Why didn't you buy a BMW?

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 12:31:38 GMT, "Dom via CarKB.com" <u35099@uwe> wrote:

>Well said. Thank-you!
>
>Steve Firth wrote:
> wrote in message get a professional check on the
>>vehicle?
>>
>>> Why didn't you buy a BMW?
>>
>>maybe he's not a nasty,pushy, arrogant little jerk who enjoys driving with
>>his front fog lights on?

No but you are!

Steve Firth wrote:

> wrote in message get a professional check on the
>vehicle?
>>
>> Why didn't you buy a BMW?
>
>maybe he's not a nasty,pushy, arrogant little jerk who enjoys driving with
>his front fog lights on?

Hehehe The "Oscar" troll now resides in my bozo bin.

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 14:58:09 GMT, dizzy > wrote:

>Steve Firth wrote:
>
> wrote in message get a professional check on the
>>vehicle?
>>>
>>> Why didn't you buy a BMW?
>>
>>maybe he's not a nasty,pushy, arrogant little jerk who enjoys driving with
>>his front fog lights on?
>
>Hehehe The "Oscar" troll now resides in my bozo bin.

Obviously you won't see this Dizzy (or will you as you are probably lying your
ass off wanting to see what I come back with)

Dizzy - if you actually kept up with the thread in logical (you do know what
that means - if not get a friend to tell you) order then you might just learn
something useful.

A Troll is someone like yourself that knocks everything and sundry that they
don't agree with.

It's a wonder you even have the sense to have a driving licence or to persuade
anyone to insure you to drive a car.

It is obvious that you and the VOLVO club have one thing in common - the
inability to engage brain before opening mouth.

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 21:42:21 +0100, wrote:

>A Troll is someone like yourself that knocks everything and sundry that they
>don't agree with.

Actually, no. That's not the definition of a troll at all. It's a
common misunderstanding. Usenet trolling is a fine art, one that's
not *anything* like what's going on here.
--
Dan.

As I said: I'm an enthusiast-not a FANATIC. It's painful for you to admit
Ford has done anything right, EVER.I'm really happy the Vanquish & DB9 exist.
You vaguely concede such points only to follow it with- BUT.blah blah blah.
Relax. Are Lamboghinis crap because of their tractor origins? Here's an easy
one..Tell me how horrible the LR3 is. Oh, & I don't care any about the Mondeo.
...that's a car for Consumer Reports staff. I mean really; lets talk about
the virtues of a Camry. wrote:
>>Little man you have a filthy mouth. As an enthusiast I appreciate fine cars
>>but do not blindly defend them. Not all things Ford are horrible, just as not
>>all things BMW are brilliant.
>
>How can you claim to be an enthusiast when we talk about the "Ford Jaguar". If
>you were talking about a FORD FORD then I might agree as the new Mondeo here in
>Euroland is a real nice bit of kit but when you get the Ford Jaguar being a
>re-bodied Mondeo then it automatically becomes CRAP and not a JAGUAR.
>
>Same goes for Aston Martin but Ford have now unloaded that to someone that will
>take the care to maintain the breed. I admit Ford's intervention in Aston's
>affairs, especially pumping more money than sense into it, saved their bacon and
>it eventually became a better car but......... being a clone of the Jaguar XK-E
>it was only bought by people with more money than sense the same as the new RR -
>Land-Rover look alike.
>
>Jaguar as a brand is failing here and sales are falling like snow in Colorado in
>the winter. The engineering is great and I cannot fault it as the ideas are the
>same as most prestige car makers using aluminium and space-age materials where
>possible however, the insides are all FORD MONDEO clones albeit with leather and
>wood but still available in the standard range of rep-mobiles or family cars
>where there is no prestige in having one or even driving one.
>
>>>>You must be one of the few POMS not to visit Florida- Bmw's are as useful
>>>>here as a Ferrari in Manhatten rush hour. And beyond warranty the costs are
>[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>>>>>
>>>>>Why didn't you buy a BMW?

--
Message posted via CarKB.com
http://www.carkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/bmw/200706/1

Dean Dark wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 00:47:02 GMT, Dan > wrote:
>
>
>>$150/hour?? If you really make $312,000/year you shouldn't be shopping
>>at Carmax.
>
>
> It's a naive and common mistake to assume that an hourly rate equates
> to the mechanic being paid at that rate for the whole year. It's an
> even more naive and foolish mistake to fail to account for the
> operating expenses of the business.
>
> I'm not defending Carmax or anyone else, I'm just pointing out that
> there's more to what you pay than just what the grease monkey gets in
> his pocket.
>
> Think about it.

It wasn't the mechanic's rate. That was the supposed lost hourly wages
for the OP's having to get his car fixed.

Oh and if it only amounted to 6 lost hours, why bother?

--
-Fred W