Revitalized Malibu Takes on Accord and Camry

Nate Nagel wrote:

> or they don't believe that *any* car will last significantly longer than
> the warranty.

I don't think that anyone's dumb enough to believe that. Also realize
that many vehicles have very long power train warranties these days,
especially certified used vehicles.

Sharx35 wrote:
>
> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> 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
>
> I don't give a **** where this is cross-posted too--YOU can **** off
> back to the DNA cesspool, too, from whence you came.

Are all Toyota owners really "challenged," or have we found ourselves an
outlier?

nate


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

"cavedweller" > wrote in message
...
> On Apr 21, 1:56 am, "Sharx35" > wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't give a **** where this is cross-posted too--YOU can **** off back
>> to
>> the DNA cesspool, too, from whence you came.
>>
> ....exclaimed he, without a single clip. But anyway, "from whence" is
> incorrect..."whence" already includes the "from".

Oh? That is open to debate and I quote:

Q] From Marty Robinson: Last week you quoted Sir Christopher Wren as
referring to 'The Ailes, from whence arise Bows or Flying Buttresses to the
Walls of the Navis.' I'm sorry to learn that Sir Christopher used the
redundancy from whence.

[A] This is another of those grammatical shibboleths, like avoiding a plural
verb with none or not splitting one's infinitives, that are open to
linguistic debate, to put it mildly. The argument against this form is that
whence already includes the idea of coming from some place, so that
including from makes it tautological.

The debate is complicated by the fact that whence is not that common a word
these days, being rather literary; I had trouble finding a modern example
that wasn't prefixed by from. This is from Newsday of 11 November 2004: "He
is a legendary figure in his native England, whence I have just returned."
That's a good example of the "proper" use.

Objectors to from whence have support in logic, but logic doesn't feature
much in English constructions, especially idioms, which is how one perhaps
should regard the phrase these days. One newspaper archive I consulted,
hardly comprehensive, contained more than 250 cases of from whence just in
2004. It succeeds because it is informal and colloquial compared with whence
used alone, a construction that is unusual enough to force readers to stop
and work out the meaning.

And even a brief look at historical sources shows that from whence has been
common since the thirteenth century. It has been used by Shakespeare, Defoe
(in the opening of Robinson Crusoe: "He got a good estate by merchandise,
and leaving off his trade, lived afterwards at York; from whence he had
married my mother"), Smollett, Dickens (in A Christmas Carol: "He began to
think that the source and secret of this ghostly light might be in the
adjoining room, from whence, on further tracing it, it seemed to shine"),
Dryden, Gibbon, Twain (in Innocents Abroad: "He traveled all around, till at
last he came to the place from whence he started"), and Trollope, and it
appears 27 times in the King James Bible (including Psalm 121: "I will lift
up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help").

Though Dr Johnson objected to it in his Dictionary of 1755, calling it "A
vicious mode of speech" (he meant it was reprehensible, not depraved or
savage), most objections to it are no earlier than the twentieth century.
One reason may be that its critics are unaware of its long pedigree.

World Wide Words is copyright © Michael Quinion, 1996-2009. All rights
reserved. Contact the author if you want to reproduce this piece, but first
see my advice page, which also has notes about linking. Your comments and
corrections are welcome


******
BTW, "troglodyte" is a better alias than "cavedweller".

"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...
> Sharx35 wrote:
>>
>> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> 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
>>
>> I don't give a **** where this is cross-posted too--YOU can **** off back
>> to the DNA cesspool, too, from whence you came.
>
> Are all Toyota owners really "challenged," or have we found ourselves an
> outlier?
>
> nate
>
>
> --
> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
> http://members.cox.net/njnagel

The REST of what became the human race crawled out of the slime--nate's
forebears remained.

SMS wrote:

> 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.


My neighbor who likes to fiddle with old (pre 1963) cars occasionally
has to work on his mother's late 1980ish Oldsmobile with a Quad Four
engine. Car only has about 80K on the odometer yet it runs like ****
and is next to impossible to diagnose or repair. Freakin' thing has been
laid up for months!

Everything is in the way of everything else. Industrial engineering at
GM??? Not as far as I can see...

<sigh>

JT

Nate Nagel wrote:

> 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


Heh heh... Clue free is rampant these day!

BTW, Howz JP doing???

JT

Tegger wrote:

> Grumpy AuContraire > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>
>>Tegger wrote:
>>
>
>
>>>
>>>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.
>
>
>
>
> They may be informally referred to as "classics", with a lower-case "c".
> But that would be purely a subjective opinion.
>
>
>
>
>>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 fraught with controversy even within the CCCA, which homologates
> vehicles as "Classics".
>
> There are advocates for acceptance of certain post-war vehicles as "full
> Classics", although CCCA officials have so far resisted them. What, do
> they think that there is not one single car made after 1948 that is
> unique or significant in any way?


The period from 1948 to I believe late 1960's when the guv'ment became
over involved (with everything) is considered Milestone era though that
club has almost dissolved into nothing. They simply accepted too many
brands and models many of which weren't really significant. A victim
of early politically correct don't offend anyone syndrome I believe.

<G>



>>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.
>
>
>
>
> To properly fit the mold of the true "Classic" owner, you need to start
> sneering at owners of aging "modern" cars, especially Japanese cars.

LOL

That just ain't in me my friend. Of course, the majority of "Full
Classic" cars were furrin'...



>>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...
>>
>
>
>
> I stick with my '91 only because I don't WANT anything newer. I don't
> WANT air bags, OBD-II, an all-electrical interior, even more plastic
> than I've already got, etc. If my previous older cars hadn't all rotted
> out from under me, I'd probably still have one of them.

I hear you loud 'n clear! Being a former resident of the northeast, I
finally fled to Texas where fifty year old bolts/nuts still turn on a
parts car. I have sworn on a stack of shop manuals never to get/own/or
work on a rust bucket again. Of course, the latest '82 is a compromise
as it spent time in Kansas...

It's just that freakin' heat in the summer that slows me down but then
again that's why gawd invented air conditioning!

JT

Sharx35 wrote:

>
> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Sharx35 wrote:
>>

snip


>>> I don't give a **** where this is cross-posted too--YOU can **** off
>>> back to the DNA cesspool, too, from whence you came.
>>
>>
>> Are all Toyota owners really "challenged," or have we found ourselves
>> an outlier?
>>
>> nate
>>
>>
>> --
>> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
>> http://members.cox.net/njnagel
>
>
> The REST of what became the human race crawled out of the slime--nate's
> forebears remained.


Ho' boy... Just keep on diggin' that hole deeper 'n deeper. Be sure to
keep a mirror for reference "from whence" you originated...

JT

Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>
>
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> 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
>
>
> Heh heh... Clue free is rampant these day!
>
> BTW, Howz JP doing???
>

Still alive and kicking, and buying Avantis against his better judgement

I on the other hand have been listening to his advice and passing on all
of them...

nate


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

"Grumpy AuContraire" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> SMS wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>
> My neighbor who likes to fiddle with old (pre 1963) cars occasionally has
> to work on his mother's late 1980ish Oldsmobile with a Quad Four engine.
> Car only has about 80K on the odometer yet it runs like **** and is next
> to impossible to diagnose or repair. Freakin' thing has been laid up for
> months!
>
> Everything is in the way of everything else. Industrial engineering at
> GM??? Not as far as I can see...
>
> <sigh>

Do you realize how foolish you make yourself look when you compair 2009
vehicles to 1980's vehicles?