A little spare time to think. Remembering my Chevy Vega..
in [Toyota]
|
From: Otis on 5 Oct 2009 12:50 On Oct 5, 10:55 am, "E. Meyer" <epmeye...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/4/09 4:28 PM, in article > a0ac8289-a19c-4028-a402-931173920...(a)31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com, "Otis" > > > > <rev_otis_mcn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Oct 3, 12:31 pm, Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy...(a)GrumpyvilleNOT.com> > > wrote: > >> Otis wrote: > > >>> Also, IIRC the Vega I had was only about $2K, maybe a little more. > >>> That's less than $10K in 2008 dollars. > > >> And for that you can buy a new Kia or Hyundai with 100K/ten year warranties. > > > And in '73, a computer with a fraction of the capabilities of a common > > laptop > > today would half fill a room and cost $40,000, if not much much > > more. > > > Technology advancement does change things a bit. > > In 1973, the computer we had in the University CS department had a 16K byte > memory, a 2 micro-second cycle time and cost $300,000. My cell phone is > orders of magnitude more powerful. I would say you are off by quite a bit. Then again, both of you guys didn't seem to notice the "if not much much more" part.:)
From: Otis on 5 Oct 2009 12:57 On Oct 1, 7:55 pm, dsi1 <d...(a)humuhumunukunukuapuapa.org> wrote: > Nate Nagel wrote: > > dsi1 wrote: > >> hls wrote: > > >>> "dsi1" <d...(a)humuhumunukunukuapuapa.org> wrote in message > >>>>> Fiat is a bit of a joke, even in Europe. I lived there for many > >>>>> many years. > > >>>> I'm guessing it's partially because they're such a big force in > >>>> Europe, the same as GM is in the states. > > >>> You would be very wrong... In Europe, many people buy for quality, or > >>> at least perceived quality. Fiat and Lancia suck in this perception > >>> outside of Italia. People outside Italy buy Fiat largely on price. > > >> I'm not sure why you would say I was wrong. I made no comment about > >> the quality of Fiat cars nor did I say anything about what Europeans > >> are looking for when they buy a car. > > >> Obviously, most people would rather have a Mercedes or a Lexus but the > >> reality is that most people settle for a Chevy over here and a Fiat(or > >> VW) in Europe. > > > IME VW is a LARGE cut above Chevy... at least the A4 GTI I had felt > > like a little luxury car inside, and I had no real problems with it save > > for the #@$%@#$ window issues. My mom now loves it too :/ (gotta > > figure out how to get her to buy a new car so I can have it back...) > > > nate > > I loved the VWs I've had. They did have some problems with the valve > stem seals and the fuse boxes on the early FWD cars. Killer rust > problems. As it goes, any car has it's weak points, well, Chevys and VWs > and Fiats, anyway. :-) I've always thought the VW's were overpriced. And there was that feeling--in my family anyway--that a VW wasn't a "real car." I know there were huge numbers of VW owners in recent years who were more than a little miffed about their owners manuals saying their timing belts wouldn't need changing till 100k miles, with many actually failing at around 85k, doing extensive engine damage, and getting blown off by VW.
From: SMS on 5 Oct 2009 13:16 Otis wrote: > Also, IIRC the Vega I had was only about $2K, maybe a little more. > That's less than $10K in 2008 dollars. That's about right. I remember the decision my step-father made was between a Vega and a Beetle, and both had a street price of around $1800, so an MSRP of around $2K is about right.
From: E. Meyer on 5 Oct 2009 14:47 On 10/5/09 11:50 AM, in article b4b20003-74d6-4a9f-ace8-10ab782ccda1(a)p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com, "Otis" <rev_otis_mcnatt(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Oct 5, 10:55�am, "E. Meyer" <epmeye...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 10/4/09 4:28 PM, in article >> a0ac8289-a19c-4028-a402-931173920...(a)31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com, "Otis" >> >> >> >> <rev_otis_mcn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> On Oct 3, 12:31�pm, Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy...(a)GrumpyvilleNOT.com> >>> wrote: >>>> Otis wrote: >> >>>>> Also, IIRC the Vega I had was only about $2K, maybe a little more. >>>>> That's less than $10K in 2008 dollars. >> >>>> And for that you can buy a new Kia or Hyundai with 100K/ten year >>>> warranties. >> >>> And in '73, a computer with a fraction of the capabilities of a common >>> laptop >>> today would half fill a room and cost $40,000, if not much much >>> more. >> >>> Technology advancement does change things a bit. >> >> In 1973, the computer we had in the University CS department had a 16K byte >> memory, a 2 micro-second cycle time and cost $300,000. �My cell phone is >> orders of magnitude more powerful. �I would say you are off by quite a bit. > > Then again, both of you guys didn't seem to notice the "if not much > much more" > part.:) > All things considered, since the development and pricing of cars doesn't appear to follow Moore's law, comparing the pricing of cars to computers is probably not the right way to go about it. Maybe cars & refrigerators would work better?
From: Scott Dorsey on 5 Oct 2009 14:47
Otis <rev_otis_mcnatt(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Oct 3, 12:31=A0pm, Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy...(a)GrumpyvilleNOT.com> >wrote: >> Otis wrote: > >> > Also, IIRC the Vega I had was only about $2K, maybe a little more. >> > That's less than $10K in 2008 dollars. >> >> And for that you can buy a new Kia or Hyundai with 100K/ten year warranti= >es. > >And in '73, a computer with a fraction of the capabilities of a common >laptop >today would half fill a room and cost $40,000, if not much much >more. > >Technology advancement does change things a bit. The advancement in auto technology from 1900 to 1936 was about as great as the advancement in computer technology from 1973 to 2009. The increase in power and decrease in cost was about proportional. Then automotive technology more or less began to even out, and there have been incremental improvements since then, but nothing quite so dramatic. Perhaps the same will happen for computers. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |