From: Wickeddoll� on 23 Mar 2007 12:49
> "RCE" ...
>> "JoeSpareBedroom" ...
>>> You could base your purchases on opinions from an illiterate retired
>>> used car salesman who pukes "information" in this newsgroup on a daily
>>> basis. :-)
>> If that was intended to be me .... sorry. You are waayyyyy off.
> No, not you.
Nope - I got who he meant right away. I only see his posts when people make
the mistake of replying to him. Usually it's good for a laugh. A rueful
From: Ed White on 23 Mar 2007 21:58
On Mar 22, 11:16 am, "Whitelightning" <white.lightni...(a)verizon.net>
> "C. E. White" <cewhi...(a)removemindspring.com> wrote in messagenews:460285b2$1(a)kcnews01...
> > The Nextel cup has nothing to do with the "real" world. Nothing in those
> > cars has anything to do with a "stock" car in any meaningful way.
> > Ed
> Perhaps not, perhaps yes. But consider the power plant, a 358 cid cam in
> block 2 valves per cylinder , push rods, and a single 4 barrel carb pushing
> a 3400 pound car upwards of 220 mph, and toyota cant get enough horsepower
> out of their engine.
> And a lot of what goes on on the track does find its way into cars..
In your dreams. Nobody builds engines with carbs any more. Toyota
doesn't sell any push rod engines in the US. Nextel cup cars are
highly regulated versions of a 1972 Chevy Winston Cup Car. The
suspension is a many times revised 1965 Ford NASCAR front suspension,
and the rear suspension is a highly refined 1970 GMC truck coil spring
suspension with a refined Ford 9 inch rear gear. Nobody builds
anything that crude for a road car. The cheapest Kia you can buy in
the US is more technologically advanced than any Nextel Cup Car.
Nextel Cup Cars are highly polished turds, but they are still turds.
And now, all the turds have to fit the same turdplate (i.e. template).
If it wasn't for the decals, you would not be able to tell the cars
apart. NASCAR has degenerated into WWE on asphalt. The money is good,
the racing is fake.
From: Repairman on 24 Mar 2007 08:47
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
The bait is stinky, sorry no bite on that bullshit sonny, try again........
From: Matt Macchiarolo on 24 Mar 2007 09:19
"DH" <dh(a)stargate.com> wrote in message
> "David M" <NOSPAM(a)nospam.com> wrote in message
>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 05:59:26 -0600, dh rearranged some electrons to form:
>>> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt(a)nospamplease.com> wrote in message
>>> On the other hand, the anectdotal evidence can be readily corroborated
>>> looking at a Consumer Reports (or other) car realiability survey.
>> Anyone who believes CR is an unbiased, reliable source, is just plain
> Then why don't you go survey about a million and a quarter car owners and
> report on your findings?
> CR stays in business because they make their readers happy. They're not
> going to make them happy by steering them into crappy cars.
> I finally started to consult CR before I bought cars just a few years ago.
> As a result, I have been buying Toyotas.
When it comes to cars' reliability, CR uses wide-scale "anecdotal" evidence.
Their reliability surveys make no mention of the sample size for each
vehicle or the percentage rate of problems reported in the survey, not to
mention the effect of owner's bias in the surveys. If I want to buy a
vacuum cleaner or a dishwasher, I'll read CU. If I want to buy a car, I'll
buy what I like.
> I have 4 Toyotas, 3 purchased used, now at an average age of 7.3 years,
> with 10.1 years of ownership and 108,000 miles of driving and ZERO
> problems. They look good, they don't squeak or rattle and the offer a good
> combination of fuel economy and performance.
We owned a Toyota Avalon that had transmission problems and tire problems
(OK, tire problems aren't necessarily the fault of the manufacturer, but
still...) and a brand-new Honda Odessey minivan that had such a bad engine
oil leak Honda had to buy it back under Michigan's Lemon Law.
From: Matt Macchiarolo on 24 Mar 2007 09:25
"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
> "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt(a)nospamplease.com> wrote in message
>> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> All evidence is anecdotal. If you disagree, show links to evidence that
>>> is not anecdotal.
> Name one food you ate yesterday.
Lunch: Ham sandwich with lettuce and cheese, some baked rice snack chips,
Afternoon snack: Ched-Airs
Dinner: At a local restaurant, sauteed perch, rice, steamed vegatables, Bass
What's your point?