Honda Car Forum

In article <_8SdnYKUdp3KpYPVnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

> > Certainly CDL holders are already required to know far
> > more about how their vehicle operates than simply monitoring four
> > simple, basic gauges.
>
> really? in what way? is it legally enforceable?

Only for the purposes of taking the CDL test.

In article <fvleag018o9@news2.newsguy.com>,
Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote:

> on a car, I want it to be reliable and in
> good condition for as long as possible.

That's why I avoid the German marques like crazy, and stick with Honda
or Toyota.

It's simple statistics.

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <_8SdnYKUdp3KpYPVnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>>> Certainly CDL holders are already required to know far
>>> more about how their vehicle operates than simply monitoring four
>>> simple, basic gauges.
>> really? in what way? is it legally enforceable?
>
> Only for the purposes of taking the CDL test.
>

and for a normal private license???

Nate Nagel wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article
>>>> <MjmTj.290429$cQ1.109893@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
>>>> Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I gotta come to Nate's defense here.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I stated earlier, everyone should know the four basic functions
>>>>> to trouble free driving;
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Fuel Supply
>>>>> 2. Engine Temperature
>>>>> 3. Oil Pressure
>>>>> 4. Electrical System Status
>>>>>
>>>>> It should be one of the basic requirements to get behind the wheel.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's just that simple...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm dealing in the real world here.
>>>>
>>>> People don't know the basic functions. And you can't make them
>>>> know. You can't make knowing those functions be required for them
>>>> to get a driver's license.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why not? Driving a vehicle carries with it some sense of
>>> responsibility.
>>
>>
>> the only "responsibility" that matters is legal responsibility. you
>> don't sign a contract to monitor any gauges in your car when you buy
>> it. and you /certainly/ don't get auto manufacturers sue drivers for
>> failing to check oil levels and ****ing up their beautiful machines.
>
> but it *can* put you in a difficult spot if, say, your vehicle breaks
> down in the middle of a long tunnel and you get to pay for the
> quick-response tow service to yank you out of there. Plus if I'm
> spending a huge amount of money - likely the largest single item
> expenditure most people make, save for a house, and unlike a house, a
> car depreciates like mad - on a car, I want it to be reliable and in
> good condition for as long as possible.

eh? you didn't read what i actually said - you're responding to what
you /wanted/ me to say.


>
>>> Certainly CDL holders are already required to know far more about
>>> how their vehicle operates than simply monitoring four simple, basic
>>> gauges.
>>
>>
>> really? in what way? is it legally enforceable?
>
> http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/registratio...ng/cdl/cdl.htm
> http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/w...cfr383_00.html

are you trying to be funny?


>
> and yes - if you don't pass the test, you can't legally operate a
> commercial vehicle (as defined by the government.)

eh? see above.

On 2008-05-04, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <4PCdnTtvcanR1IjVnZ2dnUVZ_r-vnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, jim beam wrote:
>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>> In article <EpidnbbGDrydKonVnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@speakeasy.net> , jim beam wrote:
>>>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>>>> In article <w-2dnbnuLIZqC4nVnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but you "maintain" a 944 - if ever a vehicle were uneconomic, that is
>>>>>>> it. otoh, i can get a whole new engine for my honda for ~$300. less if
>>>>>>> i buy locally. for that money, i can throw in a whole new motor every
>>>>>>> year if i want to. "no longer be economical" my ass.
>>>>>> If you value your labor at zero.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> er, actually, the labor to rebuild a motor is /way/ more than to replace.
>>>> Um, the question is having gauges to prevent needing either vs. driving
>>>> it into the ground and replacing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> eh? you're the one who said "If you value your labor at zero".
>>
>> If you consider the 'cost' to be $300 then you value your labor at zero.
>> Duh.
>>
>>
>
> the labor of removal and fitting is the same on both sides of the
> equation - it therefore cancels out. there is no labor for re-work if
> simply replacing the motor, so the cost /saving/ matters.

That's not the question. The point is your total cost is '$300' only if
you don't value your labor.

On 2008-05-04, Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

> Again: that "basic" instrumentation is beyond 99.9% of the auto buying
> and driving public.

Most, if not all the cars on the US market today perform at levels
beyond a similiar percentage of the auto buying and driving public, yet
automakers aren't limiting themselves to basic transportion like a base
model '60 ford falcon.

Seems that automakers don't have a problem creating cars that are beyond
the vast majority of customers.

Given modern technology and what the engine management computer already
monitors, we are talking a system that would only cost a couple of
dollars per car and could absorb other functions making it's net cost
zero or even a cost savings.

Brent P wrote:
> On 2008-05-04, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> In article <4PCdnTtvcanR1IjVnZ2dnUVZ_r-vnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, jim beam wrote:
>>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>>> In article <EpidnbbGDrydKonVnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@speakeasy.net> , jim beam wrote:
>>>>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <w-2dnbnuLIZqC4nVnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> but you "maintain" a 944 - if ever a vehicle were uneconomic, that is
>>>>>>>> it. otoh, i can get a whole new engine for my honda for ~$300. less if
>>>>>>>> i buy locally. for that money, i can throw in a whole new motor every
>>>>>>>> year if i want to. "no longer be economical" my ass.
>>>>>>> If you value your labor at zero.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> er, actually, the labor to rebuild a motor is /way/ more than to replace.
>>>>> Um, the question is having gauges to prevent needing either vs. driving
>>>>> it into the ground and replacing.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> eh? you're the one who said "If you value your labor at zero".
>>> If you consider the 'cost' to be $300 then you value your labor at zero.
>>> Duh.
>>>
>>>
>> the labor of removal and fitting is the same on both sides of the
>> equation - it therefore cancels out. there is no labor for re-work if
>> simply replacing the motor, so the cost /saving/ matters.
>
> That's not the question. The point is your total cost is '$300' only if
> you don't value your labor.

no, you cancel out both sides of the equation. the labor to remove and
refit an engine is the same on both sides, whether it's rebuilt or
replaced. the equation then becomes /my/ cost to replace at $300 vs.
/his/ cost to rebuild, with parts, plus a ton /more/ labor.

On 2008-05-05, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> On 2008-05-04, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>> In article <4PCdnTtvcanR1IjVnZ2dnUVZ_r-vnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, jim beam wrote:
>>>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>>>> In article <EpidnbbGDrydKonVnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@speakeasy.net> , jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <w-2dnbnuLIZqC4nVnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> but you "maintain" a 944 - if ever a vehicle were uneconomic, that is
>>>>>>>>> it. otoh, i can get a whole new engine for my honda for ~$300. less if
>>>>>>>>> i buy locally. for that money, i can throw in a whole new motor every
>>>>>>>>> year if i want to. "no longer be economical" my ass.
>>>>>>>> If you value your labor at zero.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> er, actually, the labor to rebuild a motor is /way/ more than to replace.
>>>>>> Um, the question is having gauges to prevent needing either vs. driving
>>>>>> it into the ground and replacing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> eh? you're the one who said "If you value your labor at zero".
>>>> If you consider the 'cost' to be $300 then you value your labor at zero.
>>>> Duh.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> the labor of removal and fitting is the same on both sides of the
>>> equation - it therefore cancels out. there is no labor for re-work if
>>> simply replacing the motor, so the cost /saving/ matters.
>>
>> That's not the question. The point is your total cost is '$300' only if
>> you don't value your labor.
>
> no, you cancel out both sides of the equation. the labor to remove and
> refit an engine is the same on both sides, whether it's rebuilt or
> replaced. the equation then becomes /my/ cost to replace at $300 vs.
> /his/ cost to rebuild, with parts, plus a ton /more/ labor.

Again that is *NOT* the question. Nate said with proper instrumentation
he could spot an impending failure before it became a siezed engine and
be repaired without yanking it out. You said a replacement engine is
only $300, so who cares, just run it until it becomes a paperweight. I
responded that it's only $300 if you value your labor at zero.

Try to follow along.

Brent P wrote:
> On 2008-05-05, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> On 2008-05-04, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>>> In article <4PCdnTtvcanR1IjVnZ2dnUVZ_r-vnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, jim beam wrote:
>>>>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <EpidnbbGDrydKonVnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@speakeasy.net> , jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <w-2dnbnuLIZqC4nVnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> but you "maintain" a 944 - if ever a vehicle were uneconomic, that is
>>>>>>>>>> it. otoh, i can get a whole new engine for my honda for ~$300. less if
>>>>>>>>>> i buy locally. for that money, i can throw in a whole new motor every
>>>>>>>>>> year if i want to. "no longer be economical" my ass.
>>>>>>>>> If you value your labor at zero.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> er, actually, the labor to rebuild a motor is /way/ more than to replace.
>>>>>>> Um, the question is having gauges to prevent needing either vs. driving
>>>>>>> it into the ground and replacing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> eh? you're the one who said "If you value your labor at zero".
>>>>> If you consider the 'cost' to be $300 then you value your labor at zero.
>>>>> Duh.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> the labor of removal and fitting is the same on both sides of the
>>>> equation - it therefore cancels out. there is no labor for re-work if
>>>> simply replacing the motor, so the cost /saving/ matters.
>>> That's not the question. The point is your total cost is '$300' only if
>>> you don't value your labor.
>> no, you cancel out both sides of the equation. the labor to remove and
>> refit an engine is the same on both sides, whether it's rebuilt or
>> replaced. the equation then becomes /my/ cost to replace at $300 vs.
>> /his/ cost to rebuild, with parts, plus a ton /more/ labor.
>
> Again that is *NOT* the question. Nate said with proper instrumentation
> he could spot an impending failure before it became a siezed engine and
> be repaired without yanking it out. You said a replacement engine is
> only $300, so who cares, just run it until it becomes a paperweight. I
> responded that it's only $300 if you value your labor at zero.
>
> Try to follow along.
>
>

oh, i get it, you can't argue the point /you/ raised, so now you want to
change it back onto another topic, and ignore anything that doesn't
suit. sorry, my mistake.

>
> 1. the operator cares. as a honda driver, i'm confident i have
> nothing to worry about unless /i/ **** up.

And that line of thinking IS your first ****-up.