Honda Car Forum

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> 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.
>

I'm not aware of any readily available statistics on really, really long
term use, but if you're talking about cars from the 80's the Krauts had
it down back then.

Consumer Reports, et. al. IMHO take a short term view, although somewhat
by necessity since I don't know how many people actually keep cars as
long as I do.

Even so, any car "of a certain age" will have issues, no matter *how*
well built.

nate

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

jim beam wrote:

>
> absolutely not. but the point is, almost nothing comes out of the blue.
> and the rare things that do are statistically insignificant.

Hmmm... in the past 10 years catching "statistically insignificant"
indications from simple gauges has saved me at least two engines (and
breakdowns that might have occurred God-knows-where.) That's sure as
hell not insignificant to my bank account, or my family's safety.

it's
> utterly stupid to argue that all cars should carry extensive
> instrumentation for the one in a million times it might be useful.

As I said before: God you're dumb.

No one is advocating "extensive" instrumentation. The instrumentation
needs of a passenger car are SO simplistic that there's no need to
condense/combine/dumb-down the instrumentation.

jim beam wrote:
> 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.

I can honestly say that I didn't understand a single tiny bit of what
you were trying to get at with your reply. Congratulations, a new
Usenet record.

nate

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

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.
>

And you forgot that even if the failure isn't serviceable in the car, at
least if you have advance warning, you get to repair it at your leisure
rather than trying to call a tow truck in BFE, Ohio.

nate


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

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <tfidnTGZ2cwJg4DVnZ2dnUVZ_trinZ2d@texas.net>,
> Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>
>> Brent P wrote:
>>
>>>> But Nate seems to think that the same dumbasses whom he ADMITS can't
>>>> halfway maintain their cars, can suddenly see the gauges and know what
>>>> to think about them.
>>> Funny, having read Nate's posts for years I would say you're dead wrong.
>>>
>>>
>> Of course he is dead wrong. About pretty much everything. These
>> dipsticks that got on Daddy's computer come bombing into a newsgroup
>> where (Lloyd notwithstanding...) we've all had pretty informative,
>> intelligent, and rational conversations for years... and presume to tell
>> us that we don't have a clue.
>
> But Nate says people are dumbasses who can't halfway maintain their cars.
>
> Now he says those same dumbasses can suddenly understand and use gauges?
>
> Nate's the dumbass.
>

No DUBMASS. Nate is saying that dumb-assedness begets dumbassedness.
Designing for dumbasses makes more users into dumbasses. Up to a point
"ease of use" is beneficial. Carried to far, it dumbs down.

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <fvkiem12nrp@news2.newsguy.com>,
> Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote:
>
>>> No--insisting that cars be built with such gauges is idiotic.
>>>
>> I'm not insisting that they be built with them. I'm just stating that
>> they'd better be damn appealing - more so than most new cars - if the
>> manufacturer expects me to buy them
>
> But since you are one of three people who cares like this, the real
> world says manufacturers wouldn't care about you and your wants even if
> they knew about you.
>
> I'm talking real world here.
>

Note from the real world: lots of cars DO still have adequate
instrumentation. Just because a couple of little shitboxes from a couple
of shitbox-specialist manufacturers don't doesn't mean the rest of the
world will follow.

Nate Nagel wrote:

>
> Some of us like to know about *impending* failures before a tow truck is
> necessary. It seems somehow more convenient.
>
> nate
>

Which may be why the NEWEST car I own has seen 250,000 miles without
need for a towtruck (EVER). The highest mileage has 447,000 miles. The
middle one will hit 300k sometime this summer. Not bad for "inferior
American cars."

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <fvlbuo4vp0@news2.newsguy.com>,
> Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote:
>
>>> Same with the cars: you don't want the engineers who have to know the
>>> temperature at the top of the piston ("just in case, to avoid failure")
>>> to be involved in managing the money pump that is an auto manufacturer.
>>>
>> We're not talking about throwing thermocouples in there willy-nilly.
>> We're talking about the basic instrumentation necessary to give you a
>> high-level view of the basic operating parameters and health of the engine.
>>
>
> Again: that "basic" instrumentation is beyond 99.9% of the auto buying
> and driving public.
>

That's ridiculous, anyone that can tell time can read an oil pressure
gauge. That skill wasn't beyond my grandmother who drove cars from 1920
until 1995 and never had more than a high-school education, so it damn
sure better NOT be beyond more than 1% of the driving populace today or
we really are headed down the sewer as a society.

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <fvlbsr3vp0@news2.newsguy.com>,
> Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> You wouldn't make much of a politician, I'll tell you that.

Wow. So you CAN compliment someone!

jim beam wrote:
> Steve wrote:

>>
>> I've already given you two instances, one by a COMPLETE NON-TECHNICAL
>> driver (my wife) where a gauge saved an engine.
>
> and the so-called "idiot light" would have served exactly the same purpose!
>


Good God! Do I have to explain it AGAIN?????

The temperature was STILL WITHIN THE NORMAL RANGE. It would NOT have
turned on an idiot light. The key was that it was creeping higher than
USUAL in certain situations. No idiot light would EVER have indicated
that, but a gauge does. Can you not understand that? Do you REALLY not
comprehend something so BLINDINGLY SIMPLE?!?!? A simple analogy would be
the same as saying, "you don't need a gas gauge, just depend on the low
fuel warning light. It would have served the same purpose."

>
>>
>> And in the other case where I (an engineer) was able to detect a
>> failed filter by abnormal (but still technically in-spec) pressure
>> behavior.
>
> so you say. but if you'd used a decent filter in the first place, with
> the correct change interval, that wouldn't be an issue.

How do you debate with stupidity that thick? If you really can't
understand that ALL manufactured items, regardless of the manufacturer,
are subject to the vagaries of manufacturing processes, then you're
beyond hope.