"80 Knight" ...
will be 20 in November, Katie will be 17 in July. Time flies, huh?

I haven't been on the geek NGs in quite some time. The trolls took over,
and I lost interest in talking about the shows, so...

I just hang out on this NG and watch the car talk in-between the political
rhetoric LOL

Natalie

"Bonehenge (B A R R Y)" <DwightSchrute (AT) DunderMifflin (DOT) com> wrote

I'd look at domestic first, if I were in the marked for a largish vehicle.
Most people I know with them seem very happy with everything except gas
mileage. But I wouldn't rule out Toyotas either.
"As parts fall off"? LOL. That's pretty sad.

I always liked the look of the old Jeep, and it's amazing how many of them
are still on the road.

Natalie

Dear ASSHOLE:

I'm top-posting this so you will see this.

In 1966 Chevelle made a 4-door vehicle. The one we had a 396 engine in it
and had the badge on the side. By the time we were using it, it was nearly
10 years old. I had the damn thing up to 80 miles an hour in the hills
south and southwest of St. Louis in 1976, and that ain't easy.

Now don't tell me I have no credibity, GM Tuckus Leker. Just because I tell
you you're all brainwashed in American advertising bullshit, which you so
obviously are.


Charles of Schaumburg.

Dear Tuckus Leker:

That's over the whole family. Dad owned the 72 Carina, then had the 77
Corolla 22 years, until almost the day he died. The Carina we drove 36,000
miles a year. All of these mileages are total vehicle miles. Many of these
were USED when we bought them. My sister owns 2 of them. and there are two
drivers at her house. My sister-in-law has sort of taken over the Previa.

Case in point: The 93 we bought in the fall of 1994 with 27,000 miles on
it, and just retired it in January. It was my sister's first car, I bought
it off her after the Chevy S-10 fiasco in 1999 at 72,000 miles. For a while
I was driving it a minimum of 90 miles a day. That's how it ended up with
238,000 miles.

So kiss the mistletoe, I wear it on my belt loop the same place Mayor Dailey
used to wear his!

Charles of Schaumburg
"Mike Marlow" <mmarlow (AT) alltel (DOT) net> wrote

If the price of fuel was really the only factor in ones buying decision,
Toyota would be selling more Corollas than Camrys and GM and Ford would not
be selling far more trucks than Toyotas sells Camrys. LOL

mike


"BoobooBear" <Boo (AT) yahaa (DOT) com> wrote

Dear Tuckus Leker:

I see you are doing the same thing to me that you're accusing me of doing.

You don't belive my experience at all.

You've earned a special spot on my blocked senders list, and I won't be
posting to the brainwashed GM group again.

I don't read posts from liberals, and people that call me a liar. Now go to
hell. Or to San Fag Cisco, which amounts to the same thing.

Charles of Schaumburg

PS I'm top posting this as a special favor to you so you can read it, since
you live in some sort of alternate reality where Toyotas rust and GM's
don't.

And I beat one of your GM mid 80 Chevy Caprice lead sleds with the 77
Corolla about a year before we drove it to the breaker's yard off the light
after the punk kids driving it started laughing at my dad's little old
Corolla. Actually we had some problem with rust after 21 years with that
car because it was repainted by an American after the deer hit it in 1990.
Still took 6 years to start rusting after that.

"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno (AT) AE86 (DOT) gts> wrote

Reminicent of the performance I got out of the Corvair, with the 80 hp
engine and Power-slide tranny. My S-10 in 1995 wasn't much better. My
sister's 95 Corolla could do LOTS better. Plus they put in 2-wheel ABS
which made stopping very tricky on slick roads. Typical General
Maintenance.

And the 93, when it was new, could get 39 mpg on the highway fairly
steadily. This new one finally hit 31 mpg the other day, doesn't have the
overdrive or the big engine.

I've had less trouble out of my 93 in the 7 years I drove it almost 150,000
miles than the S-10, 4 years and 50,000 miles.

Charles of Schaumburg

"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno (AT) AE86 (DOT) gts> wrote

I'm not exactly a big guy, and the current body iteration, which came out in
1995, I kept bumping my head on the back glass when I hit bumps cause I had
to drive with the seat that far back. I'm only 5-10.

Again, I could have bought the identical truck with the identical options
from GMC and had the privilege of paying 1,000 more for it. If they're
still running with the same engine sets they had in 1995, they're not very
good. They had the 2.2 4 that had a wierd torque curve. Then they had the
4.3 that only put out a measly 40 more horsepower than the 4 and weighed so
much more that the overall performace was actually WORSE. Then they had
some sort of boosted 4.3 that put out about another 40 horses, but you had
to pay almost twice as much for that one, since it only came in the extended
cab and with a lot of gegaws.

Typical stupid GM thinking. Lowball Toyota, but then require the buyer to
actually pay a lot more to get something decent and get a lot of things they
may not want.

Charles of Schaumburg

"Wickeddoll" <wickeddoll1958DieSpammersDie (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote

If I were in the market for a Jeep, I'd want something more like the old
CJ-2's and 3's. Those things you couldn't kill.

Charles of Schaumburg

"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno (AT) AE86 (DOT) gts> wrote

Really. Bet Mr 80Knight owned a VW Beetle in his past, too.

The Brainwashed over in the GM forum don't get it. Why people bought Model
T's in the early 1920's, VW's in the 60's and started buying Toyotas in the
1970's is something GM and its cohorts will never understand. We celebrate
the absence of fancy options. WE DON'T WANT THEM. We want a basic
machine that will get up, go and keep going.

GM has always had a structure where you often had to get certain options
packages to get stuff you wanted, but you got stuff you didn't want, too.
For instance, when I bought my S-10 in 1995, I wanted a 5 speed, so I had to
get the 2.2 engine and the short cab. Had I wanted the 4.3 engine, I would
have had to get the longer cab and an auto tranny, which added so much
weight that the performance was actually worse than my little 2.2. And in
order to get the 4.3 that actually had any get up and go, I would have had
to pay over 20,000, when the base S-10 with the 5 speed actually cost just
over 10,000. We had similar problems trying to buy a new Chevy in 1973, so
GM is still practicing its same old tricks.

Charles of Schaumburg