Last post on Jan 28, 2002 at 9:23 AM
You are in the Classic Cars - Archived Discussions
This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Lost In The Town Hall... discussion.
What is this discussion about?
#27 of 36 Better watch what you ask for...
Jan 02, 2002 (6:49 pm)
...it just might happen! For example, I've heard that it's often not a good idea to give a kid a monstrous-sized beater as his first car, because its massive size will make him feel invulnverable, so he'll take more chances. Still, I think I'd rather see a cocky 16 year old in a ragged-out '72 Impala than a ragged-out Excursion or Suburban!
I think smaller SUV's will take care of themselves. For the most part, they're not built all that well, and have a lot of weight-saving components to keep 'em relatively economical, but they can be expensive when they brake. But those big, old, low-tech ones will find a way to endure.
#28 of 36 I think it's already happened
Jan 03, 2002 (2:38 am)
SUVs have already made it into the second-car/beater/kids' car caterory. Since many families trade in cars every three to six years, lots of 91-94 Exploders and Blazers were brought back home when the Ps discovered they were virtually worthless as trade-ins.
Kinda scary, having sixteen year-olds driving SUVs that their parents never mastered. I don't know if I was any more safe at 16 in 1985, driving a 71 Electra 225 on roads full of K-cars, Corollas and Fairmonts, though.
For the record, my twin bro's 96 Blazer was a POS from the day he bought it used in 98, IMO. The dealer service has been terrible also.
He's still paying $450 payments, now owes about $8k on a car worth $4k in trade.
I'd say, if we're keeping 'on-topic' a used, really old car can be a solid financial decision, IFF you buy one that will be worth 'something' after you keep it some years, and the repair costs are reasonable. It sucks spending big money on a used car and its repairs for years and having a worthless car in the end.
#29 of 36 Especially if
Jan 03, 2002 (6:39 am)
you can never keep the thing fixed -- as with my b-in-law's POS Dodge. Thing's a money pit. I keep telling him he'd be better off just cutting his losses and buying something else, but you know how people are....he says he can't afford anything else (but yet he can afford putting the maintenance on his credit card!!!). Doh!
#30 of 36 Champion of the Poor:
Jan 03, 2002 (12:14 pm)
The 1977-1996 Chevrolet Caprice. Virtually indestructible, easy to maintain and repair. Parts are plentiful.
#31 of 36 The 77-90
Jan 03, 2002 (3:05 pm)
was, and is, one of the best-proportioned, tastefully designed large sedans ever to grace the road. They are (or at least were) so common that they became kind of invisible. But I think they were a masterpiece of American styling -- the Malibu as well.
I saw the 91 Caprice at the Detroit Auto Show, and was just bowled over by it -- as were most of the other people there. Unfortunately, it looked like the SS (only in purple!), instead of the pie-plate rimmed, chrome bedecked monstrosity they actually produced. When will carmakers get it through their heads that wheels and tires proportional to the size of the car and the fenderwells is the simplest and most important thing you can do to enhance a car's appearance?
91-on Caprices tarted up to look like SSs are VERY popular here in LA -- and they still look good. Just really, really large!
#32 of 36 Reason why...
Jan 03, 2002 (3:13 pm)
...the 1977-90 Caprices look so good is because they were designed by the late, great Bill Mitchell!
#33 of 36 Amen to that.
Jan 03, 2002 (4:05 pm)
He was a real one of a kind. Crisp detailing and beautiful proportions. His Eldorado was just sweet.
Jan 06, 2002 (3:56 pm)
to combat the problems of the working poor having access only to used vehicles, the government should engage in either directly producing a small inexpensive vehicle with tax money, or possibly to simply create an entitlement program whereby they provide basic vehicles to people who qualify, like they do with housing, medical treatment, insurance, and food. If we accept the theory that cars are necessary to survive, then this might be the next logical step.
- Tongue removed from cheek. - makes you think, though. It might even be cheaper and more useful than subsidizing empty buses, empty ight rail mass transit and empty Amtrak trains.
Jan 06, 2002 (4:24 pm)
Hey, no Amtrak jokes, I love Amtrak....well, trains....I love Amtrak because it happens to be a train.
It's not Amtrak's fault. Unlike European trains, they have to share all rail lines with freight carriers. This slows 'em down and beats up the track.
Amtraks' still great fun. I recommend it to anyone who hasn't tried it.
#36 of 36 Subsidizing cars?
Jan 28, 2002 (9:23 am)
Great. Just what this country needs. Another handout to the lazy at the expense of John Q. Taxpayer! Let's just do away with working all together, Federalize everything that has any value at all in this country, and distribute it evenly to all 300 million citizens. Oh wait. The Soviets tried that already, and sent their economy into the TOILET!