"(Pete Cresswell)" <x@y.z> wrote in message
news:rcbe701bftfijv4n8g9icu7gsfqc0jq4qj@4ax.com...
> RE/
> >So, let me pose a question I've been wrestling with.
> >Given a situation where one participates in a carpool, where each drives
> >100+ miles round trip one or twice a week; the carpool has three-four
> >good-sized folks in it (well, maybe one lardbutt, yours truly);
> >
> >Where one would like a quick & nimble, smallish/smaller car for the
> >above-stated carpool, as opposed to a bloato-mobile; where the
>
> Used Suburban.
> --
> PeteCresswell

Thanks, Pete, that's real helpful :^) A used Suburban, but only if somehow
I could make it bigger, taller; maybe put a giant honkin' brushguard on the
front (for all those trips to WalMart); jack up the suspension so my bumpers
(if I bother with having any) clear the roofline of most cars; get me one them
there "**** on Ford" stickers (to let the world know they're dealing with
a man of principles) ... Yessir, that's the ticket.

--
Rick K

 

<MajorDome@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:40743199.5178DA04@mailcity.com...
> You certainly are entitle to your opinion but the discussion was
> ALL about fuel mileage. I'll bet you drive a Toyota because you
> have obviously never driven a Lincoln LS if you think the Camry
> is more nimble. Secondly I don't know were you get your opinion
> about the handling of the Mustang GT but in the past few years
> I've owned both the Solara and the Mustang GT convertibles and
> I'll take the 2004 GT any day of the week for handling at speed
> over the FWD 2004 Solara.
>
>
> mike hunt
>
is the LS nimble enough to avoid the rack and poor resale value??

 

My one son was in a car pool with two other persons, driving a
2dr Ford Focus with a five speed manual tranny on the 160 mile
round trip.. He had a chance to get into a pool with four other
people but he would have to use his V8 Grand Marquis but drive
fewer days a month. He discovered to his surprised that his
average daily fuel mileage was on 5 MPH less driving the GM
rather than the Focus on the mountainous daily trip. Seems
having to run the 4cy in third and fourth gear so often made a
big difference in actual fuel mileage


mike hunt



"(Pete Cresswell)" wrote:
>
> RE/
> >So, let me pose a question I've been wrestling with.
> >Given a situation where one participates in a carpool, where each drives
> >100+ miles round trip one or twice a week; the carpool has three-four
> >good-sized folks in it (well, maybe one lardbutt, yours truly);
> >
> >Where one would like a quick & nimble, smallish/smaller car for the
> >above-stated carpool, as opposed to a bloato-mobile; where the
>
> Used Suburban.
> --
> PeteCresswell

 

What makes you think that, have you owned either one of them?
I've owned both. I had problems with the Solara but none
with the GT.


mike hunt



Tha Gee wrote:
>
> <MajorDome@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:40743651.969CB1F9@mailcity.com...
> > One can buy a V8 Mustang GT convertible for at least $5,000
> > less than a V6 Solar Convertible. The $5,000 will buy all
> > of your gas for six or seven years.
> >
> >
> > mike hunt
> >
> and lots of AAA, and trips to the service center.

 

I've done much better with the Lincoln. I saved a lot of
money since I started buying Lincoln LS's than when I was
buying Lexus'. Have you ever actually owned a Lexus V8 or
a Lincoln LS V8?


mike hunt




Tha Ghee wrote:
>
> <MajorDome@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:40743199.5178DA04@mailcity.com...
> > You certainly are entitle to your opinion but the discussion was
> > ALL about fuel mileage. I'll bet you drive a Toyota because you
> > have obviously never driven a Lincoln LS if you think the Camry
> > is more nimble. Secondly I don't know were you get your opinion
> > about the handling of the Mustang GT but in the past few years
> > I've owned both the Solara and the Mustang GT convertibles and
> > I'll take the 2004 GT any day of the week for handling at speed
> > over the FWD 2004 Solara.
> >
> >
> > mike hunt
> >
> is the LS nimble enough to avoid the rack and poor resale value??

 

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 13:55:57 -0400, StonyMason@mailcity.com wrote:

>My one son was in a car pool with two other persons, driving a
>2dr Ford Focus with a five speed manual tranny on the 160 mile
>round trip.. He had a chance to get into a pool with four other
>people but he would have to use his V8 Grand Marquis but drive
>fewer days a month. He discovered to his surprised that his
>average daily fuel mileage was on 5 MPH less driving the GM

what GM? both the Focus and the Grand Marquis are FoMoCo products.

-Bret

>rather than the Focus on the mountainous daily trip. Seems
>having to run the 4cy in third and fourth gear so often made a
>big difference in actual fuel mileage
>
>
>mike hunt
>
>
>
>"(Pete Cresswell)" wrote:
>>
>> RE/
>> >So, let me pose a question I've been wrestling with.
>> >Given a situation where one participates in a carpool, where each drives
>> >100+ miles round trip one or twice a week; the carpool has three-four
>> >good-sized folks in it (well, maybe one lardbutt, yours truly);
>> >
>> >Where one would like a quick & nimble, smallish/smaller car for the
>> >above-stated carpool, as opposed to a bloato-mobile; where the
>>
>> Used Suburban.
>> --
>> PeteCresswell

 

Duh! You are kidding, right? GM, Grand Marquis


mike hunt



Bert Chase wrote:
>
> On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 13:55:57 -0400, StonyMason@mailcity.com wrote:
>
> >My one son was in a car pool with two other persons, driving a
> >2dr Ford Focus with a five speed manual tranny on the 160 mile
> >round trip.. He had a chance to get into a pool with four other
> >people but he would have to use his V8 Grand Marquis but drive
> >fewer days a month. He discovered to his surprised that his
> >average daily fuel mileage was on 5 MPH less driving the GM
>
> what GM? both the Focus and the Grand Marquis are FoMoCo products.
>
> -Bret
>
> >rather than the Focus on the mountainous daily trip. Seems
> >having to run the 4cy in third and fourth gear so often made a
> >big difference in actual fuel mileage
> >
> >
> >mike hunt
> >
> >
> >
> >"(Pete Cresswell)" wrote:
> >>
> >> RE/
> >> >So, let me pose a question I've been wrestling with.
> >> >Given a situation where one participates in a carpool, where each drives
> >> >100+ miles round trip one or twice a week; the carpool has three-four
> >> >good-sized folks in it (well, maybe one lardbutt, yours truly);
> >> >
> >> >Where one would like a quick & nimble, smallish/smaller car for the
> >> >above-stated carpool, as opposed to a bloato-mobile; where the
> >>
> >> Used Suburban.
> >> --
> >> PeteCresswell

 

"Daniel T." <postmaster@eathlink.net> wrote in message
newsostmaster-28CCBA.23331608042004@news3.west.earthlink.net...

> The problem there, of course, is that people like you end up not having
> any kids in the next generation, while people who don't care and have
> lots of kids end up with families that dominate the world...

Again the paradox. But I don't like telling people how to live their lives.
I mean, for some people it is the only recreation they can afford. Though I
still think it is cruel and unusual punishment to bring a child into this
world.

~KJ~

 

Rick K wrote:
>
> But, it is my "Constitutionally-protected-right" to express my opinion.
> With both words and checkbook.

Um, who said otherwise?

--
Mike Smith

 

Your kidding right? When your about to blow your load, are you thinking
about taxes? It's been conclusively proven that *not* taxes are the main
cause of pregnancy. There are documented cases of teenage girls getting
pregnant from kissing & standing down wind of teenage boys but still....

~KJ~

"Mike Smith" <mike_UNDERSCORE_smith@acm.DOT.org> wrote in message
news:107div0q82jta33@news.supernews.com...
> Roger Blake wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 00:57:59 GMT, George Graves
<gmgravesnos@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >>it. I think the US should close the gates on immigration, and start a
> >>zero-population-growth program NOW.
> >
> >
> > Which provision of the U.S. Constitution were you planning to distort
> > in order to support such a program? Or have "progressives" reached the
> > point where they don't even give thought to a triviality such as
> > the supreme law of the land when concocting their schemes?
>
> Indeed. In fact, one could argue that the right of the people to be
> "secure in their homes and persons", which is enshrined in the Bill of
> Rights, could be construed as a guarantee of the right to reproduce.
>
> Of course, that's not to say that such rights should necessarily be free
> of concomitant responsibilities. For instance, why do we give people a
> tax *break* for having children? The police have to protect those
> children, the armed forces defends those children, etc. It seems to me
> that parents should pay a *tax* on children, rather than get money
> *back*. And who knows, maybe this would have the effect of making a few
> would-be parents think twice about having that first, or second, child.
> (or third, or fourth, etc...)
>
> --
> Mike Smith
>