evenshorteroh
evenshorteroh
evenshorteroh

Not all teachers get pensions, so don’t jump to conclusions there.

The correct answer is to keep the Mazda3 as long as it is reliable.  Going into retirement and relying on being able to borrow money isn’t a great choice, IMO.  People should really be debt-free in retirement.

No way in hell is there any cannabis strong enough to result in this.

Well, I guess one way they’re going to try to get to their $50k target is evidently to not pay for a designer.

OMFG, this thing is hideous.

Your ICCT site uses a laughably low value for the lifetime of a vehicle - 93,750 miles. So its putting the total CO2 over way too short of a lifetime in miles, gives no credit for the residual value of the battery (ie, when it can be used efficiently for power storage but not driving), assumes no recycling value at

Neutral: With cars gaining mass and people generally driving faster, it makes sense to make the tests tougher.

My ONLY beef with it is that as they do it, they generally don’t give enough time for manufacturers to adjust, and then they make too big of a deal out of the differences.  Its similar to CR with reliability

Sorry, buddy, but you clearly have no idea how insurance works. After your deductible, you pay a coinsurance (typically only 10-30%) and insurance covers the rest. Once you hit your out of pocket maximum ($7,900 for an individual plan MAX this year), insurance covers the rest. There’s no “out” for your insurance

Plugin hybrids are a bit problematic. You’re adding a good-sized battery pack, but not improving efficiency on long hauls at all over a basic hybrid (generally not even much better than a non-hybrid). You’re getting decent efficiency on daily driving, but you’re hauling around an expensive motor and transmission

Meh, it should be a blend. IMO, ALL vehicles should go to hybrid tech at a minimum. The additional cost is pretty minimal nowadays, and they can package them much better than before. Have you seen how much smaller the new Escape hybrid’s battery is than the first generation? It’s freaking tiny by comparison. The first

Yeah, and the deductibles/coinsurance the guy would pay would only be a tiny fraction of the overall bill. The insurance would eat the rest, and then use that as a basis to raise everyone’s rates. It’s not hard to understand.

And if the guy was uninsured, then the hospital would almost invariably end up writing off

Are you white?  Because the police nationwide have a significantly higher enforcement rate of that violation against minorities.

WTF? Explain how he’s wrong.

Someone doesn’t wear a seatbelt, they get seriously injured. Their health insurance kicks in - but by nature of that very product, the insurance company doesn’t send him 100% of the bills - they pay most of them. That means they have to raise insurance rates.

It’s simple logic.

YEP.

And lets not forget that the injuries suffered by the unbelted driver are also accompanied by good odds that person is on social security disability, welfare, medicaid, etc, for the rest of their life.  That’s certainly costing everyone else, too.

Well, it was kind of cutting edge back in 1986.  Then they stopped trying to lead and were content with following.  Was still a solid choice for many years for consumers based on value.

How many years ago, though?  Too many in older generations don’t understand how things have become exponentially more expensive.  Hell, my Dad talks about near riots at MIT when tuition went to $400 a term in the late 60s.  When I was in school, that tuition was ~$10,000 a term.  Now it’s $25,000 a term.  State

Well, good luck to them.  Its rough to start off your adult life drowning in debt.

Sure - but if you’re looking for a family vehicle, pushing the front seat back to touching the rear seat becomes problematic.

I agree there are plenty of options, but realistically, a rav4 has too little leg and headroom for four people that size.

It floors me that people actually do think like you post (even though it was clearly sarcasm in your case).

It felt like I was signing my life away buying a house that cost 3x my annual income. 15 years later, though, and the balance is just 4 months of income now. Coworkers keep asking when I’m going to move into

If you make $100k/yr but you own your house/condo, have no student loan debt, and have some money in the bank then go right ahead and buy a $70k car.

Why would we take offense? We tend to agree with all that. Cars are simply not designed for us at all. But worse are airplanes. If I had a dollar for the every time the person in front of me tried to recline but couldn’t because there was no way to warp space-time to make it physically possible, I’d be a rich man.