Gas Prices making a dent ... finally!

Fat chance that there will be rationing with the Republicans in power. The
commodities buyers, in a free market, determine the price of crude. If
demand exceeds the supply the higher price will discourage unnecessary
consumption. Those that can not afford the fuel will drive less. Those
that can afford to buy the fuel they need will buy what they need.


mike hunt

<jcd1234@kattare.com> wrote in message
news:1128521217.899881.316530@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...[color=blue]
> Not if the government intervenes like they have lately and force people
> not to fill up their gas guzzlers due to war rationing. :) There may
> also be random mobs to beat people up filling up more than say 10
> gallons at a time, and the government may conveniently look the other
> way (like it does with immigration)
>
>
>
> Mike Hunter wrote:[color=green]
>> One is entitled to their own opinion and to spend their money wherever
>> they
>> wish. ;)
>>
>> mike hunt
>>
>>
>> "Charles Pisano" <pisanochas@webtv.net> wrote in message
>> news:29455-434329AD-58@storefull-3271.bay.webtv.net...
>>
>> Re: Gas Prices making a dent ... finally!
>>
>> Group: alt.autos.toyota Date: Tue, Oct 4, 2005, 3:24pm From:
>> [email]mikehunt2@mailcity.com[/email] (Mike Hunter)
>> Now that Toyota is selling car by the millions, rather than the hundreds
>> of thousands, more of their bad one are showing up as well. Get real how
>> about all of the V6 engines with the 'gelling;' problem........
>>
>> -------------------
>>
>> Actually I think gelling was more prevalent in the 4 cyls.
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------
>> ..... or the blown head gaskets on Toyotas? Does that mean all Toyotas
>> are junk, I don't think so.. Every manufacture makes good vehicles today
>> and yes some are not up to par even Toyotas
>> mike hunt
>> ------------------
>>
>> I'd have better luck trying to convince a discussion group full of GM
>> owners that Toyota is superior to GM than you do trying to convince this
>> DB that GM is on 'par' with Toyo...
>>
>> My 95 Chev. Blazer was not unlike the above posters suburban (one
>> problem after another). My pontiac GP was the same way.
>>
>> I (also) would never, never , ever buy another GM. That is the only way
>> I can ever get justice from a company that ripped me off and could care
>> less of my opinion 'after' they cashed my check..
>>
>> I hope they go out of business sooner than later.
>>
>> CP[/color]
>[/color]

No further information is needed when one is comparing similar sized and
equipped vehicles that are available to buyers and brand A and B sell more
than C and D. The conclusion as to why is obvious ;)

mike hunt


"Doug Kanter" <ancientangler@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qsR0f.8913$cg.8512@news02.roc.ny...[color=blue]
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:GaCdnd0xe7bjfd7eUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>[color=green]
>> the fact remains GM sells three times as many vehicles in the US as does
>> Toyota and Ford sells more than twice as many as Toyota.[/color]
>
> Do you need an explanation of why sheer sales numbers are meaningless
> without further information?[/color]

I not going to argue your opinion, you can believe what you wish, but I
suggest you ask for more detail and expand your search criteria LOL

mike hunt


"Doug Kanter" <ancientangler@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6GR0f.8915$cg.4209@news02.roc.ny...[color=blue]
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:a92dna_FO8l1eN7eUSdV9g@ptd.net...[color=green]
>> Where do you get those assumptions? There is little discernable
>> difference in the build quality and longevity among the vehicles offer
>> for sale by all of the manufactures today.[/color]
>
> Consumer Reports continues to find more defects in the American cars they
> test. It's improved over the past 15 years, but there's still a wide
> margin. It's significant because most of what they find involves fit and
> finish. They can't see the hidden things that pop up 2-3 years later.
>[/color]

Well....it's on the printed page right in front of me when I read the
magazine, and I'm pretty sure I'm not hallucinating. In addition, they
conduct owner surveys which reveal how people feel about their cars a few
years later.

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:nt6dnemHGJr4d97eUSdV9g@ptd.net...[color=blue]
>I not going to argue your opinion, you can believe what you wish, but I
>suggest you ask for more detail and expand your search criteria LOL
>
> mike hunt
>
>
> "Doug Kanter" <ancientangler@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6GR0f.8915$cg.4209@news02.roc.ny...[color=green]
>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>> news:a92dna_FO8l1eN7eUSdV9g@ptd.net...[color=darkred]
>>> Where do you get those assumptions? There is little discernable
>>> difference in the build quality and longevity among the vehicles offer
>>> for sale by all of the manufactures today.[/color]
>>
>> Consumer Reports continues to find more defects in the American cars they
>> test. It's improved over the past 15 years, but there's still a wide
>> margin. It's significant because most of what they find involves fit and
>> finish. They can't see the hidden things that pop up 2-3 years later.
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

Mike Hunter wrote:[color=blue]
> Fat chance that there will be rationing with the Republicans in power. The
> commodities buyers, in a free market, determine the price of crude. If
> demand exceeds the supply the higher price will discourage unnecessary
> consumption. Those that can not afford the fuel will drive less. Those
> that can afford to buy the fuel they need will buy what they need.
>
>[/color]

Can you say the same thing if vigilante groups go around beating people
up for filling up their tanks? Enforcing these people will prove a
fruitless venture. Whenever a communal asset is overused by a few,
people take it amongst themselves to do something about it, regardless
of the potential criminal outcome.

Umm....no. Wasn't it you who, in another message, said that the number of
potential buyers had increased over the years, and that even though GM's
percentage share was smaller than in the past, they were selling more cars
than Toyota?

Do you see how meaningless that is? Yes, or no?

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:HN-dnXw4PeundN7eUSdV9g@ptd.net...[color=blue]
> No further information is needed when one is comparing similar sized and
> equipped vehicles that are available to buyers and brand A and B sell more
> than C and D. The conclusion as to why is obvious ;)
>
> mike hunt
>
>
> "Doug Kanter" <ancientangler@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:qsR0f.8913$cg.8512@news02.roc.ny...[color=green]
>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>> news:GaCdnd0xe7bjfd7eUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>[color=darkred]
>>> the fact remains GM sells three times as many vehicles in the US as does
>>> Toyota and Ford sells more than twice as many as Toyota.[/color]
>>
>> Do you need an explanation of why sheer sales numbers are meaningless
>> without further information?[/color]
>
>[/color]

Incidentally, the government is already asking for voluntary
conservation. Considering that the Republican party has abandoned its
constituents (and the Democratic party longer ago) concerning the free
market and not having the gov't intervene for just about anything, do
you really think Republicans will let the free market dictate the
buying and selling of an asset as essential as this? Fat chance. Many
of Reps supporters will not be able to afford $5-7/gal gas and they are
a strong voter base. Controls will be put into place to save those
votes. These white collar folks and soccer moms have to get to work,
and the Republicans will not let a little rationing get in the way of
maintaining their voter base. I would do the same. It's just good
business to keep your customers happy.

Mike Hunter wrote:[color=blue]
> Fat chance that there will be rationing with the Republicans in power. The
> commodities buyers, in a free market, determine the price of crude. If
> demand exceeds the supply the higher price will discourage unnecessary
> consumption. Those that can not afford the fuel will drive less. Those
> that can afford to buy the fuel they need will buy what they need.
>
>
> mike hunt[/color]

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:a92dna_FO8l1eN7eUSdV9g@ptd.net...[color=blue]
> Where do you get those assumptions? There is little discernable[/color]
difference[color=blue]
> in the build quality and longevity among the vehicles offer for sale by[/color]
all[color=blue]
> of the manufactures today.[/color]

You've made this claim before and never offered a reference to back it. Do
so.
[color=blue]
> As to fuel economy GM offers more vehicles that
> get MPG figures equal or better than to anything sold by Toyota and they[/color]
are[color=blue]
> doing it with engines that are not underpowered. Do a little research
> rather than expressing an uninformed opinion, WBMA
>[/color]

You've made this claim before. Do a bumper-to-bumber comparison for us.
What GM or Ford vehicle do you think is equivalent to or better than a 154hp
Camry LE and still gets equal or better gas mileage?

Here, I'll do one for you... In spite of the price difference (the 154hp
Camry LE is considerably cheaper, at least before the givebacks GM finds
necessary to move Buicks), you could compare the Buick LaCrosse (one of GM's
most recent introductions, so we'd expect it to be technologically
sophisticated) and the Camry LE. The Camry's 9 in or so shorter and a
little narrower (i.e., fits into my garage more readily) but has more
luggage room and most interior dimensions are very, very close. The
features list is similar, too, but the edge goes to the Buick for having
"wood trim" in several places (yippee). The Camry is rated at 24/34 for
mileage and the LaCrosse is rated at 20/29 mpg.

You've also disparaged the performance of 4-cylinder Camrys before. The
good people at [url]www.web-cars.com[/url] project that, yes, the V6 LaCrosse will beat
the I4 Camry in the quarter mile by 16.80 to 17.75 seconds (I added 150 lbs
for the drivers). Not a terribly impressive victory (I'll take the gas
savings, thank you). I'd bet you'd find that the LaCrosse doesn't actually
have a one-second lead over the Camry, either, since the Toyota uses a DOHC
VVTi motor (in my experience, VVTi engines give much better low-end torque)
while the Buick has an 3.8L OHV engine without any tricks.

By the way, good luck parking that Buick. GM thoughtfully engineered a
turning in a turning circle of 40.4 feet vs 34.8 for the Camry.

Of course, if you do value performance over fuel mileage, the 3.3L V6 Camry
SE is still list-priced less than the LaCrosse and has 210HP on tap in a
3450 lb package, getting 21/29mpg (slightly better than the LaCrosse). It is
projected to quarter mile .35 sec faster than the Buick but I'd be very
suprised the margin if wasn't actually larger (the Toyota 3.3L V6 is also a
VVTi/DOHC engine).

Got a trailer? Consider buying a Camry, which tows 2000 lbs, as opposed to
the Buick's 1000 lbs.

Sources: [url]www.edmunds.com[/url]
[color=blue]
> mike hunt
>
>
> <jcd1234@kattare.com> wrote in message
> news:1128520615.935380.134680@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...[color=green]
> >[color=darkred]
> >> I see your point about blind patriotism and consumer purchasing, but[/color]
> > WWII veterans are dying at an astonishing rate every day. The hatred
> > of Japanese cars is dying with it. The 80s was riddled with hatred for
> > all things Japanese, as their quality symbolized a demise in the U.S.
> > automobile industry. Quality increased somewhat at that time, so
> > people bought American again. Now, the quality factor, not to mention
> > the MPG factor, is displacing that "patriotism" of consumer purchasing.
> > People already forget the 80s and the Jap threat that materialized.
> > Also, Jap companies employ U.S. workers and help boost the U.S. economy
> > anyway. So, there's little reason for most educated (and even
> > non-educated) people to avoid purchasing them anymore. This blind
> > patriotism is a dying breed. In a way, it's a good thing, because the
> > free market works best when gov't isn't involved in bailing out
> > organizations and consumers choose based on value (not to mention
> > meddling in our personal affairs). It helps promote the concept that
> > vehicles will continue to improve in their longevity and endurance.
> >[/color]
>
>[/color]

On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 09:59:51 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
<mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>If that is what you believe then you have not read GMs latest stockholders
>report LOL
>
>
>mike hunt[/color]

The latest Annual Report on GM

Look at page 46 of 108 Results of Operations

Net Income 2,894

Then look a bit deeper and find out where that came from.....

GMAC

2,913

GM is losing its ass in the automotive end.

Like I said....sell all you have while it is worth anything WBMA

[url]http://www.gm.com/company/investor_information/docs/fin_data/gm04ar/download/gm04ar.pdf[/url]
[color=blue]
>
>
>
>
>"Scott in Florida" <JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote in message
>news:3466k1d7i14o8ppdm887tu62vh5qfd791m@4ax.com...[color=green]
>> On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 18:34:41 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
>> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Did you ever hear of the word profit? ;)
>>>
>>>mike hunt[/color]
>>
>> GM is only making money on their financing operation and issuing bonds
>> for the money to pay dividends. Very bad idea.
>>
>> Like I said....sell
>>
>> You can buy my a drink with your profits...
>>[color=darkred]
>>>
>>>
>>>"Scott in Florida" <JustAsk@Florida.com> wrote in message
>>>news:5js5k1hkt534njjhej27pk95mfkhmqg0ia@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 4 Oct 2005 13:40:00 -0400, "Mike Hunter"
>>>> <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>GM has always paid good dividends,
>>>>
>>>> I'd investigate where GM is getting the money for your dividends...
>>>>
>>>> ...and then sell all you have...
>>>>
>>>> Don't say I didn't warn ya
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Scott in Florida
>>>[/color]
>> --
>>
>> Scott in Florida[/color]
>[/color]
--

Scott in Florida

Doug Kanter wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:a92dna_FO8l1eN7eUSdV9g@ptd.net...[color=green]
>> Where do you get those assumptions? There is little discernable
>> difference in the build quality and longevity among the vehicles offer for
>> sale by all of the manufactures today.[/color]
>
> Consumer Reports continues to find more defects in the American cars they
> test. It's improved over the past 15 years, but there's still a wide margin.
> It's significant because most of what they find involves fit and finish.
> They can't see the hidden things that pop up 2-3 years later.[/color]

Don't listen to "Mike Hunt(er)". He has thrown around this claim and other
pro-domestic claims time and time again, and yet has offered no solid
evidence to back them up. He's just a troll, and an illiterate one at that.
"Manufactures"... LOFL!!!

"High Tech Misfit" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:17fvvwbkl074b$.dlg@hightech.misfit...[color=blue]
> Doug Kanter wrote:
>[color=green]
>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>> news:a92dna_FO8l1eN7eUSdV9g@ptd.net...[color=darkred]
>>> Where do you get those assumptions? There is little discernable
>>> difference in the build quality and longevity among the vehicles offer
>>> for
>>> sale by all of the manufactures today.[/color]
>>
>> Consumer Reports continues to find more defects in the American cars they
>> test. It's improved over the past 15 years, but there's still a wide
>> margin.
>> It's significant because most of what they find involves fit and finish.
>> They can't see the hidden things that pop up 2-3 years later.[/color]
>
> Don't listen to "Mike Hunt(er)". He has thrown around this claim and
> other
> pro-domestic claims time and time again, and yet has offered no solid
> evidence to back them up. He's just a troll, and an illiterate one at
> that.
> "Manufactures"... LOFL!!![/color]

I love the bit about how a smaller percentage of a higher number is evidence
of something (?), even if the actual number of cars ends up being larger.

You mesn the peopl that subscribe to their magazine,
"Doug Kanter" <ancientangler@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:HeS0f.802$647.379@news01.roc.ny...[color=blue]
> Well....it's on the printed page right in front of me when I read the
> magazine, and I'm pretty sure I'm not hallucinating. In addition, they
> conduct owner surveys which reveal how people feel about their cars a few
> years later.
>
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:nt6dnemHGJr4d97eUSdV9g@ptd.net...[color=green]
>>I not going to argue your opinion, you can believe what you wish, but I
>>suggest you ask for more detail and expand your search criteria LOL
>>
>> mike hunt
>>
>>
>> "Doug Kanter" <ancientangler@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:6GR0f.8915$cg.4209@news02.roc.ny...[color=darkred]
>>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>> news:a92dna_FO8l1eN7eUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>> Where do you get those assumptions? There is little discernable
>>>> difference in the build quality and longevity among the vehicles offer
>>>> for sale by all of the manufactures today.
>>>
>>> Consumer Reports continues to find more defects in the American cars
>>> they test. It's improved over the past 15 years, but there's still a
>>> wide margin. It's significant because most of what they find involves
>>> fit and finish. They can't see the hidden things that pop up 2-3 years
>>> later.
>>>[/color]
>>
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

Yes. People who subscribe. You're an expert statistician. Explain the effect
of this fact on the survey results.

"Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:tPmdnamTkMO8utneUSdV9g@ptd.net...[color=blue]
> You mesn the peopl that subscribe to their magazine,
> "Doug Kanter" <ancientangler@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:HeS0f.802$647.379@news01.roc.ny...[color=green]
>> Well....it's on the printed page right in front of me when I read the
>> magazine, and I'm pretty sure I'm not hallucinating. In addition, they
>> conduct owner surveys which reveal how people feel about their cars a few
>> years later.[/color][/color]

You mean they survey the FEW thousand people who happen to subscribe to
their magazine, you need to expand your search criteria to get the true
picture. An average of nearly 17,000,000 new vehicles have been sold
annually in the US over the past ten years. I for one buy a lot of new cars
and I have not had ONE that was problematic in years, foreign or domestic
In my former business we serviced thousands of vehicles from all brands
monthly in our shops and we saw little difference in the failure rate among
brands. In my opinion the average new car buyer would do better to look at
the cost of repairs among brands rather than any perceived frequency
difference in the need for repairs


mike hunt


"Doug Kanter" <ancientangler@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:HeS0f.802$647.379@news01.roc.ny...[color=blue]
> Well....it's on the printed page right in front of me when I read the
> magazine, and I'm pretty sure I'm not hallucinating. In addition, they
> conduct owner surveys which reveal how people feel about their cars a few
> years later.
>
> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:nt6dnemHGJr4d97eUSdV9g@ptd.net...[color=green]
>>I not going to argue your opinion, you can believe what you wish, but I
>>suggest you ask for more detail and expand your search criteria LOL
>>
>> mike hunt
>>
>>
>> "Doug Kanter" <ancientangler@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:6GR0f.8915$cg.4209@news02.roc.ny...[color=darkred]
>>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>>> news:a92dna_FO8l1eN7eUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>>> Where do you get those assumptions? There is little discernable
>>>> difference in the build quality and longevity among the vehicles offer
>>>> for sale by all of the manufactures today.
>>>
>>> Consumer Reports continues to find more defects in the American cars
>>> they test. It's improved over the past 15 years, but there's still a
>>> wide margin. It's significant because most of what they find involves
>>> fit and finish. They can't see the hidden things that pop up 2-3 years
>>> later.
>>>[/color]
>>
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

GM has ALWAYS sold more vehicles than Toyota. GM today sells more trucks
alone in the US than Toyota sells cars and trucks combined. At one point
GM sold nearly 50% of all the vehicles sold in the US. They now sell around
32% but that is a greater number in a 17,000,000 market than 50% was in a
9,000,000 market. Toyota sells a bit over 10% of the market


mike hunt


"Doug Kanter" <ancientangler@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%fS0f.8916$cg.5207@news02.roc.ny...[color=blue]
> Umm....no. Wasn't it you who, in another message, said that the number of
> potential buyers had increased over the years, and that even though GM's
> percentage share was smaller than in the past, they were selling more cars
> than Toyota?
>
> Do you see how meaningless that is? Yes, or no?
>[/color]