Honda Accord 2011 vs Toyota Camry 2011

[inteller]

Why not Mexico or Japan?

because it keeps your fellow countrymen employed.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Hoss,
Most people would save a ton of money if they bought a car and drove it 'till the wheels fell off.  After the payment period, costs on any car one can buy today (or just about anything in the last 30 years, except for Corvette and Camaro) would be under $100 per month, IF - and it is a HUGE IF - people would do the normal routine maintenance required by modern automobiles.  I have kept very close track of my personal experience, and the $100 is very ample for my needs.  I like 100 instead of 500 monthly payment a LOT, so I keep cars for a long time.  (And most of them I haven't bought until they have over 50,000 miles on them, so the initial cost is very reasonable and depreciation just doesn't even impinge on my stream of consciousness.)

I drive some gnarly looking vehicles at times, sometimes not, but the guts (drivetrain, brakes, important stuff) are kept very well maintained.  And it is cheap.

[sauerkraut]

Hoss,
Most people would save a ton of money if they bought a car and drove it 'till the wheels fell off.  After the payment period, costs on any car one can buy today (or just about anything in the last 30 years, except for Corvette and Camaro) would be under $100 per month, IF - and it is a HUGE IF - people would do the normal routine maintenance required by modern automobiles.  I have kept very close track of my personal experience, and the $100 is very ample for my needs.  I like 100 instead of 500 monthly payment a LOT, so I keep cars for a long time.  (And most of them I haven't bought until they have over 50,000 miles on them, so the initial cost is very reasonable and depreciation just doesn't even impinge on my stream of consciousness.)

I drive some gnarly looking vehicles at times, sometimes not, but the guts (drivetrain, brakes, important stuff) are kept very well maintained.  And it is cheap.

Exactly- that's the most economical way to go. I could not of said it better myself. A co-worker of mine a few years ago bought a old 1985 Dodge Truck with a bad engine, he paid $500.00 for it & slapped in a fresh 318 V-8 that costed him $2,200 installed  and the truck ran like a champ, he also bought a new seat for it, so he just about got a new vehicle for $2,800.00... New car or old car they all still need regular maintence like brakes and oil changes, spark plus, and what have ya.

[sauerkraut]

I should also ask what those intangible benefits are? Would that be worse handling and braking? Or the awful suspension straight out of the 50s on my SO's Explorer that makes it nearly impossible to drive down dirt roads at speed? I always love driving straight down a road then suddenly finding myself pointing perpendicular to the normal direction of travel after driving over a washboarded area. It is nice to get a little practice at controlling a vehicle in a slide, but I'd rather have a vehicle that doesn't do that in the first place.

I'm sorry, I like the style of a lot of older cars, but they're pieces of junk and deathtraps by modern standards (as are modern vehicles still using the old tech). There's a reason driving fatalities dropped while miles driven increased over the last 40-50 years. In addition to better seat belt compliance, proper crush zones and better designed interiors significantly reduce the severity of injuries sustained in auto crashes.

Actually todays cars are getting more & more dangerous as they keep making them smaller & smaller. The new Obama Cafe standards are expected to cost many more lives on the highways. The laws of physics can't be changed. Google has alot of info on that. As the government requires better & better fuel economy the cost in lives goes up.

[Townsend]

Actually todays cars are getting more & more dangerous as they keep making them smaller & smaller. The new Obama Cafe standards are expected to cost many more lives on the highways. The laws of physics can't be changed. Google has alot of info on that. As the government requires better & better fuel economy the cost in lives goes up.

You're wrong.

Since you can't support your babble I won't even try to tell you how or why you're wrong.

You need to use your library card for something else.

And Hoss, if this is you...you got me.

[Hoss]

You're wrong.

Since you can't support your babble I won't even try to tell you how or why you're wrong.

You need to use your library card for something else.

And Hoss, if this is you...you got me.

Why, he writes this stuff himself.  Let's remember, he does endorse Palin for Pres in 2012.  That, in and of itself, should speak volumes.

"How many magazines do you read?"

"That's a gotcha question!"

There should be a minimum common sense level to operate on teh Interwebzh....

[Red Arrow]

There should be a minimum common sense level to operate on teh Interwebzh....

There is, it's just pretty low.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Amazingly enough, the actual death toll on the highways is apparently down to around a 30,000 per year rate.  Traditionally it has run in the 40's.  I know it can't be from a reduction in drunk drivers since we reward that particular behavior, so it must be safer cars.  

Too bad we have been stagnant (actually regressive) for so many years on CAFE.  If Honda could make a 1976 Impala get 26mpg, there is NO excuse that they can't do a lot better than that today.  Yeah, fissicks gets in the way, but no we aren't even close to those limits yet.

[Conan71]

Amazingly enough, the actual death toll on the highways is apparently down to around a 30,000 per year rate.  Traditionally it has run in the 40's.  I know it can't be from a reduction in drunk drivers since we reward that particular behavior, so it must be safer cars.  

Not true.  The last statistics available, 2008 shows almost a 10% reduction in DUI deaths from the prior year.  Since the inception of MADD in 1980, drunk driving deaths have dropped from around 30,000 per year in the U.S. to under 12,000 as of 2008.  Tougher laws apparently have worked as a deterrent as there are more drivers on the road now than 30 years ago.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Well, it's way past due!  The idea of 12,000 a year is still an abomination.  Anyone convicted of drunk/impaired driving should receive mandatory felony prison time.  Second event, life without parole.  If someone is killed by drunk, then death penalty.

[sauerkraut]

Amazingly enough, the actual death toll on the highways is apparently down to around a 30,000 per year rate.  Traditionally it has run in the 40's.  I know it can't be from a reduction in drunk drivers since we reward that particular behavior, so it must be safer cars.  

Too bad we have been stagnant (actually regressive) for so many years on CAFE.  If Honda could make a 1976 Impala get 26mpg, there is NO excuse that they can't do a lot better than that today.  Yeah, fissicks gets in the way, but no we aren't even close to those limits yet.

The problem I believe is all the smog/emission controls that the government requires they kill fuel economy on cars. BTW I was watching an old "Price Is Right" show from 1960 with Bill Cullin and they had on a 1960 car called "Big Midget" or some such thing, and it got 65 miles per gallon they said in discribing the car and to top it off the the prize came with 1,000 gallons of gasoline. (The cars price was $950.00 dollars) I seen  "Time" & "Newsweek" mags from the 1970's that had ads for the Pinto, Honda, Toyota, and Chevy Vega and small cars of that era that were pulling in around 35-40 miles per gallon and those cars had carbs. on them. Then there was the old myth that some guy invented a carb that got 100 miles per gallon and he got death threats from the oil companies or something.

[sauerkraut]

You're wrong.

Since you can't support your babble I won't even try to tell you how or why you're wrong.

You need to use your library card for something else.

And Hoss, if this is you...you got me.

Not at all- it was in the news a while ago as the CAFE standards go up so does the death rate-  Google also has many articles about that- as cars get smaller more people die. Besides as in that video if they can make a small car that safe just think if they made a big car like that, it would be like a tank. BTW,  I wonder if that 1959 Chevy in the film clip was a real car or a mock up, the car looked brand new and those are rare,  hard to find cars, who would go out and find a new looking restored 1959 Chevy and crash it? If it was a mock-up the test would be flawed. If anything the thing to do would be to get a old beat up 1959 Chevy, A car does not have to be shinny new looking to give a accurate crash test result. Just wondering about that...- Plus, With computers now-a-daze you can't believe everything you see.

[Conan71]

There is no way the traffic death rate is as low as 12,000 it's between 35,000 or 40,000 in that neighborhood, don't forget as fuel prices go up people drive less and that affects the death rate but 12,000 is way out of the ball park. BTW Smoking kills 400,000 a year and cigs are still a legal item.

12,000 is the MVA death toll attributed to drunk driving...not the overall rate. 

[sauerkraut]

12,000 is the MVA death toll attributed to drunk driving...not the overall rate. 

OK- I stand corrected then, I thought they were talking about the entire death rate. yep that sounds about right.

[heironymouspasparagus]

I have restrained myself so far, but just can't get there from here anymore.

Cabbage-head;
Geez...get some reality pills or something...

Do you actually believe all that c***??  The smog/emission controls have NOT killed fuel economy.  Plus they have enhanced dramatically the overall performance of the automobile.  Others have commented about your age and how you have been around a while, so unless there is a major case of dementia, you have to remember the 10,000 mile intervals for tune-ups, and all the associated nonsense that went with those old cars.

And no, there was no 1960's car that got 65 mpg.

Again,...geez....