MoparFins

General BS and Laughs => General Mopar Discussions => Topic started by: Steve on February 15, 2013, 07:35:24 PM

Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: Steve on February 15, 2013, 07:35:24 PM


Wife and I have been kicking this around for a few months.  We decided to pull the trigger on a new Chrysler 200 Limited.  We are trading in a 2008 Charger Hemi RT with 21,000 miles on it.

It's is a sleeper for sure.  But it is an USA answer to the Baby Benz.  No recalls, no apparent problems with the model.  That's a good sign

After I clean the snow up, we'll go up and pick it up


This is the car we are getting.  But I am paying $21,450 for it.  Not the advertised $24,000 as shown.  That V6 is something else too.  Wow.

I hate buying cars with my wife.  It took her 4 hours to decide on a color.  Hey!  It's her car!

(http://images.dealer.com/autodata/us/stockphoto-color/2013/USC30CRC211A0/PFS.jpg)

Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: azblackhemi on February 16, 2013, 04:24:24 AM
Nice car Steve. Since my 69 Monaco wagon got rear ended I've had a Chrysler 200 rental. I've had it since New Years eve since Geico is jerking me aroud but that'e a whole 'nother story. It's a very nice driving car. My rental has the 4 banger in it so it's kind off a pig but I bet yours with the V6 gets up and goes. Congratulations!
Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: steve sclafani on February 16, 2013, 05:03:01 AM
Can't believe you didn't consider the Dart!
Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: Steve on February 16, 2013, 05:34:38 AM



We did look at the Dart
.  Elaine didn't like it.  My Queen gets what she wantsPOLARACO2013-02-16 10:35:38
Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: Stitcherbob on February 16, 2013, 07:06:57 AM
What are they appraising the Hemi Charger at Steve?

Hard to believe it's been 5 years already....



Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: Steve on February 16, 2013, 11:40:21 AM


They gave us 18,500 for the Charger Bob.  It was higher than normal because it only had 21,000 miles and was serviced by them from the beginning
Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: Stitcherbob on February 16, 2013, 03:41:09 PM
that's good....when you let me drive it around the block, that was some car!


Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: Brian on February 16, 2013, 05:30:27 PM
Hey Congrats Steve...Looks like a nice car.  And that's a heck of a trading on your Charger...not much of a difference in value really...gotta like that!


Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: Steve on February 16, 2013, 05:45:31 PM


That Charger cost us 42,000.  I was hoping fo 20 to 21.
Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: Jacques on February 18, 2013, 04:06:19 AM
So effectively you have a brandnew car for a few hundred bucks? Not a bad deal (http://www.moparfins.com/forum/smileys/smiley4.gif)
Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: Snotty on February 18, 2013, 09:21:56 AM
Those 200s are nice!  My Daughter has a '11 200 S - black on black, V6, 6-speed auto trans.  It kicks ass, I must say!  And, she gets 31 on the highway which is what Frances gets in her '09 Sebring with the 4.  Have fun Stevo!

If this had been one year later I would be in a position to buy your Charger from you.  That's the way it goes sometimes...
Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: Steve on February 18, 2013, 09:35:43 AM


The charger was fast and all, but it was a pig.  At the rate gas is going. . .  .
Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: Tom Dawson on February 18, 2013, 12:08:15 PM
Nice car Stevo, great choice as well, good luck with that new hot rod

Tom



Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: dana44 on February 18, 2013, 08:07:11 PM
Yeah, that is a heck of a deal, and the color is pretty nice for a queen, too! That is a bummer about the RT and all, less than half the price in five years. It almost always seems to take 30 years before they are worth what they cost, kind of hard to keep them around that long.
Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: Steve on February 18, 2013, 09:03:13 PM


I'll look for the charger in my next life.  By then, Gasoline will be totally worthless.  LOL
Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: Brian on February 19, 2013, 09:58:15 AM

Quote from: POLARACO

The charger was fast and all, but it was a pig.  At the rate gas is going. . .  .

That's why you should have her in a VW TDI diesel....Just sayin...(http://www.moparfins.com/forum/smileys/smiley4.gif)

Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: Ken on February 19, 2013, 11:27:16 AM

Quote from: thrashingcows
Quote from: POLARACO

The charger was fast and all, but it was a pig.  At the rate gas is going. . .  .

That's why you should have her in a VW TDI diesel....Just sayin...(http://www.moparfins.com/forum/smileys/smiley4.gif)

*ahem* There's MORE to life than good fuel economy...but as Steve sez... (http://www.moparfins.com/forum/smileys/smiley6.gif)

Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: Steve on February 19, 2013, 01:09:18 PM


Money for my honey is not a problem.  She gets what she wants.
Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: Stitcherbob on February 19, 2013, 07:31:09 PM
I just turned 150,000 in the 2001 300M

I like the 253hp V6 and it gets around 21 combined with "spirited" driving

but gas prices lately......  sigh  (http://www.moparfins.com/forum/smileys/smiley6.gif)



Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: Brian on February 19, 2013, 07:35:56 PM
Is it the same 3.5L V6 used in almost all mopars for the last 15+ years....just some newer refinement?  Damn good motors!  My wifes 02 Chrysler COncorde has over 270K Km's and is still running strong.  We've gotten screaming MPG out of it with almost all hwy driving...seen close to 35 MPG a few times.





Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: Steve on February 19, 2013, 08:53:41 PM


Elaine has been running around 22 average so far.  Less than 500 miles on the motor so far
Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: dana44 on February 19, 2013, 09:50:59 PM
It should be the new 3.6, the 3.5 isn't being used any more. I like the 3.5, very few problems noted with it over the years, but the 3.8 is an even simpler engine overall. The 3.6 is supposed to be more efficient and is more powerful than both the 3.5 and 3.8, two completely different engines even though they are supposed to be from the same family, top ends from the heads, intake, and cams are different.
Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: Jacques on February 20, 2013, 08:23:55 AM

Quote from: stitcherbob
but gas prices lately......  sigh  (http://www.moparfins.com/forum/smileys/smiley6.gif)


How are gas prices on your end nowadays?

Over here, about $9 a gallon since a few months, diesel about 7.8 and propane about 4 (http://www.moparfins.com/forum/smileys/smiley19.gif)



Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: dana44 on February 20, 2013, 08:55:48 AM
Here in Socal it is in the $4.25 range, the jump was over the past month of about .75 cents a gallon, and hear it is the highest in the continental US.
Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: firedome on February 20, 2013, 09:27:19 AM
Real nice looking car Steve...I like those 200s.  Ya with gas the way it is we/ve been thinking better mileage would be a good thing,  the Xterra isn't bad, 4500 lbs and 4.0 V6 with V V T, but still 26-7 on the hwy isn't all that good either... and we put on a lot of miles going to VT and CO. I'm waitin' for a Mopar plug-in hybrid, or maybe the SAAB/NEVS Electric that's coming out in '14. That one may be a game changer from what I've heard.

Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: dana44 on February 20, 2013, 09:49:09 AM
Yeah, but what is your electric bill going to increase to? That's the only bad thing about the hybrid/plug-ins. People say it is saving the environment, but all  it does is move the location to where the actual contaminants being spewed into the atmosphere, and instead of the fuel bill at a station and amount you can afford, it comes in the form of an electric bill at the end of the month. I want to know what a person's electric bill increases. You hear, yeah, I only spent $20 a month on gas instead of $120, but you never hear my electric bill went from $35 to $150!
Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: Steve on February 20, 2013, 10:01:10 AM


Taking bets on 75 MPG in a big car an no batteries
Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: Steve on February 20, 2013, 10:02:41 AM


A friend of mine and I have been looking for the parts to do a diesel electric Pick up
Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: dana44 on February 20, 2013, 10:40:46 AM
And that is doable if you can charge the vehicle during the daytime, and then calculate how much of the solar panel cost offsets it as a reasonable payoff. That's additionally the trade-off for other alternative fuels, cost to make compared to the cost of fuel. At this point it becomes political and the conversation has to stop.
Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: dana44 on February 20, 2013, 10:46:35 AM
Here is the best and most efficient idea in design. There are small diesels and even gas engines which can run an hour on a quart of fuel (gas or diesel), which then runs at a constant speed/rpm, and turns several small generators, which in turn charge a bank of batteries. The small engine runs when the vehicle is operated, makes a little operating noise so it isn't such a quiet hazard (there is talk of making electric running vehicles make noise of some sort for pedestrians!!!), and the engine simply charges an electric vehicle. Doing it this way allows a vehicle to run based on fuel per hour vice miles per gallon, and that could get into the quart per hour range, anything from 25 miles per quart to 75 miles per quart. I could live with electric that runs 100-300mpg in this fashion. At that point fuel prices would go up to $20 per gallon and all that work would be for nothing, right?
Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: Snotty on February 20, 2013, 10:51:43 AM


[/QUOTE]


(http://www.moparfins.com/forum/smileys/smiley17.gif)

Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: Snotty on February 20, 2013, 10:53:02 AM

Quote from: thrashingcows
Is it the same 3.5L V6 used in almost all mopars for the last 15+ years....just some newer refinement?  Damn good motors!  My wifes 02 Chrysler COncorde has over 270K Km's and is still running strong.  We've gotten screaming MPG out of it with almost all hwy driving...seen close to 35 MPG a few times.





No.  The new motor is a 3.6, has more power and get much better milage.  The 3.5, introduced in '93, has been retired.
Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: Snotty on February 20, 2013, 10:53:56 AM

Quote from: dana44
It should be the new 3.6, the 3.5 isn't being used any more. I like the 3.5, very few problems noted with it over the years, but the 3.8 is an even simpler engine overall. The 3.6 is supposed to be more efficient and is more powerful than both the 3.5 and 3.8, two completely different engines even though they are supposed to be from the same family, top ends from the heads, intake, and cams are different.

Ah, didn't see this - yes.
Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: Snotty on February 20, 2013, 10:57:51 AM

Quote from: Sjak Brak
Quote from: stitcherbob
but gas prices lately......  sigh  (http://www.moparfins.com/forum/smileys/smiley6.gif)


How are gas prices on your end nowadays?

Over here, about $9 a gallon since a few months, diesel about 7.8 and propane about 4 (http://www.moparfins.com/forum/smileys/smiley19.gif)



Must remember Sjak, we do not have the high taxes on our gas that you do.  I was in Israel earlier in the month.  The price there was 8.50 shekels a Liter.  3.5 shekels to a dollar.  California has the highest taxes on gas in the nation.  Take the 48.9 cents added by the Government and add the 29.5 cents from the State, then add those to the average price per gallon. 
Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: Snotty on February 20, 2013, 10:58:51 AM

Quote from: dana44
Yeah, but what is your electric bill going to increase to? That's the only bad thing about the hybrid/plug-ins. People say it is saving the environment, but all  it does is move the location to where the actual contaminants being spewed into the atmosphere, and instead of the fuel bill at a station and amount you can afford, it comes in the form of an electric bill at the end of the month. I want to know what a person's electric bill increases. You hear, yeah, I only spent $20 a month on gas instead of $120, but you never hear my electric bill went from $35 to $150!

Amen!!!
Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: firedome on February 22, 2013, 04:48:55 AM




I've always maintanied that a small 2 or 3 cyl turbo-diesel/electric
direct drive, just like an EMD locomotive, would make a heck of a lot
of sense, and even more so if diesel wasn't so overpriced, particularly
for trips where range  trumps pure efficiency.  True electrics
make sense for commuting, and most families have 2 or 3 cars anyway.



As far as a pure electric car, here are the facts: pollution is far easier to control at a
large generating source than in an individual vehicle. It's far more
efficient and  cost effective to put ionizing electrostatic
scrubbers, the most effective type, and other abatements on a large
point generation source than on small multi-distributed sources such as
a mobile vehicle. Furthermore with electric generation increasingly
being accomplished via Natural Gas (whose price is going down - and we
here in the Southern Tier of NY live right smack in the middle of the
best gas fracking area of the US's Marcellus shale), and more and more by solar, wind,
and hydro-power (VT gets most of its electricity from Hydro-Quebec, Green
Mtn Power is owned by Gaz Metro Quebec), the generation sources are
rapidly moving away from coal to much cleaner sources anyway.
 


 As
to electric recharge costs, the average cost to full recharge averages
~ $2 to $4/charge, depending on kWh rate.  In consumption the
Leaf, for example, which on average consumes 34 kWh/100 mi, costs $3.74
per 100 miles at the US average cost of 11 cents/Kw. At $3.74/gal gas,
that's 1/5 the cost of a car getting 20mpg!  Furthermore a lot of
workplaces are now allowing charging for free during the day when rates
are low as a benefit and to encourage switch to electric in polluted
areas.  As to battery longevity we have a friend who has an old
1st Gen Prius bought new that's now over 13 yr old and still on her 1st
Batt pack, and when they do need replacement dealers are hugely
discounting new packs. Annual consumption: GM says average annual
electric consumption for the Volt is running about 2500 kWh, less than
a typical domestic water heater! and if used strictly as a commuter,
which most do with electrics, not running the gas engine significantly,
that's less than $300/yr.   My wife averages 17mi day on her
round trip, and can charge for free at work... so essentially our fuel
cost would be nil.  The upcoming 2014 SAAB/NEVS (National Electric
Vehicle Sweden) pure electric (possibly plug-in hybrid option as well)
will do even better as it will use new cutting edge battery technology
that's been developed by their Japanese/Chinese Co-owner that's not
available to any other car mfr and  is superior to the technology
of Leaf/Volt/Tesla and far more efficient. The new SAAB/NEVS CEO was
former CEO of Volvo Trucks. AFAIC the ICE is dead, it's time to move
on, (except for our vintage cars of course), and those who don't see it
will be left, as has happened so many times before, in the dustbin of
technological history. I, for one, can't wait for the revolution!
firedome2013-02-22 10:08:31
Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: dana44 on February 22, 2013, 05:24:22 AM
With your figures, based on the fact I have variable rate electric prices based on the amount of KWh I use, my bill last month would have gone from $23.85 to $128.12! (the price is $7.69 per KWh after 27KWh consumed, this is based on the 2500KWh per year broken down monthly at current rates, and my consumption of 3KWh this month, down $70 from last year's consumption, so it would have been over $200 per month). In the same period, I spent less than $80 on gasoline for the month, and I drive the least in the family right now. I will agree that I think natural gas would be a good alternative, it is the infrastructure that needs to be installed, along with viable storage containers and a means of swapping filled tanks over filling vehicle installed tanks for faster replenishment.  Electric plug-in locations at work does not change the fact someone else is paying for the electricity, or that the polution transfers to another location, but the fact all prices of goods/services increases equally for all instead of ones self. And a this point we haven't even looked at the current electrical grid having problems being below the service capability right now (the occasional brownout or blackout).  I know the ICE is very inefficient (wht, 13percent efficiency?), so something does have to be done, but let the private sector figure it out a lot cheaper than government subsidizing the development, it is just too expensive.
Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: firedome on February 22, 2013, 06:00:05 AM

No one said anything about gov't subsidies. Nat Gas is coming to big
power plant generation as a result of market forces (ie price) which
has dropped in 3 years from over $10/1000 btu to less than $3 as a
direct result of abundant Marcellus gas. I can drive 15 miles and see
the new gas rigs here. Did not discuss the direct use of Nat Gas in
vehicles, which is also possible, but no new infrastructure is needed
to burn Nat Gas in power plants, in fact for the first time in history
in 2012 over 50% of US power generation was using gas, not coal. And
again more electric generation is by solar, wind & hydro each & every year,
and that will only continue.  Also I will restate:  pollution
is far better (cheaper, more efficient) controlled at the power plant
level than in the individual car. Fact is even at todays level of
technological development, which will be rapidly improved upon,
electric cars make excellent sense as commuting vehicles with total
energy costs right now well demonstrated in the real world to be less
than 25% of that of gasoline cars, even for those paying completely for
charging... and does anyone actually think petrol will get cheaper next
year or the next?? The factors driving practicality for electrics will
only be greater in their favor with each passing year. 
firedome2013-02-22 11:01:33
Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: firedome on February 22, 2013, 06:06:18 AM


BTW for diesel/electric fans:  the VW CrossBlue Diesel/Electric
Hybrid was introduced at the Detroit Auto Show last month: 300+hp
500+ft/lb torque,  and $$$$$$$$$$.



I think a 2 or 3 cyl TurboDiesel/Electric in say a Liberty or Xterra size SUV makes more sense.



The next step will be Hydrogen/Electric,  but that will take HUGE infrastructure upgrades.  15-20 yrs away at best.


firedome2013-02-22 11:11:22
Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: dana44 on February 22, 2013, 06:17:49 AM
I think natural gas is a better alternative, even methane made from waste is more viable than some of the other wind/solar alternatives, which are less than one percent of usable power added to the grid. We had a giant solar farm that was made out here in the desert and the folks raised a stink about the power lines to go from the location to the grid, so they said they would bury the lines, to which they cried foul on it interrupting the ground on federal land or some big thing. Kind of funny. They complain about the current system, then complain about trying to change it. Will they ever be satisfied? Did the same thing with fresh water plant from salt water. Didn't want so much water taken from a river, so the company said they would build a salt to fresh water plant, take the water from a lagoon that was built back in the early 50s, then complained about using that water because it was a natural habitat. They initially said a salt to fresh plant was the only solution that they would accept, give them what they wanted and it wasn't what they wished for.
Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: Steve on February 22, 2013, 09:21:19 AM


First tank, with a bunch of heavy feet test driving, we got 17.7
Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: firedome on February 22, 2013, 09:46:57 AM
Not bad. It should improve with miles too Steve.



No doubt Nat gas will be the bridge for a long time... Id llike to
explore a conversion for the old cars like Sjak does over there, might
make economic sense the way gas is going.



Apparently ds-salinization is also super energy intensive... too bad as
we'd consider moving to the SW if we though water supply was assured
long term.







Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: Snotty on February 22, 2013, 09:54:45 AM

Quote from: POLARACO

VW is always over engineered like all the other european cars.  

Perhaps today, but there was nothing over-engineered about the Type 1 and it's like.  Hitler's desire was a simple car for the masses - Volkswagen, the People's Car - and he got it.
Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: dana44 on February 22, 2013, 10:17:52 AM
CNG engines run pretty good from what I hear, have driven a few pickups powered by it, never had a complaint.
 
As far as the de-salinization goes, I believe it was going to be an upgrade to a natural gas powered generator in the area, which pumps out hot water to begin with to keep the generators cool, so mostly a matter of utilizing existing waste heat to be double-dutied operation.
Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: firedome on February 22, 2013, 11:51:23 AM


Test drove a Propane powered '66 Toronado (425 Super Rocket V8 10.75 CR) once
back in the '80s. IIRC it was about $5-600 to convert at the time. It
ran faultlessly, maybe even better than stock, went like a scalded
cat,  but range was quite limted. But that'd be fine for a
vintage car, we don't take 'em on trips anyhow.  One advanage of
CNG/propane is that the engine runs super clean, oil changes can be
extended unless there's excessive blowby from wear. 
firedome2013-02-22 16:52:46
Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: Steve on February 22, 2013, 12:34:56 PM


You can solar desalinate
Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: dana44 on February 22, 2013, 04:27:52 PM
Yes, and volume will keep you alive in a survival setting. Other than that, great for water when it is bright light and sunny, not so good in the dark or cloudy days, so limited on its operating capacity/volume.
Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: Jacques on February 22, 2013, 04:28:01 PM

Quote from: POLARACO

VW is always over engineered like all the other european cars.  So I can see why it would be so expensive. 
VW is not overengineered, especially not the current entry-level cars like the up and polo. But the midrange-cars (golf/passat/....) are nowadays unreliable, on top of the usual lack of comfort and boring interior en exterior. Besides, the differnce between us- and euro-cars is getting smaller and smaller. There's the  GM-twincars (Volt/Ampera, Regal/Insignia), various Ford-cars sold both here and in US, Chrysler/Lancia and Alfa Romeo/Dart twins, etc.

Rentals (normal euro midrange-cars) I had on recent holidays in Spain and Romania easily did 50mpg, when us-cars doing 30-something are considered economical, could be food for thought as well.

Here's an old joke I heard on the comparison of technological advance at Toyota and Ford:
In 1965, Toyota had a 2 litre 8 valve 4-banger doing 90hp, in 1990 Toyota had an OHC 2-litre 16-valve 4-banger doing 175hp. In 1965, Ford had an entry-level 5-litre pushrod V8 with 150hp. In 1990, Ford had an entry-level 5-litre pushrod-V8 doing 150hp. (don't pin me on the numbers but this is a bit of a common perception on US-cars, although in recent years a lot of progress has been made)

Of course, examples like this 2011/12 Grand Cherokee tested in Sweden doesn't help to improve this perception:

[TUBE]zaYFLb8WMGM[/TUBE]

http://www.teknikensvarld.se/jeepmoosetest-part4/

As for propane, its not really a serious long-term candidate for the fuel of the future, as it is a by-product of the oil-industry. Of course, running a car on propane has a lot of advantages, all my cars run on it, especially the old US bigblocks do very well on propane. (I dont care that much about economy (http://www.moparfins.com/forum/smileys/smiley2.gif))

CNG has other factors that make it less suitable for passenger cars: the tank is much larger than a propane-tank giving the same range. Over here, its mainly used on delivery trucks for urban distribution, garabagetrucks, and on citybusses, but rarely on cars. Besides, the 50 years of extraction of natural gas has lead to some unexpected safety-issues (small earthquakes) in parts of the country.

Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: Steve on February 24, 2013, 02:02:42 PM


Your point is well taken though
Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: Jacques on February 24, 2013, 10:33:38 PM


There's some additions on brakesystems in Europe nowadays, I think due to legislation. Not necessarily affecting braking distance itself, but allegedly making sure maximum brake pressure is applied in panic or emergency stops. I'm lucky I was never in a critical situation where these systems would be triggered. On the other hand, I was surprised that the 2007/8 PT 'vert rental (nice car overall!) I had in the US a few years back didn't even have ABS? (or it wasn't working properly)

What's important to note though, in recent years, both French and US-cars seem to make a big recovery. E.g. French manufacturers were the first to have 5-star euro-safety-rankings (even before safety-obsessed brands like Volvo, Saab, Mercedes), and US-cars have improved a lot in the reliability-rankings.

Sjak Brak2013-02-25 09:13:18
Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: Leaburn Patey on February 26, 2013, 06:48:59 AM
The Dart is a great choice considering the amount of driving Elaine does.
Not to mention the cost of gas,and being a smaller car.
Now,Steve you have gained a few inches back in the driveway for more car schtuff,LOL!!
Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: firedome on February 26, 2013, 03:21:08 PM
Did you get a Dart Lea? I didn't know that, how do yo like it?

Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: Leaburn Patey on February 27, 2013, 07:24:16 AM
No,no,no Steve bought a Dart-not me,LOL
I am done buying cars for a while--I still have one in my garage I need to finish after taking up residence 8 years ago.
 
Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: Steve on February 27, 2013, 08:48:18 AM


I didn't buy a Dart Lea.  We bought a Chrysler 200.  The Dart would be OK for me, but E didn't like it.  We fight over driving the 200 now
Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: dana44 on February 27, 2013, 05:28:42 PM
Cool! Not everyone can say their new Chrysler improves or increases communications with a spouse!
Title: It's a Neeewwwwww Caaaaarrrrrrrrrr
Post by: Steve on February 27, 2013, 08:14:56 PM


LOL   We laugh about it.  I think she is secretly liking the 200 more than the charger too