That's a HUGE bargain almost anywhere in California! Recent averages are
over $600,000 in the bigger cities, with condos in the $300,000+ range. More
than a few people think it's a real estate bubble that followed the stock
bubble. Incomes aren't that much higher.
$275,000? I think you're talking about an older area, a house listed
at 275 usually needs another 50K of work.
It's possible to get a house under 100K.. Think Detroit, Buffalo, The
Save your pennies, when the interest rates come up the house prices
will drop back down (rather quickly) in every area. Think 1990-1993
I'm talking about southern Maine.. the average for new houses is just
a tick under $275k, as long as you're more than a mile from the ocean.
get within that mile and you're talking about $275k for a lot the size
of a postage stamp with no house on it.
a house listed
not around here.
not that I'd want to live there.... I could have a house for free
south of 9 mile in Ferndale... (Detroit) no way no how would I live
the very last thing I want to think about would be the shithole
economy of the early 90's. My credit still sucks because of 1994.
in article L%j%d.22825$ email@example.com, Kerouac at
firstname.lastname@example.org wrote on 3/20/05 11:18 AM:
I want to be able to take 2 kids and two dogs and a lovely wife and a bunch
of camping/fishing/hunting/snowboarding/skiing/canoe/adventure gear to
places that require a truck chassis... I need an SUV! My '95 Land Cruiser
fits the bill. High quality, big, safe... bad gas mileage though. I have a
4-banger Volvo that gets us all around safely and gets good mileage for the
OTHER stuff we do.
However. That misses the point. Gas-mileage nerds act like the scale goes
from Prius on one end and Hummer on the other, and that being on the Prius
end is somehow Good For The Planet. The scale goes like this: not driving a
car to driving a car. And then over on the "driving a car" end of the
scale, what kind of car you drive is this meaningless little subdivision
within THAT. In 500 years when they are writing the history of this era,
whether we burned up all the fossil fuels by 2065 (Hummers) or 2075
(Priuses) isn't gonna matter much in that final accounting of this era... we
are burning it, burning it ALL, and damn the torpedos, that's just what we
are gonna do, smart or not. That's humanity. It's depressing but true. We
are the ultimate nest foulers.
A "Save the Planet" bumper sticker on a Prius ain't saving the planet...
would that it were so simple!
Good point, Jeff. There might be money to be made in this and other 4x4 NGs
for selling Prius bumper stickers that read "Wastes the Planet Slower" or "5
Trips at 60 mpg Versus 1 Trip at 12 mpg..." One point is that let's burn
the foreign oil first...
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 23:08:32 -0500, "Essb" <Billy Lincoln> wrote:
Hee hee hee..... ummm don't people who drive SUV's drive them because
they can AFFORD TO???
if they want to burn less there's
if not perhaps they might be interested in something like this:
Earlier this year, at Italy's Nardo high-speed test track facility,
the Eliica recorded a top speed of 370kmh. Shimizu says the car would
break 400kmh on a smoother surface.
though it didn't list ranges and at over $300Kthat's a bit steep just
to keep money from OPEC :(
It's people's habits that need to change and it's irresponsible to merely
blame the vehicles. Take the following example, and it's happening all
around us; A person makes 5 discretionary trips every week for groceries,
laundry etc. Each is a 20 mile round trip from home but done at once it's a
30 mile loop. One person has a Honda that gets 30 mpg and the other has an
SUV that gets 15 mpg. The one with the Honda makes one trip each day,
travels a total of 100 miles and uses 3 1/3 gallons of fuel. The person with
the SUV does all the errands in one trip, travels a total of 30 miles and
uses 1 2/3 gallons of fuel. They have not only saved fuel and their own time
but have reduced traffic congestion for 4 out of 5 days.
As far as the cost of fuel, anyone who can afford a $35,000.00+ SUV is not
likely to have a stroke spending an extra $3.00 or $4.00 per week on fuel.
If it's a concern they can save a little elsewhere like one less cup of
coffee or a hamburger every week.
Math isn't my best subject, but if a vehicle gets 15 mpg and is driven 30
it use 2 gallons of fuel, not 1 2/3?
Obviously, using the Honda once a week would be the best scenario. One
fuel. Essentially what I do. Use my Civic for short trips and save my
in article email@example.com, WaterWatcher at
firstname.lastname@example.org wrote on 4/3/05 9:49 PM:
Yeah, the Volvo for the commute and daily runaround stuff at 30 mpg and the
Jeep for fun in the woods and the big Land Cruiser for when I need to pack
us ALL, and a bunch of gear, into cool places... except when it's time to
take the top off the Jeep... then it might make a commute or three <g>!
It's not like it REALLY matters. We are gonna burn all the fossil fuels
anyway. A little faster is not really relevant to the reality of the
situation and is arguably BETTER.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.