matt wrote:
> "pay for the privilege of being pious"? you think i want to spend
> thousands of dollars just to be "holier than thou?" you think i want
> to spend practically all my savings just to keep up with the joneses?
> what exactly do you know about me anyway? and at no point did i ask
> for you b.s. on whether or not i should buy the car. so stick it.
>

huh?

 

Car Salesmen rank with crooked lawyers but I realize they're trying to make
a living.

Avoid buying a car from someone you know. They'd probably overcharge their
own mother to get a bigger commission.

Beware of the car sales trick when you've agreed on a price, he runs inside
to get the keys for you and comes back saying his sales manager won't go for
deal unless you can pay $*** more. He's waving the keys in front of you and
you're wanting the car bad enough, you'll pay anything to get the car and go
home. Stand firm and walk away. They need to know that you are really,
really wanting to buy and this is one of the tricks they do to fatten their
commission.

If they are unable to agree on your final price (a reasonable offer, say
$250-$400 over invoice or so), thank them and walk out. Walk out slow.
Take your time, look at the cars in the show room on the way out. They'll
probably have another salesman come out and bring you back in, saying that
you got your price. With the last Honda I purchased, I was back in my old
car, about to start the engine when another salesguy comes running out to
tell me my salesman agreed to the price! This worked several times so far.

And, be prepared to spend a lot of time there, it's pretty much an all day
deal, negotiating, paperwork, final prep and delivery of your new prized
machine.

Good Luck, Bx

"matt" <matthewzin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1108053796.124985.48340@o13g2000cwo.googlegro ups.com...
> Hello All!
> My wife and I are very close to purchasing an '05 or '03 Civic Hybrid.
> Although this is not the first car my wife has purchased, it will
> essentially be the first I have purchased. I was wondering if anyone
> can offer any tips on haggling with the Honda dealership. We feel this
> is an important but somewhat unsavory part of purchasing a car. (I
> know that some people view haggling as a sport - I hope they will sound
> off here!) There may be some general rules of thumb to follow, but I
> don't know them and would like any tips anyone could give. We'd like
> to get them to come down off the price a bit - I think the sticker on
> the '05 is around $20,000.
>
> I was also curious to see if anyone knew the answers to the questions
> that the salesman couldn't answer, specifically:
> - What happens to the batteries after they are replaced? The
> ecofriendly nature of this car is a big selling point for us. But the
> fate of dead batteries is unknown to us right now. Would hate to think
> they'd end up in a landfill or something.
> - Has anyone any expereince with problems in extreme weather
> conditions? (tough starts in extreme cold, for example)
> - Can some one explain, in as plain a language as possible, under what
> circumstances the auto stop feature occurs in the engine? My wife and
> I read a little about it in the manual on the test drive, but we're a
> bit confused still. Do all of the conditions listed in the manual have
> to be present before the engine shuts down? Or just one or two?
>
> Any feedback at all on this car is appreciated. Just for reference,
> both of the cars we're looking at have the CVT transmission.
>
> Have great day,
> Matt
>
>

 

matt wrote:

<sniped for brevity>

> Hello All!
> My wife and I are very close to purchasing an '05 or '03 Civic Hybrid.
> Although this is not the first car my wife has purchased, it will
> essentially be the first I have purchased. I was wondering if anyone
> can offer any tips on haggling with the Honda dealership.

Decide what YOU WANT to pay for it (do your homework) then go to a
dealer and begin the dance. On this model be prepared to pay M.S.R.P. and
maybe even more... Most (so called) Green people (Ed Bagely Jr. comes to
mind) are more than willing to pay extra to be labeled "Green." So there
is little incentive on the dealer's part to sell for less than M.S.R.P. (or
more.)

> I was also curious to see if anyone knew the answers to the questions
> that the salesman couldn't answer, specifically:
> - What happens to the batteries after they are replaced?

That will depend on where YOU choose to deal with the problem of
exhausted IMA batteries. A Honda dealer will turn them in to their
remanufacturing depot. And the batteries will be recycled. There will
likely be some hazardous waste that will have to be stored in accordance to
Haz-Mat regulations.


> The ecofriendly nature of this car is a big selling point for us.

You say this; but is this really the reason? After all the car
still uses dead dinosaur products, so just how "ecofriendly"[sic] are you?


> - Has anyone any expereince with problems in extreme weather
> conditions? (tough starts in extreme cold, for example)

The Civic Hybrid also has a 12v battery, just like other cars. So
cold weather shouldn't be a problem; unless by extreme you're speaking -40F
or less. Any car can experience problems in that type of extreme weather
conditions.


> - Can some one explain, in as plain a language as possible, under what
> circumstances the auto stop feature occurs in the engine?

FROM THE OWNER'S MANUAL: AUTO (CVT) TRANSMISSION.
To maximize fuel economy, your Civic Hybrid has an Auto Idle Stop function.
Under certain conditions, the engine will shut off when you
come to a stop.
all of the following conditions must be met for Auto Idle Stop to occur.
Those conditions are:
The engine coolant is nearly up to normal operating temperature.
The shift lever is in D or N.
You are not pressing on the accelerator pedal.
The IMA battery is charged enough to operate the system.
The ECON mode (air conditioning) is selected, and the outside temperature
is above freezing, or the fan speed control dial is off.
There is adequate vacuum reserve for the power brakes.
When these conditions are met after the vehicle speed has exceeded 10 mph
(16 km/h), the engine will shut off as you are braking to a stop and
the vehicle speed goes below 5 mph (8 km/h).
The engine will start again when you release the brake pedal.
The Auto Idle Stop function may not activate if the IMA battery temperature
is too hot or too cold.

There is more in the Owner's manual but this is the jest of it.


> Any feedback at all on this car is appreciated. Just for reference,
> both of the cars we're looking at have the CVT transmission.
>
> Have great day,
> Matt

--
Tp,

-------- __o
----- -\<. -------- __o
--- ( )/ ( ) ---- -\<.
-------------------- ( )/ ( )
-----------------------------------------

No Lawsuit Ever Fixed A Moron...

 

SoCalMike <mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:fPudnR8AHIDgjZDfRVn-pg@comcast.com:

> TeGGer® wrote:
>> John Ings <nodamned@spam.org> wrote in
>> news:8jqp01t8veb3ccqc0l3n7l3k74ra2uaml8@4ax.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>>If manufacturers really wanted to go green they wouldn't be ducking
>>>through that legal loophole that classifies those bloody great things
>>>as trucks.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Excellent idea, Mr.Ings.
>>
>> Really, though, all North Americans are doing by buying SUVs and
>> minivans is trying to buy the same size cars they always have. They
>> can't actually buy a big *car* that isn't expensive anymore because
>> they've been regulated out of existence.
>
> ford crown vic/mercury grand marquis



Yep. All that's left of an enormous market, the mid-size family sedan,
regulated out of existence. But replaced by the SUV, which, oddly enough,
has a similarly sized engine, gets similar mileage, is similarly sized but
taller...hmmm...



>
> nobody wants em, tho. cept for govt agencies, and bluehaired old
> ladies.
>
> why?



Because they weren't worth the money to build any more, that's why.

Once automakers discovered that handy "truck" loophole, the Bel Airs,
Galaxies and Furys of old were toast.

And SUVs were marketed as high-end from the start, just in case the
government should close to loophole on them.


>
> because everyone wants to be seen as ruffem tuffem rugged
> individualists, blazing new trails in their big audacious, blinged-out
> regurgitators.


You have a good point there. It may be inmpossible after this amount of
time to turn the clock back and make trucks...just trucks...again.

The automakers have succeeded in turning their economic desires into a very
convincing "coolness factor".

I suspect that even if you removed the governmentally imposed economic
distortions that gave rise to the SUV/minivan market, that they'd still
sell (at a hefty profit of course), becuase people now think trucks are
ruff and tuff, blazing new trails to the mall.

This is why governments should never be allowed to make laws. All their
laws do is mess things up. I do believe, at least in the US, there is a
thing called a Constitution that was specifically written in order to
prevent the federal governmnet from passing laws. Where IS that thing,
anyway? They seem to have lost it over the years...

--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

"matt" <matthewzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1108150380.065554.156060@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com:

> "pay for the privilege of being pious"? you think i want to spend
> thousands of dollars just to be "holier than thou?"


"Pious" does not mean "holier than thou", it means:
"Having or exhibiting religious reverence; earnestly compliant in the
observance of religion; devout." This from www.dictionary.com

As Michael Crichton has said, environmentalism is very much a religion and
you fit the bill 100%. I'll bet you're diligent about recycling and the
other two of the 3Rs, too.

People do not buy Priuses (Prii?) and Insights for practicality or economy.
They buy hybrids because of a desire to cleave to the environmental
orthodoxy.


> you think i want
> to spend practically all my savings just to keep up with the joneses?


Never said that ever at all. Never even implied it.


> what exactly do you know about me anyway? and at no point did i ask
> for you b.s. on whether or not i should buy the car. so stick it.
>


Where?



--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

Elle Navorski wrote:
> "SoCalMike" <mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote
> snip
>
>>i work with a 25 year old girl that had to have a new yukon XL. works 2
>>F/T jobs, no time to date, always tired, no social life. maybe the
>>$600/mo payments have something to do with it? at least she has a bigass
>>place to nap between jobs. she had a yukon XL, but traded it in on this
>>one because its the "new style".
>
>
> Doesn't this just drive you to drink?

eh. not really. when my co-worker became my manager i figured hed start
saving up to buy a house or condo or whatnot. at the time, hed just had
a kid and really *needed* the management position. now he has another on
the way! him, wife, and bebe all live in an apartment.

so whats he do? trades in his 2000 yukon (not the XL!) for a 2004. takes
the depreciation hit, of course. puts 24" chrome wheels on it, and
teevee screens.

me? i bought a condo 3 years ago after my 98 civic was paid off. ill
never pay more than $627/mo for a house payment. now i DO have the money
for toys, since thats locked in and i get raises every year. in 20 or 30
years (if im still paying on it) thatll be practically nothing.

i think ill keep the civic, and just not feel guilty buying 2-wheeled
toys when i feel like. hopefully buying a dualsport today. 2 wheelers
are my vice, and having the paid off civic helps pay for em.


>
> I'm taking all the money I'm saving with my beloved old heap and spending
> it becoming a bourgeois ski bum...
>

different strokes, eh? id rather spend on electronics and 2 wheeled fun.

 

"SoCalMike" <mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote
snip
> i work with a 25 year old girl that had to have a new yukon XL. works 2
> F/T jobs, no time to date, always tired, no social life. maybe the
> $600/mo payments have something to do with it? at least she has a bigass
> place to nap between jobs. she had a yukon XL, but traded it in on this
> one because its the "new style".

Doesn't this just drive you to drink?

I'm taking all the money I'm saving with my beloved old heap and spending
it becoming a bourgeois ski bum...

 

TeGGer® wrote:
> John Ings <nodamned@spam.org> wrote in
> news:8jqp01t8veb3ccqc0l3n7l3k74ra2uaml8@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>>If manufacturers really wanted to go green they wouldn't be ducking
>>through that legal loophole that classifies those bloody great things
>>as trucks.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Excellent idea, Mr.Ings.
>
> Really, though, all North Americans are doing by buying SUVs and minivans
> is trying to buy the same size cars they always have. They can't actually
> buy a big *car* that isn't expensive anymore because they've been regulated
> out of existence.

ford crown vic/mercury grand marquis

nobody wants em, tho. cept for govt agencies, and bluehaired old ladies.

why?

because everyone wants to be seen as ruffem tuffem rugged
individualists, blazing new trails in their big audacious, blinged-out
regurgitators. they may not have a motorcycle to put in one, but dammit-
they want people to think they "offroad at glamis", remove the trailer
stopper thingie to tow jetskis or the boat they dont have, etc.

ever take a close look at an H2? big blinged out box, but not much
actual *room* inside.

i work with a 25 year old girl that had to have a new yukon XL. works 2
F/T jobs, no time to date, always tired, no social life. maybe the
$600/mo payments have something to do with it? at least she has a bigass
place to nap between jobs. she had a yukon XL, but traded it in on this
one because its the "new style".

whens GM ever come out with a new style?

 

John Ings <nodamned@spam.org> wrote in
news:8jqp01t8veb3ccqc0l3n7l3k74ra2uaml8@4ax.com:


>
> If manufacturers really wanted to go green they wouldn't be ducking
> through that legal loophole that classifies those bloody great things
> as trucks.
>
>


Excellent idea, Mr.Ings.

Really, though, all North Americans are doing by buying SUVs and minivans
is trying to buy the same size cars they always have. They can't actually
buy a big *car* that isn't expensive anymore because they've been regulated
out of existence.

The SUV market was created by government regulations, and it can be
destroyed by repealing those regulations.

It started with exemptions from emissions and various "safety" standards in
the early '70s, and grew with the "voluntary" import quotas the Japanese
had to labor under in the '80s. Back then, trucks were...just trucks.

I think AMC was the first to get on the bandwagon with the Eagle (Spirit?),
a late-'70s Concord with a 4WD chassis underneath. AMC was short of cash,
and discovered that it was far cheaper to build and certify a vehicle
classed as a truck because it was subject to far fewer and much less
onerous safety and emissions regulations.

Cash-poor Chrysler discovered the same thing when it created the
"garageable van" market in the early '80s. The K-car chassis was worth a
lot more as a truck than as a car. It cost much less to to build than a K-
car, because safety and emissions regulations were much laxer.

Toyota discovered that by putting a permanent cap and a nice interior on
their HiLux pickup, calling it a 4Runner and selling it at a premium. This
neatly sidestepped the "voluntary" import quotas, from which trucks were
exempt.

Repeal any and all regulations and legislation passed since about 1972, and
the truck market will go back to being...just a truck market, which is what
it had been all along anyway.



--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

by the way - that was a reponse to an earlier post by tegger, who when
he's not making assumptions offers some great advice on haggling.

 

jmattis@attglobal.net wrote:
> "You should be getting this and protect your Investment -- are you
> Stupid, or what?" I actually had someone tell me that. She was very,
> very pretty.

heh... they wanted my girlfriend to buy an extended (7yr, only 4 were
additional) warranty for...

"only $30 more a month!"

hm... 12 mos, times 5 years, times $20. $1800? i laughed.

 

"pay for the privilege of being pious"? you think i want to spend
thousands of dollars just to be "holier than thou?" you think i want
to spend practically all my savings just to keep up with the joneses?
what exactly do you know about me anyway? and at no point did i ask
for you b.s. on whether or not i should buy the car. so stick it.

 

TeGGer® wrote:
> "Green" technology IS expensive. Hybrids cost more than regular cars and
> still don't make the sort of profit regular cars do. "Green" technology is
> most popular in wealthy contries that already have the best and cleanest
> living conditions, and the longest human lifespans.
>

think "halo effect".

im sure theyve gotten some purchases from people who have never tried a
toyota (or an import), and there may be some spillover to the echo and
scion lines from people who are impressed but want a gas-powered car. as
well as people who keep toyota in mind for other purchases, like if they
need a truck or large SUV.

 

"John Ings" <nodamned@spam.org> wrote
> <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >People can google for more info on whether going green pays for
> >manufacturers (and has been cheap or not for consumers) since the 1960s
or
> >so.
>
> Well I'll tell you what grates on me! Suppose when I was still driving
> my 1987 CRX in Ontario I took it in for a check by the pollution
> police and it failed the test by 20%. Suppose further that right
> behind me there was a year-old SUV that passed its test with 20% to
> spare. Who's polluting the air more, me or him?

I agree this is a failing of the emissions laws.

This past year as I try to look over all the "damn SUVs" and other consumer
trucks on the road, with typically empty rear compartments, I cuss our
society that has this pathological need for status symbols that are often
neither safe on the roads nor good for the environment.

I salute those who buy the Prius, Honda Hybrid, or any car that gets at
least 32 mpg city and highway both.

> The answer is that he is! His damn SUV has a lower percentage but
> twice the volume of pollutants because his engine is three times as
> big. But I'm the one who has to spend all the money on getting my car
> up to standard!
>
> If manufacturers really wanted to go green they wouldn't be ducking
> through that legal loophole that classifies those bloody great things
> as trucks.

Or governments would legislate gasoline automobile engine displacement,
conditioning it upon the consumer's transportation, not ego, needs.

 

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:07:07 GMT, "Elle Navorski"
<elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote:

>People can google for more info on whether going green pays for
>manufacturers (and has been cheap or not for consumers) since the 1960s or
>so.

Well I'll tell you what grates on me! Suppose when I was still driving
my 1987 CRX in Ontario I took it in for a check by the pollution
police and it failed the test by 20%. Suppose further that right
behind me there was a year-old SUV that passed its test with 20% to
spare. Who's polluting the air more, me or him?

The answer is that he is! His damn SUV has a lower percentage but
twice the volume of pollutants because his engine is three times as
big. But I'm the one who has to spend all the money on getting my car
up to standard!

If manufacturers really wanted to go green they wouldn't be ducking
through that legal loophole that classifies those bloody great things
as trucks.

 

"Elle Navorski" <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in
news:0L5Pd.6071$UX3.4486@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net:

> "TeGGer®" <tegger@istop.c0m> wrote
>>By 1985,
>> emissions levels had already been decreased about 95% from 1970.
>>
>> It's no coincidence that poorer areas of the world are not saddled
>> with catalytic converters and unleaded gas, and sometimes even still
>> have carburetors and Kettering ignition systems. It's CHEAPER.
>
> What's Los Angeles smog like today compared to 1965, Tegger?


I didn't say 1965, I said 1985. By 1985, LA air was pretty darn clean.


>
> What about the miles per gallon cars average in poorer areas of the
> world? Is that lower or higher? If lower, then you need to factor in
> the higher cost of operation of the cars in poor countries.
>
> I am interested in citations.



Then go dig them up. Until then, I'm as right as you are.


--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

"TeGGer®" <tegger@istop.c0m> wrote
> "Elle Navorski" <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote
> > I welcome citations on the cost of reducing automobile fuel emissions
> > since the 1960s.
>
> Are you saying that emissions laboratories, catalytic converters, engine
> controls and the costs of EPA certification are coming at no cost?

Are you saying that high performance improvements come at no cost?

Come on.

I'm questioning whether the cost of emissions improvements has been all
that expensive, particularly considering what we get back in return.

> Emmissions certification is a significant part of a car's development
> costs, which is why cars now generally come with only one or two engine
> choices, when in the old days they may have come with six or seven.
>
> The only reason you don't see the cost of emissions compliance is becuase
> manufacturing methods are much more productive than they used to be, and
> the costs of compliance are buried in the resulting cost reductions.
> Basically, were it not for emissions compliance, cars would be cheaper,
as
> you'd then see the entire cost reduction.

The issue I'm raising (and which I thought you meant) is whether what we've
had to pay for fuel emissions improvements has been cheap or expensive.

> Even if emissions regulations were rolled back to 1985 levels and OBD-II
> were not mandated, that would be a significant saving right there. By
1985,
> emmisions level had already been decreased about 95% from 1970.
>
> It's no coincidence that poorer areas of the world are not saddled with
> catalytic converters and unleaded gas, and sometimes even still have
> carburetors and Kettering ignition systems. It's CHEAPER.

What's Los Angeles smog like today compared to 1965, Tegger?

What about the miles per gallon cars average in poorer areas of the world?
Is that lower or higher? If lower, then you need to factor in the higher
cost of operation of the cars in poor countries.

I am interested in citations. I don't know what the truth is, but I'm not
simply going to believe a Usenetter opining on X, Y, and Z, which don't
necessarily pass the common sense test, without more to back up his claims.

 

"Elle Navorski" <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in
news:9J4Pd.5902$UX3.4593@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net:


>
> I welcome citations on the cost of reducing automobile fuel emissions
> since the 1960s.
>
>


Are you saying that emissions laboratories, catalytic converters, engine
controls and the costs of EPA certification are coming at no cost?

Emmissions certification is a significant part of a car's development
costs, which is why cars now generally come with only one or two engine
choices, when in the old days they may have come with six or seven.

The only reason you don't see the cost of emissions compliance is becuase
manufacturing methods are much more productive than they used to be, and
the costs of compliance are buried in the resulting cost reductions.
Basically, were it not for emissions compliance, cars would be cheaper, as
you'd then see the entire cost reduction.

Even if emissions regulations were rolled back to 1985 levels and OBD-II
were not mandated, that would be a significant saving right there. By 1985,
emmisions level had already been decreased about 95% from 1970.

It's no coincidence that poorer areas of the world are not saddled with
catalytic converters and unleaded gas, and sometimes even still have
carburetors and Kettering ignition systems. It's CHEAPER.



--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

"TeGGer®" <tegger@istop.c0m> wrote
snip
> "Green" technology IS expensive. Hybrids cost more than regular cars and
> still don't make the sort of profit regular cars do. "Green" technology
is
> most popular in wealthy contries that already have the best and cleanest
> living conditions, and the longest human lifespans.

I think I'll let the excerpts from the articles I posted speak for
themselves.

People can google for more info on whether going green pays for
manufacturers (and has been cheap or not for consumers) since the 1960s or
so.

 

"Elle Navorski" <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in
news:bb5Pd.5860$mG6.1867@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net:


>
> With this kind of demand, it's hard to believe Toyota is putting on
> some kind of pretense when it comes to announcing its costs to produce
> the Prius.
>


The Forbes article says what I've been saying all along, that it's an
expensive way build a car.

Toyota is only just now starting to reach the break even point, so they
have been losing money on the car for a long time, which is what I said.
Originally, Toyota never intended that the car actually turn a profit, as
it was supposed to be a "statement". Well there appear to be enough people
out there with rather different priorities to turn that concept on its
head. Toyota is as surprised as anyone.

Now Toyota is selling the technology, sort of like GM did with their
automatic transmissions in the '50s (only then it was the tranny itself,
not the technology), which helped them pay for development costs that much
quicker.

"Green" technology IS expensive. Hybrids cost more than regular cars and
still don't make the sort of profit regular cars do. "Green" technology is
most popular in wealthy contries that already have the best and cleanest
living conditions, and the longest human lifespans.

--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/