Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2008 20:40:39 GMT -5
100K cars
My 1969 Fiat 124 Sport Coupe ( sold at 134 K and in exc cond) 80 Rover 3500 V8 74 Chevy Pickup 90 Volvo 240 Wagon ( gave it to my daughter at 135 k and still going strong 6 yrs later) 81 Toyota 4X4 pickup.. (225 and sold it in fine condition) 93 Acura Legend Coupe ( 165 and still going strong) 90 Toyota 4 Runner ( 145 and still going stron) 87 Toyota Avalon (105 and still going strong)
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Apr 7, 2008 23:19:11 GMT -5
I put 280,000 on my Chevy Blazer, but the last five thousand or so were tough to get. By the end she had no compression left and there was more of that expandable foam gap filler stuff in her fenders than there was metal. (that foam gap filler stuff fills rust holes really well).
Something happened between 1986 and 1996 over at Chevy. The poor Blazer was riddled and ruined with rust. And the Cav doesn't have a speck of it.
Effective rustproofing plus electronic fuel injection equals cars that just keep on going and going.
The new oils must be darn good as well. Unless you are driving in dirt, there seems to be no reason not to go 5 or 6 K between changes. And a tight engine running clean highway miles can go 7 or 8 K (at least mine have, and with synthetic, I am not the least bit concerned about it anymore, though 6K is my rough target.)
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Apr 7, 2008 23:27:45 GMT -5
Rust? A number of Canadians like to buy cars in Arizona because we've never heard of rust. We leave metal things outside without a second thought. Another discouraging word that's never heard is "mildew." Alas, though, I can testify that although athlete's foot should be unknown here, it isn't.
|
|
|
Post by loopysanchez on Apr 8, 2008 10:19:53 GMT -5
Take Bird, Thomas, or Jordan off their teams and I think they'd have zero championships between them, and while they'd still be somewhat competitive against today's players, they still wouldn't win any rings. The Bulls found out in 1994 how good they were without Jordan--He left to play minor league baseball, and Chicago got bounced in the 2nd round of the playoffs by New York--after having won the previous 3 championships with him at the helm. The next year, with Jordan back but still rusty, they lost to Orlando in the 2nd round. When Jordan finally came back for a full season in '96, the Bulls proceeded to win the next three championships in a row. I suspect a similar scenario if you substituted Zeke or Larry for MJ. So to sum up, I would agree that the 3 teams you listed could compete for titles today with their full rosters, but take away their best player like you suggested, and they would be 6th to 8th seed playoff teams at best. Loopy, you ignorant slut. Actually, Jordan's Bulls were the weakest of the teams I mentioned. Pippen notwithstanding, the rest of the team wasn't of terrible consequence (Bill Cartright, anyone?) .....BUT..... If we're going to allow the hypothetical of dropping Bird, Johnson, Thomas (incidentally only one of two FABULOUS guards on that team) -- then to follow through, you would also have to remove the MVP of each of the current NBA teams to compare apples to apples. And if you did that, I still say that the Lakers and the Celtics and probably the Pistons would still have an equal shot at the NBA. So you're saying that, as a popularity contest, the MVP doesn't make the case. I can buy that. But I won't buy that four years makes it "an exception". Four years is starting to look "trend-like". But Paul very well may win the MVP -- that's where all the sentiment lies lately. And if so, the trend will continue to not be "specimen" players. Ah, but Mr. Millring, t'was you who first compared apples to oranges by removing the stars from teams from 20 years ago and suggesting they could win championships today without them. Now you're saying I have to take a star off of each of today's teams for them to do it? I happen to agree that if we're only going back 20 to 25 years, there are definitely teams that could compete for championships today. And remember, with the atypical MVP's it's not four years, it's just three. And while it doesn't make it an exception, it does make it quite convenient that clean-cut, trouble-free white guys have won the last three MVP awards during a time when the NBA has a HUGE image problem, justified or not, based on the assumption by white America that all its players are dope-smoking, hostess-raping, tattooed black thugs who shoot each other and get into fights in the stands. I'm not saying it was anything deliberate, but I think voters have been subconsciously voting for a player who would make the league more popular, which in turn makes their job as NBA sportswriter more lucrative. Add the fact Nowitzki is a European player, and you instantly expand your international market, too. It could be argued that Kobe Bryant, the afforementioned once-alleged rapist, was a more valuable player than either Nash or Nowitzki during at least two of the past three seasons. But his image doesn't sell. As for Chris Paul, to me he's a specimen if ever there was one. A short specimen, but one nonetheless. I see him as an Isaiah Thomas with bigger muscles.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Apr 8, 2008 11:47:29 GMT -5
I am feeling a bit of guilt. Make that concern for my fellow forumites. Just in case ...
I left off at least one radiator flush and at least one tranny oil change. The Cav came with the orange "long life" anti-freeze, (which was new at the time, and not used by Honda or Toyota until several years later) and it came with a semi-sealed tranny case. It, for some reason, was designed so that it didn't have a dipstick check or fill tube, and they claimed, initially, that it was a no-service unit. That advice changed down the road. Anyway, my duty was light, and my intervals were long. It also so came with long-life plugs that were rated for 100,000 miles (and they were good for all of that and a good bit more).
Anyway, if you have GREEN anti-freeze, dump that stuff out at whatever interval is recommended (or every two years, min). Anti-freeze does more than keep water from freezing. It also has additives that lube your waterpump and keep electrolysis in check (some kind of water/mineral/metal reaction that isn't good for the metal, dissolves it and pits it or something.).
I will be flushing my radiator and changing tranny fluid again this spring as soon as I get around to it. I might even change the fuel filter. The sucker is in the tank and it has never been changed. No one seems to know how long they last.
Oh, and I haven't had to do a thing to the front suspension struts or the boots or anything suspension related. The darn car has been amazing.
Paul
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Apr 8, 2008 11:50:25 GMT -5
According to ESPN After-hours, Chris Paul was seen driving a custom Cav with a mink roof.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 8, 2008 12:33:09 GMT -5
Ah, but Mr. Millring, t'was you who first compared apples to oranges by removing the stars from teams from 20 years ago and suggesting they could win championships today without them. Now you're saying I have to take a star off of each of today's teams for them to do it? Now I'm confused. I thought that it was your point that without their stars, the teams of the 80's couldn't compete in today's NBA. I was merely pointing out that neither could today's NBA teams (compete in today's NBA without their stars). I happen to agree that if we're only going back 20 to 25 years, there are definitely teams that could compete for championships today. See? So we agree. The sport of basketball has peaked. Probably did about twenty-five years ago.
|
|
|
Post by loopysanchez on Apr 8, 2008 13:09:14 GMT -5
Ah, but Mr. Millring, t'was you who first compared apples to oranges by removing the stars from teams from 20 years ago and suggesting they could win championships today without them. Now you're saying I have to take a star off of each of today's teams for them to do it? Now I'm confused. I thought that it was your point that without their stars, the teams of the 80's couldn't compete in today's NBA. I was merely pointing out that neither could today's NBA teams (compete in today's NBA without their stars). I happen to agree that if we're only going back 20 to 25 years, there are definitely teams that could compete for championships today. See? So we agree. The sport of basketball has peaked. Probably did about twenty-five years ago. Color me equally confused. The first I saw of the "take the stars off their teams" argument was when you wrote it, saying that old teams could compete in today's league without their stars. I guess while I might not have stated it directly, my point has always been that top to bottom, today's league is better than its ever been in terms of overall talent. Now, it just occurred to me that your perspective of this might be skewed because you're a fan of an NBA Eastern Conference team, and the East has been down a bit for the last few years. But the West is so good that right now there's a chance a 50-win team (in an 82 game season) might end up missing the playoffs. And they let 8 teams from each conference in! And no, I don't think we quite agree about the peak happening 25 years ago. At most I'll concede a plateau. Also, keep in mind that it was 23 years ago that the NBA instituted a salary cap. Before then, big market teams could spend their way to championships, and destroy the smaller franchises routinely. (See also: Major League Baseball). In today's cap era, I'd argue the league is much more competitive top to bottom, and rather than spread mediocrity, it's created many more good to great teams than in any previous era. In my admittedly half-assed opinion, anyway... (standard disclaimer for all my posts...)
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 8, 2008 13:14:31 GMT -5
Here's the first reference to taking the stars off of teams. Take Bird, Thomas, or Jordan off their teams and I think they'd have zero championships between them, and while they'd still be somewhat competitive against today's players, they still wouldn't win any rings. But at least we agree -- once the semantics of plateau/peak is ironed out. The game has been played at the same level for over twenty years now. ;D
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Apr 8, 2008 16:17:16 GMT -5
If you take the driver out of a Cav, can it compete with a Mercedes that has also had the driver removed?
I say, yes, it can.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Apr 8, 2008 16:25:35 GMT -5
Have cars gotten better in the last 25 years?
Depends on what you are looking for. Personally, I think 1958 was the peak car year of all car years. The class of the '58 Chev, the '58 Ford, and the '58 Dodge, Plymouth, and DeSoto will never be seen again. Not to mention the '58 Rambler Nash.
Paul
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 8, 2008 16:27:34 GMT -5
If you take the driver out of a Cav, can it compete with a Mercedes that has also had the driver removed? I say, yes, it can. The driver, now out of the Cav, could possibly compete with a Mercedes without a driver. It would depend on the nature of the competition.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Apr 8, 2008 16:34:53 GMT -5
A foot race.
|
|
|
Post by loopysanchez on Apr 8, 2008 16:47:15 GMT -5
;D Here's the first reference to taking the stars off of teams. Take Bird, Thomas, or Jordan off their teams and I think they'd have zero championships between them, and while they'd still be somewhat competitive against today's players, they still wouldn't win any rings. But at least we agree -- once the semantics of plateau/peak is ironed out. The game has been played at the same level for over twenty years now. ;D Don'tcha just love it when you reach the third page of a debate in a thread that's not even on that subject, and you go back and realize you completely misread the post you reacted to that started the whole debate? (I know I do!) See, I read the quote below too quickly, and thought you wrote "Bird-less", "Johnson-less", "Thomas-less", and "Jordan-less". Now everything you've said for the last page and a half makes a lot more sense, and mine a lot less, I suppose. But if you pretend you actually said what I thought you said, I still think my arguments are spot-on... ;D
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 8, 2008 16:47:58 GMT -5
Have cars gotten better in the last 25 years? Depends on what you are looking for. Personally, I think 1958 was the peak car year of all car years. The class of the '58 Chev, the '58 Ford, and the '58 Dodge, Plymouth, and DeSoto will never be seen again. Not to mention the '58 Rambler Nash. Paul How would Rambler Nash stack up against Steve Nash? As an offensive threat, I'd have to give the edge to Steve because, personally, I've never thought of a Nash Rambler as particularly offensive. Now, if you were to throw Graham Nash into the competition -- Graham who wrote the line "You who are on the road, must have a code that you can live by" maybe things would be different. The Rambler knows about being on the road. And Steve, for his part, said, "When I travel, I too have a code that I can live by. That is, when I travel, I turn the ball over. That's not good." I'd like to hear from Ogden But he has never logged in
|
|
|
Post by loopysanchez on Apr 8, 2008 16:51:22 GMT -5
Have cars gotten better in the last 25 years? Depends on what you are looking for. Personally, I think 1958 was the peak car year of all car years. The class of the '58 Chev, the '58 Ford, and the '58 Dodge, Plymouth, and DeSoto will never be seen again. Not to mention the '58 Rambler Nash. Paul How would Rambler Nash stack up against Steve Nash? As an offensive threat, I'd have to give the edge to Steve because, personally, I've never thought of a Nash Rambler as particularly offensive. Now, if you were to throw Graham Nash into the competition -- Graham who wrote the line "You who are on the road, must have a code that you can live by" maybe things would be different. The Rambler knows about being on the road. And Steve, for his part, said, "When I travel, I too have a code that I can live by. That is, when I travel, I turn the ball over. That's not good." I'd like to hear from Ogden But he has never logged in Silly wabbit, they don't call travelling in the NBA! BTW, that post is funny as hell, 'ring!
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Apr 8, 2008 16:57:55 GMT -5
Steve Nash overrated? Not if you watched him during those two years he got the MVP award. There are some things numbers don't tell.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Apr 8, 2008 17:04:59 GMT -5
Now everything you've said for the last page and a half makes a lot more sense, and mine a lot less, I suppose. Picture me doing one of those childish and offensive end zone dances that shows that I have a completely overblown sense of both the critical nature of a sports debate, and the place of my rightness in the long human history of rhetoric and debate. wait ...now I'm jamming my facemask against yours and talking trash. I bad.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2008 18:07:35 GMT -5
Can we get back on topic here? Personally I think Nash Bridges would just wipe Graham Nash out, unless Graham Nash was in a Nash Rambler which could have crossed more bridges than Nash Bridges but done less dribbling than Steve Nash. ;D
|
|