Print

[flip from jersey]

Oh, and while I was paying off the Visa card, here's the tv I've been watching for the past 2 years.  I put it on an off channel so you can see the bad pixels better.  The blue ones are the bad ones if you can see them.

That's not a bad picture... when is your wife due?

That's a lot of bad pixels.

My wife just gave me the green light on the Visa card (-0- Balance.)  So now I'm looking at tv too.  I'm still running into the same problem.  When they get low enough to buy, they discontinue them, and bring out a more expensive tv with some thing new on it.  Now it's the 4k thing.  I'm watching for a Father's Day or 4th of July Sale at Best Buy.

BD do what I have always done, that is after learning my lesson buying a top of the line HP45 calculator in 1974 for close to $400.00.  next years product will make this years product cheaper.  the sweet spot in in TV's right about now is the 1080P 40-42 inch screen.  smart or not so smart.  do you need 4k? ask yourself how many dvd or blue rays you currently own.  there is no 4k broadcast that I know of at the moment.   if you had purchased a 42 inch near state of the art HDTV(1080p) last year, or the year before, would you still be happy with it.  if the answer is yes, but it now for $200 less.  don't buy 720p, look at what you like in a store, and if it's on sale, take it home.  We have places that will do a 36 month no interest, deal (P.C. Richards, best buy), you use their store card and pay them every month 1/36th of the price, the interest accrues, but is not due unless you miss a payment.  they are like 27% interest. if you can make that payments great, if not they hit you with outrageous interest.  just an option an opinion. by the way replacement for that calculater did more and were $200 - $300 less within two years.

My first HP could add, subtract, multiply, divide and do square roots....think it was like $150 or so....

this one was the advanced Scientific, I still l have it somewhere. 

[South Carolina Redfish]

Have you considered looking at vehicles a couple years old with low mileage and still under some warranty?
You would probably drop the costs considerably. Most new cars drop in in value significantly after you drive them off the lot, imho, fwiw, no offense, etc, etc. Although, this will inevitably open up a bigger can of worms. ha!

I have also been looking at used cars too (on the internet.)  Here's what I've been running into.  Used trucks are almost out of the question.  They are very expensive and also have allot of mileage.  For used cars, it's common to find a 2013 - 2014 with 30,000k to 60,000k and let's say costing $14,000 and up.  My wife wants an automatic and air.  Basic new Soul with a 10 year 100,000 warrant cost $17,000.  So, do I buy a nice used Honda Accord, or pay $3,000 more for a basic new car that hopefully the dealer will repair for the next 10 years.  A car with 30k has a risk of some thing being wrong with it, may need new tires, and brakes. Now if I had an old man that lived next to me selling a 3 year old Buick with 12k miles for $13,000 - $14,000 I'd jump on it.  It's just very hard for me to decide.  Also, I drove 1,000 miles last year on my truck, and my wife drove about 1,000 on her car.  A used car with 36k miles represents 18 years of ownership to us.  Kinda weird, huh..

Trucks are expensive everywhere. I see old beaters around with $5000 in the window all the time. If it were a car, they'd be lucky to get $500. A good resource for used vehicles is AutoTrader.com. You can filter by many things and get a sense of what's available for a certain price... dealer and private. The new car rebates do make you think, but personally, I think the better deal is in the car a couple years old. Plus, you have more feedback on an older car. The same car made in different years can have different pros and cons.

Years ago it was just standard knowledge that a Chevy 283, 327, Ford 289, 302, Plymounth 318 were good engines, but you don't hear that information much any more.  Again, let's use the Kia 2.0L engine.

That "standard knowledge" was mostly bullshit.  The Chevy 283 and 327, and every other small-block GM engine up to 1992, are fundamentally the same engine, the difference being the length of the rods, the diameter of the pistons, and the dimensions of the valves.  No matter how much "car guys" like to yack about the various displacements of the '60s, GM got it "right" when they got to the 350, and from 1970 to 1992, that was GM's small-block.  In 1992 they tweaked it, but even so it is still essentially the engine Ed Cole designed in 1952. 

Ditto for the Fords.  The 289 and 302 were the same engine, on up to 351 CID.  Ford Windsor.  The "Cleveland" series was supposed to replace the Windsor, but it didn't.  So, from 1962 until 1996, regardless of the various displacements, the engine is fundamentally the same.

Of course, the automakers didn't really want you to pay attention to that, nor do the supercilious hot-rod guys.  They want you to believe there's voodoo and they've got it.

Modern cars are the same way.  Ford sells two V8's - the 4.6L and the 5.4L.  Same block - the Ford Modular.  GM calls theirs "Generation IV" or "Vortec" or whatever other nonsensical names they want to apply, but it's the same fundamental engine.

Best engines I ever had were the rotary's in my RX-7s and RX-8.

I had an RX7 back in the day, wonderful car, great engine. Fun as hell to drive.

I had a 1969 Camaro Z-28 with 4 on the flow back in that day and that mother fooker would wankle. 

[South Carolina Redfish]

Have you considered looking at vehicles a couple years old with low mileage and still under some warranty?

You would probably drop the costs considerably. Most new cars drop in in value significantly after you drive them off the lot, imho, fwiw, no offense, etc, etc. Although, this will inevitably open up a bigger can of worms. ha!

I have also been looking at used cars too (on the internet.)  Here's what I've been running into.  Used trucks are almost out of the question.  They are very expensive and also have allot of mileage.  For used cars, it's common to find a 2013 - 2014 with 30,000k to 60,000k and let's say costing $14,000 and up.  My wife wants an automatic and air.  Basic new Soul with a 10 year 100,000 warrant cost $17,000.  So, do I buy a nice used Honda Accord, or pay $3,000 more for a basic new car that hopefully the dealer will repair for the next 10 years.  A car with 30k has a risk of some thing being wrong with it, may need new tires, and brakes. Now if I had an old man that lived next to me selling a 3 year old Buick with 12k miles for $13,000 - $14,000 I'd jump on it.  It's just very hard for me to decide.  Also, I drove 1,000 miles last year on my truck, and my wife drove about 1,000 on her car.  A used car with 36k miles represents 18 years of ownership to us.  Kinda weird, huh..

Trucks are expensive everywhere. I see old beaters around with $5000 in the window all the time. If it were a car, they'd be lucky to get $500. A good resource for used vehicles is AutoTrader.com. You can filter by many things and get a sense of what's available for a certain price... dealer and private. The new car rebates do make you think, but personally, I think the better deal is in the car a couple years old. Plus, you have more feedback on an older car. The same car made in different years can have different pros and cons.

Years ago it was just standard knowledge that a Chevy 283, 327, Ford 289, 302, Plymounth 318 were good engines, but you don't hear that information much any more.  Again, let's use the Kia 2.0L engine.

That "standard knowledge" was mostly bullshit.  The Chevy 283 and 327, and every other small-block GM engine up to 1992, are fundamentally the same engine, the difference being the length of the rods, the diameter of the pistons, and the dimensions of the valves.  No matter how much "car guys" like to yack about the various displacements of the '60s, GM got it "right" when they got to the 350, and from 1970 to 1992, that was GM's small-block.  In 1992 they tweaked it, but even so it is still essentially the engine Ed Cole designed in 1952. 

Ditto for the Fords.  The 289 and 302 were the same engine, on up to 351 CID.  Ford Windsor.  The "Cleveland" series was supposed to replace the Windsor, but it didn't.  So, from 1962 until 1996, regardless of the various displacements, the engine is fundamentally the same.

Of course, the automakers didn't really want you to pay attention to that, nor do the supercilious hot-rod guys.  They want you to believe there's voodoo and they've got it.

Modern cars are the same way.  Ford sells two V8's - the 4.6L and the 5.4L.  Same block - the Ford Modular.  GM calls theirs "Generation IV" or "Vortec" or whatever other nonsensical names they want to apply, but it's the same fundamental engine.

Best engines I ever had were the rotary's in my RX-7s and RX-8.

Don't get me started. The problem with the Wankel engine is that it's too good. Smooth, powerful, durable, efficient, forgiving, quiet, simple...you see where this is going. How can you sell new cars every year, and warranties, and service, if the engines last so long and with so little trouble? What are ya, a Commie?

This space for rent.

Too bad Raz is a self starter

[South Carolina Redfish]

Sheesh!  CB must be lurking and killing the banter.

[South Carolina Redfish]

Club Humidor Exclusive Series Tatuaje "The Rumbo" lit, Sculpin Poured and some Percy Sledge going in the pool.

[razgueado]

Have you considered looking at vehicles a couple years old with low mileage and still under some warranty?
You would probably drop the costs considerably. Most new cars drop in in value significantly after you drive them off the lot, imho, fwiw, no offense, etc, etc. Although, this will inevitably open up a bigger can of worms. ha!

I have also been looking at used cars too (on the internet.)  Here's what I've been running into.  Used trucks are almost out of the question.  They are very expensive and also have allot of mileage.  For used cars, it's common to find a 2013 - 2014 with 30,000k to 60,000k and let's say costing $14,000 and up.  My wife wants an automatic and air.  Basic new Soul with a 10 year 100,000 warrant cost $17,000.  So, do I buy a nice used Honda Accord, or pay $3,000 more for a basic new car that hopefully the dealer will repair for the next 10 years.  A car with 30k has a risk of some thing being wrong with it, may need new tires, and brakes. Now if I had an old man that lived next to me selling a 3 year old Buick with 12k miles for $13,000 - $14,000 I'd jump on it.  It's just very hard for me to decide.  Also, I drove 1,000 miles last year on my truck, and my wife drove about 1,000 on her car.  A used car with 36k miles represents 18 years of ownership to us.  Kinda weird, huh..

Trucks are expensive everywhere. I see old beaters around with $5000 in the window all the time. If it were a car, they'd be lucky to get $500. A good resource for used vehicles is AutoTrader.com. You can filter by many things and get a sense of what's available for a certain price... dealer and private. The new car rebates do make you think, but personally, I think the better deal is in the car a couple years old. Plus, you have more feedback on an older car. The same car made in different years can have different pros and cons.

Years ago it was just standard knowledge that a Chevy 283, 327, Ford 289, 302, Plymounth 318 were good engines, but you don't hear that information much any more.  Again, let's use the Kia 2.0L engine.

That "standard knowledge" was mostly bullshit.  The Chevy 283 and 327, and every other small-block GM engine up to 1992, are fundamentally the same engine, the difference being the length of the rods, the diameter of the pistons, and the dimensions of the valves.  No matter how much "car guys" like to yack about the various displacements of the '60s, GM got it "right" when they got to the 350, and from 1970 to 1992, that was GM's small-block.  In 1992 they tweaked it, but even so it is still essentially the engine Ed Cole designed in 1952. 

Ditto for the Fords.  The 289 and 302 were the same engine, on up to 351 CID.  Ford Windsor.  The "Cleveland" series was supposed to replace the Windsor, but it didn't.  So, from 1962 until 1996, regardless of the various displacements, the engine is fundamentally the same.

Of course, the automakers didn't really want you to pay attention to that, nor do the supercilious hot-rod guys.  They want you to believe there's voodoo and they've got it.

Modern cars are the same way.  Ford sells two V8's - the 4.6L and the 5.4L.  Same block - the Ford Modular.  GM calls theirs "Generation IV" or "Vortec" or whatever other nonsensical names they want to apply, but it's the same fundamental engine.

Best engines I ever had were the rotary's in my RX-7s and RX-8.

I had an RX7 back in the day, wonderful car, great engine. Fun as hell to drive.

I had a 1969 Camaro Z-28 with 4 on the flow back in that day and that mother fooker would wankle.

Indeed.  And that was a great car.  The light weight amply made up for the congested breathing of the 302. 

But we'd have taken you with that 5.0 Jag.  ;-)   

[razgueado]

Have you considered looking at vehicles a couple years old with low mileage and still under some warranty?

You would probably drop the costs considerably. Most new cars drop in in value significantly after you drive them off the lot, imho, fwiw, no offense, etc, etc. Although, this will inevitably open up a bigger can of worms. ha!

I have also been looking at used cars too (on the internet.)  Here's what I've been running into.  Used trucks are almost out of the question.  They are very expensive and also have allot of mileage.  For used cars, it's common to find a 2013 - 2014 with 30,000k to 60,000k and let's say costing $14,000 and up.  My wife wants an automatic and air.  Basic new Soul with a 10 year 100,000 warrant cost $17,000.  So, do I buy a nice used Honda Accord, or pay $3,000 more for a basic new car that hopefully the dealer will repair for the next 10 years.  A car with 30k has a risk of some thing being wrong with it, may need new tires, and brakes. Now if I had an old man that lived next to me selling a 3 year old Buick with 12k miles for $13,000 - $14,000 I'd jump on it.  It's just very hard for me to decide.  Also, I drove 1,000 miles last year on my truck, and my wife drove about 1,000 on her car.  A used car with 36k miles represents 18 years of ownership to us.  Kinda weird, huh..

Trucks are expensive everywhere. I see old beaters around with $5000 in the window all the time. If it were a car, they'd be lucky to get $500. A good resource for used vehicles is AutoTrader.com. You can filter by many things and get a sense of what's available for a certain price... dealer and private. The new car rebates do make you think, but personally, I think the better deal is in the car a couple years old. Plus, you have more feedback on an older car. The same car made in different years can have different pros and cons.

Years ago it was just standard knowledge that a Chevy 283, 327, Ford 289, 302, Plymounth 318 were good engines, but you don't hear that information much any more.  Again, let's use the Kia 2.0L engine.

That "standard knowledge" was mostly bullshit.  The Chevy 283 and 327, and every other small-block GM engine up to 1992, are fundamentally the same engine, the difference being the length of the rods, the diameter of the pistons, and the dimensions of the valves.  No matter how much "car guys" like to yack about the various displacements of the '60s, GM got it "right" when they got to the 350, and from 1970 to 1992, that was GM's small-block.  In 1992 they tweaked it, but even so it is still essentially the engine Ed Cole designed in 1952. 

Ditto for the Fords.  The 289 and 302 were the same engine, on up to 351 CID.  Ford Windsor.  The "Cleveland" series was supposed to replace the Windsor, but it didn't.  So, from 1962 until 1996, regardless of the various displacements, the engine is fundamentally the same.

Of course, the automakers didn't really want you to pay attention to that, nor do the supercilious hot-rod guys.  They want you to believe there's voodoo and they've got it.

Modern cars are the same way.  Ford sells two V8's - the 4.6L and the 5.4L.  Same block - the Ford Modular.  GM calls theirs "Generation IV" or "Vortec" or whatever other nonsensical names they want to apply, but it's the same fundamental engine.

Best engines I ever had were the rotary's in my RX-7s and RX-8.

Don't get me started. The problem with the Wankel engine is that it's too good. Smooth, powerful, durable, efficient, forgiving, quiet, simple...you see where this is going. How can you sell new cars every year, and warranties, and service, if the engines last so long and with so little trouble? What are ya, a Commie?

This space for rent.

Too bad Raz is a self starter

Well, I can't compete with your 10K+ post count.  But I do what I can.

[South Carolina Redfish]

Have you considered looking at vehicles a couple years old with low mileage and still under some warranty?
You would probably drop the costs considerably. Most new cars drop in in value significantly after you drive them off the lot, imho, fwiw, no offense, etc, etc. Although, this will inevitably open up a bigger can of worms. ha!

I have also been looking at used cars too (on the internet.)  Here's what I've been running into.  Used trucks are almost out of the question.  They are very expensive and also have allot of mileage.  For used cars, it's common to find a 2013 - 2014 with 30,000k to 60,000k and let's say costing $14,000 and up.  My wife wants an automatic and air.  Basic new Soul with a 10 year 100,000 warrant cost $17,000.  So, do I buy a nice used Honda Accord, or pay $3,000 more for a basic new car that hopefully the dealer will repair for the next 10 years.  A car with 30k has a risk of some thing being wrong with it, may need new tires, and brakes. Now if I had an old man that lived next to me selling a 3 year old Buick with 12k miles for $13,000 - $14,000 I'd jump on it.  It's just very hard for me to decide.  Also, I drove 1,000 miles last year on my truck, and my wife drove about 1,000 on her car.  A used car with 36k miles represents 18 years of ownership to us.  Kinda weird, huh..

Trucks are expensive everywhere. I see old beaters around with $5000 in the window all the time. If it were a car, they'd be lucky to get $500. A good resource for used vehicles is AutoTrader.com. You can filter by many things and get a sense of what's available for a certain price... dealer and private. The new car rebates do make you think, but personally, I think the better deal is in the car a couple years old. Plus, you have more feedback on an older car. The same car made in different years can have different pros and cons.

Years ago it was just standard knowledge that a Chevy 283, 327, Ford 289, 302, Plymounth 318 were good engines, but you don't hear that information much any more.  Again, let's use the Kia 2.0L engine.

That "standard knowledge" was mostly bullshit.  The Chevy 283 and 327, and every other small-block GM engine up to 1992, are fundamentally the same engine, the difference being the length of the rods, the diameter of the pistons, and the dimensions of the valves.  No matter how much "car guys" like to yack about the various displacements of the '60s, GM got it "right" when they got to the 350, and from 1970 to 1992, that was GM's small-block.  In 1992 they tweaked it, but even so it is still essentially the engine Ed Cole designed in 1952. 

Ditto for the Fords.  The 289 and 302 were the same engine, on up to 351 CID.  Ford Windsor.  The "Cleveland" series was supposed to replace the Windsor, but it didn't.  So, from 1962 until 1996, regardless of the various displacements, the engine is fundamentally the same.

Of course, the automakers didn't really want you to pay attention to that, nor do the supercilious hot-rod guys.  They want you to believe there's voodoo and they've got it.

Modern cars are the same way.  Ford sells two V8's - the 4.6L and the 5.4L.  Same block - the Ford Modular.  GM calls theirs "Generation IV" or "Vortec" or whatever other nonsensical names they want to apply, but it's the same fundamental engine.

Best engines I ever had were the rotary's in my RX-7s and RX-8.

I had an RX7 back in the day, wonderful car, great engine. Fun as hell to drive.

I had a 1969 Camaro Z-28 with 4 on the flow back in that day and that mother fooker would wankle.

Indeed.  And that was a great car.  The light weight amply made up for the congested breathing of the 302. 

But we'd have taken you with that 5.0 Jag.  ;-)

LMFAO

[South Carolina Redfish]

Have you considered looking at vehicles a couple years old with low mileage and still under some warranty?

You would probably drop the costs considerably. Most new cars drop in in value significantly after you drive them off the lot, imho, fwiw, no offense, etc, etc. Although, this will inevitably open up a bigger can of worms. ha!

I have also been looking at used cars too (on the internet.)  Here's what I've been running into.  Used trucks are almost out of the question.  They are very expensive and also have allot of mileage.  For used cars, it's common to find a 2013 - 2014 with 30,000k to 60,000k and let's say costing $14,000 and up.  My wife wants an automatic and air.  Basic new Soul with a 10 year 100,000 warrant cost $17,000.  So, do I buy a nice used Honda Accord, or pay $3,000 more for a basic new car that hopefully the dealer will repair for the next 10 years.  A car with 30k has a risk of some thing being wrong with it, may need new tires, and brakes. Now if I had an old man that lived next to me selling a 3 year old Buick with 12k miles for $13,000 - $14,000 I'd jump on it.  It's just very hard for me to decide.  Also, I drove 1,000 miles last year on my truck, and my wife drove about 1,000 on her car.  A used car with 36k miles represents 18 years of ownership to us.  Kinda weird, huh..

Trucks are expensive everywhere. I see old beaters around with $5000 in the window all the time. If it were a car, they'd be lucky to get $500. A good resource for used vehicles is AutoTrader.com. You can filter by many things and get a sense of what's available for a certain price... dealer and private. The new car rebates do make you think, but personally, I think the better deal is in the car a couple years old. Plus, you have more feedback on an older car. The same car made in different years can have different pros and cons.

Years ago it was just standard knowledge that a Chevy 283, 327, Ford 289, 302, Plymounth 318 were good engines, but you don't hear that information much any more.  Again, let's use the Kia 2.0L engine.

That "standard knowledge" was mostly bullshit.  The Chevy 283 and 327, and every other small-block GM engine up to 1992, are fundamentally the same engine, the difference being the length of the rods, the diameter of the pistons, and the dimensions of the valves.  No matter how much "car guys" like to yack about the various displacements of the '60s, GM got it "right" when they got to the 350, and from 1970 to 1992, that was GM's small-block.  In 1992 they tweaked it, but even so it is still essentially the engine Ed Cole designed in 1952. 

Ditto for the Fords.  The 289 and 302 were the same engine, on up to 351 CID.  Ford Windsor.  The "Cleveland" series was supposed to replace the Windsor, but it didn't.  So, from 1962 until 1996, regardless of the various displacements, the engine is fundamentally the same.

Of course, the automakers didn't really want you to pay attention to that, nor do the supercilious hot-rod guys.  They want you to believe there's voodoo and they've got it.

Modern cars are the same way.  Ford sells two V8's - the 4.6L and the 5.4L.  Same block - the Ford Modular.  GM calls theirs "Generation IV" or "Vortec" or whatever other nonsensical names they want to apply, but it's the same fundamental engine.

Best engines I ever had were the rotary's in my RX-7s and RX-8.

Don't get me started. The problem with the Wankel engine is that it's too good. Smooth, powerful, durable, efficient, forgiving, quiet, simple...you see where this is going. How can you sell new cars every year, and warranties, and service, if the engines last so long and with so little trouble? What are ya, a Commie?

This space for rent.

Too bad Raz is a self starter

Well, I can't compete with your 10K+ post count.  But I do what I can.

You should get posting credit for sick leave.

[Threebean]

Hmmm, looks like I slipped across the 2.5K threshold and earned myself another star.  At least I accomplished something worthwhile this week.

[South Carolina Redfish]

Club Humidor Exclusive Series Tatuaje "The Rumbo" lit, Sculpin Poured and some Percy Sledge going in the pool.

Draw is a bit tight but otherwise this is a major league cigar, very smooth smoke and a monster at 7-5/8 X 49.

[South Carolina Redfish]

Hmmm, looks like I slipped across the 2.5K threshold and earned myself another star.  At least I accomplished something worthwhile this week.

ya nasty little post whore you!  Need to change your caption.

[razgueado]

Have you considered looking at vehicles a couple years old with low mileage and still under some warranty?
You would probably drop the costs considerably. Most new cars drop in in value significantly after you drive them off the lot, imho, fwiw, no offense, etc, etc. Although, this will inevitably open up a bigger can of worms. ha!

I have also been looking at used cars too (on the internet.)  Here's what I've been running into.  Used trucks are almost out of the question.  They are very expensive and also have allot of mileage.  For used cars, it's common to find a 2013 - 2014 with 30,000k to 60,000k and let's say costing $14,000 and up.  My wife wants an automatic and air.  Basic new Soul with a 10 year 100,000 warrant cost $17,000.  So, do I buy a nice used Honda Accord, or pay $3,000 more for a basic new car that hopefully the dealer will repair for the next 10 years.  A car with 30k has a risk of some thing being wrong with it, may need new tires, and brakes. Now if I had an old man that lived next to me selling a 3 year old Buick with 12k miles for $13,000 - $14,000 I'd jump on it.  It's just very hard for me to decide.  Also, I drove 1,000 miles last year on my truck, and my wife drove about 1,000 on her car.  A used car with 36k miles represents 18 years of ownership to us.  Kinda weird, huh..

Trucks are expensive everywhere. I see old beaters around with $5000 in the window all the time. If it were a car, they'd be lucky to get $500. A good resource for used vehicles is AutoTrader.com. You can filter by many things and get a sense of what's available for a certain price... dealer and private. The new car rebates do make you think, but personally, I think the better deal is in the car a couple years old. Plus, you have more feedback on an older car. The same car made in different years can have different pros and cons.

Years ago it was just standard knowledge that a Chevy 283, 327, Ford 289, 302, Plymounth 318 were good engines, but you don't hear that information much any more.  Again, let's use the Kia 2.0L engine.

That "standard knowledge" was mostly bullshit.  The Chevy 283 and 327, and every other small-block GM engine up to 1992, are fundamentally the same engine, the difference being the length of the rods, the diameter of the pistons, and the dimensions of the valves.  No matter how much "car guys" like to yack about the various displacements of the '60s, GM got it "right" when they got to the 350, and from 1970 to 1992, that was GM's small-block.  In 1992 they tweaked it, but even so it is still essentially the engine Ed Cole designed in 1952. 

Ditto for the Fords.  The 289 and 302 were the same engine, on up to 351 CID.  Ford Windsor.  The "Cleveland" series was supposed to replace the Windsor, but it didn't.  So, from 1962 until 1996, regardless of the various displacements, the engine is fundamentally the same.

Of course, the automakers didn't really want you to pay attention to that, nor do the supercilious hot-rod guys.  They want you to believe there's voodoo and they've got it.

Modern cars are the same way.  Ford sells two V8's - the 4.6L and the 5.4L.  Same block - the Ford Modular.  GM calls theirs "Generation IV" or "Vortec" or whatever other nonsensical names they want to apply, but it's the same fundamental engine.

Best engines I ever had were the rotary's in my RX-7s and RX-8.

I had an RX7 back in the day, wonderful car, great engine. Fun as hell to drive.

I had a 1969 Camaro Z-28 with 4 on the flow back in that day and that mother fooker would wankle.

Indeed.  And that was a great car.  The light weight amply made up for the congested breathing of the 302. 

But we'd have taken you with that 5.0 Jag.  ;-)

LMFAO

...cause we'd have been 400 pounds lighter, and we were fuel-injected. 

[razgueado]

Have you considered looking at vehicles a couple years old with low mileage and still under some warranty?

You would probably drop the costs considerably. Most new cars drop in in value significantly after you drive them off the lot, imho, fwiw, no offense, etc, etc. Although, this will inevitably open up a bigger can of worms. ha!

I have also been looking at used cars too (on the internet.)  Here's what I've been running into.  Used trucks are almost out of the question.  They are very expensive and also have allot of mileage.  For used cars, it's common to find a 2013 - 2014 with 30,000k to 60,000k and let's say costing $14,000 and up.  My wife wants an automatic and air.  Basic new Soul with a 10 year 100,000 warrant cost $17,000.  So, do I buy a nice used Honda Accord, or pay $3,000 more for a basic new car that hopefully the dealer will repair for the next 10 years.  A car with 30k has a risk of some thing being wrong with it, may need new tires, and brakes. Now if I had an old man that lived next to me selling a 3 year old Buick with 12k miles for $13,000 - $14,000 I'd jump on it.  It's just very hard for me to decide.  Also, I drove 1,000 miles last year on my truck, and my wife drove about 1,000 on her car.  A used car with 36k miles represents 18 years of ownership to us.  Kinda weird, huh..

Trucks are expensive everywhere. I see old beaters around with $5000 in the window all the time. If it were a car, they'd be lucky to get $500. A good resource for used vehicles is AutoTrader.com. You can filter by many things and get a sense of what's available for a certain price... dealer and private. The new car rebates do make you think, but personally, I think the better deal is in the car a couple years old. Plus, you have more feedback on an older car. The same car made in different years can have different pros and cons.

Years ago it was just standard knowledge that a Chevy 283, 327, Ford 289, 302, Plymounth 318 were good engines, but you don't hear that information much any more.  Again, let's use the Kia 2.0L engine.

That "standard knowledge" was mostly bullshit.  The Chevy 283 and 327, and every other small-block GM engine up to 1992, are fundamentally the same engine, the difference being the length of the rods, the diameter of the pistons, and the dimensions of the valves.  No matter how much "car guys" like to yack about the various displacements of the '60s, GM got it "right" when they got to the 350, and from 1970 to 1992, that was GM's small-block.  In 1992 they tweaked it, but even so it is still essentially the engine Ed Cole designed in 1952. 

Ditto for the Fords.  The 289 and 302 were the same engine, on up to 351 CID.  Ford Windsor.  The "Cleveland" series was supposed to replace the Windsor, but it didn't.  So, from 1962 until 1996, regardless of the various displacements, the engine is fundamentally the same.

Of course, the automakers didn't really want you to pay attention to that, nor do the supercilious hot-rod guys.  They want you to believe there's voodoo and they've got it.

Modern cars are the same way.  Ford sells two V8's - the 4.6L and the 5.4L.  Same block - the Ford Modular.  GM calls theirs "Generation IV" or "Vortec" or whatever other nonsensical names they want to apply, but it's the same fundamental engine.

Best engines I ever had were the rotary's in my RX-7s and RX-8.

Don't get me started. The problem with the Wankel engine is that it's too good. Smooth, powerful, durable, efficient, forgiving, quiet, simple...you see where this is going. How can you sell new cars every year, and warranties, and service, if the engines last so long and with so little trouble? What are ya, a Commie?

This space for rent.

Too bad Raz is a self starter

Well, I can't compete with your 10K+ post count.  But I do what I can.

You should get posting credit for sick leave.

Well, if my attorneys decide to sue, and I win, I'll buy a higher post count.  Tony can be bribed.

[Travellin Dave]

Hmmm, looks like I slipped across the 2.5K threshold and earned myself another star.  At least I accomplished something worthwhile this week.

There you have it.