MORE than expensive - outrageous!
#91
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
expensive wrote:
> It's done the job for me for many years. But, at 110,000 miles, it has
> a long way to go yet. It has to get me to retirement age when I will
> buy my last car.
That's a pretty tall spec. Try adding that to the sales contract and I
doubt you'll find a dealer in North America who'd sell you a car.
That's your goal (which I understand, BTW, having just a new Accord as
my "retirement car") and has nothing to do with Honda or Honda dealers.
> The arrogance of the dealer really put me off as much as the cost of
> the part. Someone who sells something should not laugh at the anguish
> of a customer. Until a few days ago, I'd planned my last car to be a
> Honda. Not any more.
Keep in mind that companies don't really "care" about their customers,
no matter what their advertising screams about. They want to sell you
something good enough so you'll come back and buy another, and they want
to make money on both transactions. IMHO it's completely unrealistic to
expect any big company to really care about its customers, everyone has
a sad story.
> Somehow I get the impression that folks here do not consider $193 to be
> a burdensome expense. But I live on a fixed income and $193 is
> approximately 1/5 of what I have to live on. So the towing and the
> repair wiped me out as far as discretionary income is concerned.
> It's done the job for me for many years. But, at 110,000 miles, it has
> a long way to go yet. It has to get me to retirement age when I will
> buy my last car.
That's a pretty tall spec. Try adding that to the sales contract and I
doubt you'll find a dealer in North America who'd sell you a car.
That's your goal (which I understand, BTW, having just a new Accord as
my "retirement car") and has nothing to do with Honda or Honda dealers.
> The arrogance of the dealer really put me off as much as the cost of
> the part. Someone who sells something should not laugh at the anguish
> of a customer. Until a few days ago, I'd planned my last car to be a
> Honda. Not any more.
Keep in mind that companies don't really "care" about their customers,
no matter what their advertising screams about. They want to sell you
something good enough so you'll come back and buy another, and they want
to make money on both transactions. IMHO it's completely unrealistic to
expect any big company to really care about its customers, everyone has
a sad story.
> Somehow I get the impression that folks here do not consider $193 to be
> a burdensome expense. But I live on a fixed income and $193 is
> approximately 1/5 of what I have to live on. So the towing and the
> repair wiped me out as far as discretionary income is concerned.
#92
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
expensive wrote:
> I'm very angry. And for good cause.
I don't agree.
> While zooming along the freeway in my '81 Honda (my second Honda, which
> has 109,000 miles on it), I suddenly lost power. After a $100 tow, the
> Honda mechanic replaced the igniter. I didn't know what it was, so it
> was explained to me that it replaces the points.
What's an "igniter"? I'm not familiar with the term.
> I'm very angry. And for good cause.
I don't agree.
> While zooming along the freeway in my '81 Honda (my second Honda, which
> has 109,000 miles on it), I suddenly lost power. After a $100 tow, the
> Honda mechanic replaced the igniter. I didn't know what it was, so it
> was explained to me that it replaces the points.
What's an "igniter"? I'm not familiar with the term.
#93
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
expensive wrote:
> I'm very angry. And for good cause.
I don't agree.
> While zooming along the freeway in my '81 Honda (my second Honda, which
> has 109,000 miles on it), I suddenly lost power. After a $100 tow, the
> Honda mechanic replaced the igniter. I didn't know what it was, so it
> was explained to me that it replaces the points.
What's an "igniter"? I'm not familiar with the term.
> I'm very angry. And for good cause.
I don't agree.
> While zooming along the freeway in my '81 Honda (my second Honda, which
> has 109,000 miles on it), I suddenly lost power. After a $100 tow, the
> Honda mechanic replaced the igniter. I didn't know what it was, so it
> was explained to me that it replaces the points.
What's an "igniter"? I'm not familiar with the term.
#94
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
Brian Smith wrote:
> "TL" <tlehman@visi.com> wrote in message
> news:7n8iivktl42tp9o19l6mphfl78c8ifj9ij@4ax.com...
>
>>Electronics pricing by weight? That's about the best laugh I've had in
>>a long time.
>>
>>Why not just weigh the whole car and do the math that way. LOL
>
> With or without the driver and passengers? LOL!
No, with or without gas & oil?
> "TL" <tlehman@visi.com> wrote in message
> news:7n8iivktl42tp9o19l6mphfl78c8ifj9ij@4ax.com...
>
>>Electronics pricing by weight? That's about the best laugh I've had in
>>a long time.
>>
>>Why not just weigh the whole car and do the math that way. LOL
>
> With or without the driver and passengers? LOL!
No, with or without gas & oil?
#95
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
Brian Smith wrote:
> "TL" <tlehman@visi.com> wrote in message
> news:7n8iivktl42tp9o19l6mphfl78c8ifj9ij@4ax.com...
>
>>Electronics pricing by weight? That's about the best laugh I've had in
>>a long time.
>>
>>Why not just weigh the whole car and do the math that way. LOL
>
> With or without the driver and passengers? LOL!
No, with or without gas & oil?
> "TL" <tlehman@visi.com> wrote in message
> news:7n8iivktl42tp9o19l6mphfl78c8ifj9ij@4ax.com...
>
>>Electronics pricing by weight? That's about the best laugh I've had in
>>a long time.
>>
>>Why not just weigh the whole car and do the math that way. LOL
>
> With or without the driver and passengers? LOL!
No, with or without gas & oil?
#96
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
Thanks.
I have done this analysis many times and you've hit the nail on the
head. That's why my long-term plan is to get out of car ownership
altogether. All I really need if I live in the right place is public
transportation, cabs for special occasions, and to be able to rent a
car every now and again. London or Amsterdam would be nice, Rome or
Paris better still, but, alas, it will have to be Portland or Seattle.
In article <muliivch5cae9p4jcfsibuvbqratj75abb@4ax.com>, TL
<tlehman@visi.com> wrote:
> With all due respect to your financial situation ... and I really mean
> that ... owning a car is very expensive. It is much more expensive
> than most people, particular people in this country, understand. The
> standard reimbursement rate is now up to something like 37cents a
> mile. That means if you drive say 12,000 a year, your cost to own and
> operate that car is in the neighborhood of $4,500 a year, ie, $350-400
> a month. The single largest component is depreciation which is
> $2-3,000 a year for late model cars. Insurance and gasoline are
> probably tied for the next two slots with maintenance bringing up
> forth place. For those like you who own an older car, the depreciation
> is less of a factor and repairs are likely to be somehwat higher.
> Maybe for a 10 year old car, it is more like $300 a month. Still
> that's a lot of money. Putting aside for a moment whether this part
> was overpriced at this dealer, $193 for a car repair / part on a car
> actually is not atypical. Cars are just expensive to own.
>
>
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 04:59:53 GMT, expensive
> >
> >Somehow I get the impression that folks here do not consider $193 to be
> >a burdensome expense. But I live on a fixed income and $193 is
> >approximately 1/5 of what I have to live on. So the towing and the
> >repair wiped me out as far as discretionary income is concerned.
#97
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
Thanks.
I have done this analysis many times and you've hit the nail on the
head. That's why my long-term plan is to get out of car ownership
altogether. All I really need if I live in the right place is public
transportation, cabs for special occasions, and to be able to rent a
car every now and again. London or Amsterdam would be nice, Rome or
Paris better still, but, alas, it will have to be Portland or Seattle.
In article <muliivch5cae9p4jcfsibuvbqratj75abb@4ax.com>, TL
<tlehman@visi.com> wrote:
> With all due respect to your financial situation ... and I really mean
> that ... owning a car is very expensive. It is much more expensive
> than most people, particular people in this country, understand. The
> standard reimbursement rate is now up to something like 37cents a
> mile. That means if you drive say 12,000 a year, your cost to own and
> operate that car is in the neighborhood of $4,500 a year, ie, $350-400
> a month. The single largest component is depreciation which is
> $2-3,000 a year for late model cars. Insurance and gasoline are
> probably tied for the next two slots with maintenance bringing up
> forth place. For those like you who own an older car, the depreciation
> is less of a factor and repairs are likely to be somehwat higher.
> Maybe for a 10 year old car, it is more like $300 a month. Still
> that's a lot of money. Putting aside for a moment whether this part
> was overpriced at this dealer, $193 for a car repair / part on a car
> actually is not atypical. Cars are just expensive to own.
>
>
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 04:59:53 GMT, expensive
> >
> >Somehow I get the impression that folks here do not consider $193 to be
> >a burdensome expense. But I live on a fixed income and $193 is
> >approximately 1/5 of what I have to live on. So the towing and the
> >repair wiped me out as far as discretionary income is concerned.
#98
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
In article <3f2961b5.279326072@news.txol.net>, Rex B
<NOSPAMrex@REMOVEtxol.net> wrote:
> Buy a parts car from an individual and pay someone to store it for you where
> you can access it as needed.
Good idea. I did suggest this jokingly to my mechanic, but he wasn't
laughing. Car storage costs $25-$50/mo. Befor I spent money on that,
I think I'd get a telephone. But that's a good idea. As I suggested
to someone else in this thread, I need a piece of property with a half
dozen junkers parked in the weeds
<NOSPAMrex@REMOVEtxol.net> wrote:
> Buy a parts car from an individual and pay someone to store it for you where
> you can access it as needed.
Good idea. I did suggest this jokingly to my mechanic, but he wasn't
laughing. Car storage costs $25-$50/mo. Befor I spent money on that,
I think I'd get a telephone. But that's a good idea. As I suggested
to someone else in this thread, I need a piece of property with a half
dozen junkers parked in the weeds
#99
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
In article <3f2961b5.279326072@news.txol.net>, Rex B
<NOSPAMrex@REMOVEtxol.net> wrote:
> Buy a parts car from an individual and pay someone to store it for you where
> you can access it as needed.
Good idea. I did suggest this jokingly to my mechanic, but he wasn't
laughing. Car storage costs $25-$50/mo. Befor I spent money on that,
I think I'd get a telephone. But that's a good idea. As I suggested
to someone else in this thread, I need a piece of property with a half
dozen junkers parked in the weeds
<NOSPAMrex@REMOVEtxol.net> wrote:
> Buy a parts car from an individual and pay someone to store it for you where
> you can access it as needed.
Good idea. I did suggest this jokingly to my mechanic, but he wasn't
laughing. Car storage costs $25-$50/mo. Befor I spent money on that,
I think I'd get a telephone. But that's a good idea. As I suggested
to someone else in this thread, I need a piece of property with a half
dozen junkers parked in the weeds
#100
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
In article <4031f12e.0307311248.52fa8c7b@posting.google.com >, Mike S
<audi4sale2k@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Apple computers are great. A lot of people who work with IBM
> > compatibles go home to Macs. Very few people who work with Macs go
> > home to an IBM compatible. I like 'em. I've never used an IBM
> > compatible, mainly because I see my friends struggle with them. No
> > thanks.
>
> What the HELL is an IBM Compatible? I believe the correct term these
> days is "PC" or "Windows Machine" IBM doesn't set the standards for
> other PC manufacturers to follow anymore.
You'd never know by me. I guess Windows machine is better and I will
try to use it henceforth. Thank you.
> Back to the post about the electronics cost comparison - that's the
> most ridiculous comparison I've ever seen. A 1 gram microprocessor
> costs a hell of a lot more than a 1 gram nand-gate array, and the 1
> gram microprocessor needed MANY more engineers and many more hours to
> develop than the nand array. Weight is a **** poor factor to use when
> comparing electronics
It's not ridiculous. I'd rather think of it as interesting. C'mon,
loosen up a little bit. Any other analysis would be technical, and I
don't have the figures or the know-how. It should be obvious to all
who read my cost analysis that it's tongue in cheek. I only did it
because it was the closest thing I had that had the same components -
electronics and plastic. Maybe the television/VCR remote control. But
I have no specific cost figures to go by, and then there's always...
with or without batteries.
If I was off by 50%, then it's a factor of 45 instead of 90. That
would be an $8,500 computer (by weight of electronics and plastics).
Still way too expensive. Or $2,400 divided by 45 = $53 for the part.
I would have paid $53 without a second thought.
<audi4sale2k@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Apple computers are great. A lot of people who work with IBM
> > compatibles go home to Macs. Very few people who work with Macs go
> > home to an IBM compatible. I like 'em. I've never used an IBM
> > compatible, mainly because I see my friends struggle with them. No
> > thanks.
>
> What the HELL is an IBM Compatible? I believe the correct term these
> days is "PC" or "Windows Machine" IBM doesn't set the standards for
> other PC manufacturers to follow anymore.
You'd never know by me. I guess Windows machine is better and I will
try to use it henceforth. Thank you.
> Back to the post about the electronics cost comparison - that's the
> most ridiculous comparison I've ever seen. A 1 gram microprocessor
> costs a hell of a lot more than a 1 gram nand-gate array, and the 1
> gram microprocessor needed MANY more engineers and many more hours to
> develop than the nand array. Weight is a **** poor factor to use when
> comparing electronics
It's not ridiculous. I'd rather think of it as interesting. C'mon,
loosen up a little bit. Any other analysis would be technical, and I
don't have the figures or the know-how. It should be obvious to all
who read my cost analysis that it's tongue in cheek. I only did it
because it was the closest thing I had that had the same components -
electronics and plastic. Maybe the television/VCR remote control. But
I have no specific cost figures to go by, and then there's always...
with or without batteries.
If I was off by 50%, then it's a factor of 45 instead of 90. That
would be an $8,500 computer (by weight of electronics and plastics).
Still way too expensive. Or $2,400 divided by 45 = $53 for the part.
I would have paid $53 without a second thought.
#101
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
In article <4031f12e.0307311248.52fa8c7b@posting.google.com >, Mike S
<audi4sale2k@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Apple computers are great. A lot of people who work with IBM
> > compatibles go home to Macs. Very few people who work with Macs go
> > home to an IBM compatible. I like 'em. I've never used an IBM
> > compatible, mainly because I see my friends struggle with them. No
> > thanks.
>
> What the HELL is an IBM Compatible? I believe the correct term these
> days is "PC" or "Windows Machine" IBM doesn't set the standards for
> other PC manufacturers to follow anymore.
You'd never know by me. I guess Windows machine is better and I will
try to use it henceforth. Thank you.
> Back to the post about the electronics cost comparison - that's the
> most ridiculous comparison I've ever seen. A 1 gram microprocessor
> costs a hell of a lot more than a 1 gram nand-gate array, and the 1
> gram microprocessor needed MANY more engineers and many more hours to
> develop than the nand array. Weight is a **** poor factor to use when
> comparing electronics
It's not ridiculous. I'd rather think of it as interesting. C'mon,
loosen up a little bit. Any other analysis would be technical, and I
don't have the figures or the know-how. It should be obvious to all
who read my cost analysis that it's tongue in cheek. I only did it
because it was the closest thing I had that had the same components -
electronics and plastic. Maybe the television/VCR remote control. But
I have no specific cost figures to go by, and then there's always...
with or without batteries.
If I was off by 50%, then it's a factor of 45 instead of 90. That
would be an $8,500 computer (by weight of electronics and plastics).
Still way too expensive. Or $2,400 divided by 45 = $53 for the part.
I would have paid $53 without a second thought.
<audi4sale2k@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Apple computers are great. A lot of people who work with IBM
> > compatibles go home to Macs. Very few people who work with Macs go
> > home to an IBM compatible. I like 'em. I've never used an IBM
> > compatible, mainly because I see my friends struggle with them. No
> > thanks.
>
> What the HELL is an IBM Compatible? I believe the correct term these
> days is "PC" or "Windows Machine" IBM doesn't set the standards for
> other PC manufacturers to follow anymore.
You'd never know by me. I guess Windows machine is better and I will
try to use it henceforth. Thank you.
> Back to the post about the electronics cost comparison - that's the
> most ridiculous comparison I've ever seen. A 1 gram microprocessor
> costs a hell of a lot more than a 1 gram nand-gate array, and the 1
> gram microprocessor needed MANY more engineers and many more hours to
> develop than the nand array. Weight is a **** poor factor to use when
> comparing electronics
It's not ridiculous. I'd rather think of it as interesting. C'mon,
loosen up a little bit. Any other analysis would be technical, and I
don't have the figures or the know-how. It should be obvious to all
who read my cost analysis that it's tongue in cheek. I only did it
because it was the closest thing I had that had the same components -
electronics and plastic. Maybe the television/VCR remote control. But
I have no specific cost figures to go by, and then there's always...
with or without batteries.
If I was off by 50%, then it's a factor of 45 instead of 90. That
would be an $8,500 computer (by weight of electronics and plastics).
Still way too expensive. Or $2,400 divided by 45 = $53 for the part.
I would have paid $53 without a second thought.
#102
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
In article <9uviivo72t5bbmpph316dfns126d9v9m2e@4ax.com>, Gary Seven
<garyluckynospam@nospa.yahoocom> wrote:
> You applied some
> sort of pointless weight to dollar formula that didn't really have
> anything to do with anything thats why I made up mine. Believe me,
> there are things smaller and much more expensive than that probably in
> your own house, you just don't know it.
Okay.
> Components fail, these things happen and we have to live with it.
> Cars are imperfect machines made by imperfect beings.
My mechanic said that this component rarely fails. Someone here
suggested that this item should not have failed. Failure was bad
enough, but the o'priced part took the cake.
<garyluckynospam@nospa.yahoocom> wrote:
> You applied some
> sort of pointless weight to dollar formula that didn't really have
> anything to do with anything thats why I made up mine. Believe me,
> there are things smaller and much more expensive than that probably in
> your own house, you just don't know it.
Okay.
> Components fail, these things happen and we have to live with it.
> Cars are imperfect machines made by imperfect beings.
My mechanic said that this component rarely fails. Someone here
suggested that this item should not have failed. Failure was bad
enough, but the o'priced part took the cake.
#103
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
In article <9uviivo72t5bbmpph316dfns126d9v9m2e@4ax.com>, Gary Seven
<garyluckynospam@nospa.yahoocom> wrote:
> You applied some
> sort of pointless weight to dollar formula that didn't really have
> anything to do with anything thats why I made up mine. Believe me,
> there are things smaller and much more expensive than that probably in
> your own house, you just don't know it.
Okay.
> Components fail, these things happen and we have to live with it.
> Cars are imperfect machines made by imperfect beings.
My mechanic said that this component rarely fails. Someone here
suggested that this item should not have failed. Failure was bad
enough, but the o'priced part took the cake.
<garyluckynospam@nospa.yahoocom> wrote:
> You applied some
> sort of pointless weight to dollar formula that didn't really have
> anything to do with anything thats why I made up mine. Believe me,
> there are things smaller and much more expensive than that probably in
> your own house, you just don't know it.
Okay.
> Components fail, these things happen and we have to live with it.
> Cars are imperfect machines made by imperfect beings.
My mechanic said that this component rarely fails. Someone here
suggested that this item should not have failed. Failure was bad
enough, but the o'priced part took the cake.
#104
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
Falling asleep through expensive's post...
> Somehow I have to believe that this is not the only thing that astounds
> you.
That you're going on and on about it does as well
> The $19.30 figure was derived from the $193.00 price and my speculation
> that perhaps some math-challenged Japanese fellow misplaced the decimal
> point.
Haha, that was good
> If you happen to run across an '81 Honda in a junkyard, take out the
> igniter and pry off the cap to look inside. It REALLY DOES look like a
> $19.30 part. If they sold it for $50, I wouldn't have a problem with
> it.
I've learned that you cannot price parts like that in a junkyard. The hard
way.
> By the way, I'm not a complete mechanical idiot. Next time you fly you
> should think about the fact that I may have just worked on one of the
> engines or perhaps the flaps or landing gear. Sorry in advance.
I take back any remark then. Still, the way you carried on sounded like
one without any mechanical experience.
> Oh, and age may have something to do with it, but a well-maintained car
> is is less a creature of age than mileage. My '81 Honda is really sort
> of middle-aged at 110,000 miles. But, if you looked at it, mostly due
> to the bad paint year of 1981, it looks like it should be scrapped.
Even if parts are never supposed to die in Hondas, and your's was a rare
part to break, remember the time it was made. Electronics have come a long
way. You got 22 years out of it. Low milage or not, it's sat through at
least 21 winters and summers, all of which can with a consumer grade
part. But, you are expecting a little much, now knowing that you were/are
an avaition mechanic. They don't build cars like those planes! Especially
back then
--
"If you can't change a tire, you're not allowed to have a beard. It's the
most basic part of a car: If you don't know that much about a car, you
really shouldn't be driving, should you?" - Jimmy Kimmel
Dan**** (10:38:51 PM): I have more respect for you than ever before
> Somehow I have to believe that this is not the only thing that astounds
> you.
That you're going on and on about it does as well
> The $19.30 figure was derived from the $193.00 price and my speculation
> that perhaps some math-challenged Japanese fellow misplaced the decimal
> point.
Haha, that was good
> If you happen to run across an '81 Honda in a junkyard, take out the
> igniter and pry off the cap to look inside. It REALLY DOES look like a
> $19.30 part. If they sold it for $50, I wouldn't have a problem with
> it.
I've learned that you cannot price parts like that in a junkyard. The hard
way.
> By the way, I'm not a complete mechanical idiot. Next time you fly you
> should think about the fact that I may have just worked on one of the
> engines or perhaps the flaps or landing gear. Sorry in advance.
I take back any remark then. Still, the way you carried on sounded like
one without any mechanical experience.
> Oh, and age may have something to do with it, but a well-maintained car
> is is less a creature of age than mileage. My '81 Honda is really sort
> of middle-aged at 110,000 miles. But, if you looked at it, mostly due
> to the bad paint year of 1981, it looks like it should be scrapped.
Even if parts are never supposed to die in Hondas, and your's was a rare
part to break, remember the time it was made. Electronics have come a long
way. You got 22 years out of it. Low milage or not, it's sat through at
least 21 winters and summers, all of which can with a consumer grade
part. But, you are expecting a little much, now knowing that you were/are
an avaition mechanic. They don't build cars like those planes! Especially
back then
--
"If you can't change a tire, you're not allowed to have a beard. It's the
most basic part of a car: If you don't know that much about a car, you
really shouldn't be driving, should you?" - Jimmy Kimmel
Dan**** (10:38:51 PM): I have more respect for you than ever before
#105
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
Falling asleep through expensive's post...
> Somehow I have to believe that this is not the only thing that astounds
> you.
That you're going on and on about it does as well
> The $19.30 figure was derived from the $193.00 price and my speculation
> that perhaps some math-challenged Japanese fellow misplaced the decimal
> point.
Haha, that was good
> If you happen to run across an '81 Honda in a junkyard, take out the
> igniter and pry off the cap to look inside. It REALLY DOES look like a
> $19.30 part. If they sold it for $50, I wouldn't have a problem with
> it.
I've learned that you cannot price parts like that in a junkyard. The hard
way.
> By the way, I'm not a complete mechanical idiot. Next time you fly you
> should think about the fact that I may have just worked on one of the
> engines or perhaps the flaps or landing gear. Sorry in advance.
I take back any remark then. Still, the way you carried on sounded like
one without any mechanical experience.
> Oh, and age may have something to do with it, but a well-maintained car
> is is less a creature of age than mileage. My '81 Honda is really sort
> of middle-aged at 110,000 miles. But, if you looked at it, mostly due
> to the bad paint year of 1981, it looks like it should be scrapped.
Even if parts are never supposed to die in Hondas, and your's was a rare
part to break, remember the time it was made. Electronics have come a long
way. You got 22 years out of it. Low milage or not, it's sat through at
least 21 winters and summers, all of which can with a consumer grade
part. But, you are expecting a little much, now knowing that you were/are
an avaition mechanic. They don't build cars like those planes! Especially
back then
--
"If you can't change a tire, you're not allowed to have a beard. It's the
most basic part of a car: If you don't know that much about a car, you
really shouldn't be driving, should you?" - Jimmy Kimmel
Dan**** (10:38:51 PM): I have more respect for you than ever before
> Somehow I have to believe that this is not the only thing that astounds
> you.
That you're going on and on about it does as well
> The $19.30 figure was derived from the $193.00 price and my speculation
> that perhaps some math-challenged Japanese fellow misplaced the decimal
> point.
Haha, that was good
> If you happen to run across an '81 Honda in a junkyard, take out the
> igniter and pry off the cap to look inside. It REALLY DOES look like a
> $19.30 part. If they sold it for $50, I wouldn't have a problem with
> it.
I've learned that you cannot price parts like that in a junkyard. The hard
way.
> By the way, I'm not a complete mechanical idiot. Next time you fly you
> should think about the fact that I may have just worked on one of the
> engines or perhaps the flaps or landing gear. Sorry in advance.
I take back any remark then. Still, the way you carried on sounded like
one without any mechanical experience.
> Oh, and age may have something to do with it, but a well-maintained car
> is is less a creature of age than mileage. My '81 Honda is really sort
> of middle-aged at 110,000 miles. But, if you looked at it, mostly due
> to the bad paint year of 1981, it looks like it should be scrapped.
Even if parts are never supposed to die in Hondas, and your's was a rare
part to break, remember the time it was made. Electronics have come a long
way. You got 22 years out of it. Low milage or not, it's sat through at
least 21 winters and summers, all of which can with a consumer grade
part. But, you are expecting a little much, now knowing that you were/are
an avaition mechanic. They don't build cars like those planes! Especially
back then
--
"If you can't change a tire, you're not allowed to have a beard. It's the
most basic part of a car: If you don't know that much about a car, you
really shouldn't be driving, should you?" - Jimmy Kimmel
Dan**** (10:38:51 PM): I have more respect for you than ever before