|
SOunds nice Mark. The kind of thing to do when you get sick of looking at f***ing computers all day. Perhaps I will take it up when I retire. 
I had a Triumph Herald years ago, it was pre reg, 57 it was made. Fun car though, simple, roof off in the summer, and fun to drive. Thats the most classic I had, but the Fiat Coupe was the most impressive, a future classic for sure, and damn quick.
|
|
|
|
|
Used to like Triumphs: had a few including a 1966 Vitesse. That thing could move!
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
me, in pictures
|
|
|
|
|
2 liter or 1.6? The 1.6s were death traps, the old Herald rear suspension, too much power.
I seem to recall that the Department if Transport told Triumph to change the rear suspension for the 2 liter Vitesses, least it become too dangerous.
I used to love it in the Herald though, I put a 1.3 Spitfire lump in mine, that was enough. Every corner you turned into it, then corrected immediately because the back end would always come out. Great fun to drive though, a real laugh.
Cost me 10 quid from ma scrap yard, weled up the chassis, put it through an MOT, then used it for years. Broke down every few days, ,always something simple though. You could fix it with any old bits and pieces you found to hand.
|
|
|
|
|
2 Liter, straight 6 with O/D. Green, of course. Cars didn't cost a lot back then!
I had a bright orange Mini 1275GT while I was at college which was great because I was able to use it for all the practical work. Boy that thing could move!!!
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
me, in pictures
|
|
|
|
|
I had mates with souped up Minis, I drove one once, they are a lot of fun, like a gokart, the 1275 must have been a lot of fun to drive. I was secretly envious of the feel, but being a comitted Italiam car lover at the time, I couldnt admit it.
I always fancied putting a Spitfire windscreen and soft top on my Herlad, to make it a kind of drop top coupe and put in a decent lump, a Fiat 2 liter twin cam for example, but I got rid of it because it just fell apart from rust. Mind you, it was almost 30 years old at the time!
|
|
|
|
|
mark merrens wrote: I think I hurt his feelings
Not possible. He is a used car salesman.
mark merrens wrote: when I told him he was putting too much pressure on us so we were going somewhere PRIVATE to talk about it! He looked so forlorn!
That is because he just bought his girlfriend a diamond something for Christmas and he still needs to find something for his wife.
Don't feel bad for him. He was being too aggressive and needs to be told off.
Go someplace else for the car where they are not so hard sell.
|
|
|
|
|
Try this: "I know what I want. Your obnoxious hard sell approach has lost you this sale. I'm going to XYZ Motors instead."
And then walk out the door and go to XYZ Motors.
Salespeople who take the approach you describe have relinquished all expectations of polite behavior.
The simple truth is with all the online resources for buying a car, there's no excuse for the hard sell any longer.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Years ago we bought a Honda S2000 and did pretty much that...
Salesman was giving us the hard luck story and refusing to drop his price.
So I said not to worry, we'd go to another Honda dealership which was only slightly farther away from home and see if they could do a better deal.
He almost begged us not to leave, but I pointed out that he had just told me that that was his best possible price - and I couldn't possibly believe anything he said if he was not to tell me he could do better.
Wifey phoned the other dealer on the monday morning, explained that the original dealer wouldn't drop to our price.
He agreed the price, threw in floor mats and a coupe of other bits and pieces, drove to her office with the paperwork and we had bought a car before the day was out.
I now use the same technique whenever we buy a car. I decide what price I want to pay, for what model, with what options, go to the dealer, tell them, and if they can't do it, leave. The last time (only a few months ago) the dealer had called me back twice while I was still on my way home, leaving messages that "his manager had agreed that they could possibly do a better deal."
In that particular case, the deal they negotiated with me was so good, nobody else could beat it, so they did get my business & I saved nearly $3k on a $13K car! (how times have changed since the S2000!)
MVVM # - I did it My Way
___________________________________________
Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011
.\\axxx
(That's an 'M')
|
|
|
|
|
_Maxxx_ wrote: I decide what price I want to pay, for what model, with what options, go to the dealer, tell them, and if they can't do it, leave.
That's the way to bargain for everything. Only after you've determined that no vendor will meet your price point do you come up. By all means, let them make an offer first, just in case you can get a lower price, but always have the upper limit in mind, and don't go over during a bargaining session no matter what.
Currently reading: "The Prince", by Nicolo Machiavelli
|
|
|
|
|
In 2001, I was shopping around for a new car. Knew exactly what I wanted, so I went around to the Chevrolet dealerships around Denver, asking them for a price on this model with these features. Told each of them I'm buying on Monday of the following week, get back to me before then.
I (naively) thought that the dealer would see this as the easiest money ever: call GM, ask how much to get what I wanted, add their acceptable profit, and call me back. Can't possibly take more than 20 minutes.
I got exactly one response. I actually had some guy at the dealership < 1 mile from my house tell me that he'd have to put in an order for the car before he could give me a price. Yeah, let me get right back to you on that...
Hopefully things have changed since then. It shouldn't be this difficult.
|
|
|
|
|
We bought a Prius a few months ago. The sales guy was trying to explain that they (he) did not want to come off of the MSRP because we would save so much on gas money. My wife and I said "Ridiculous!", we are already paying more for this vehicle due to the hybrid. We had been keeping our eye on a particular car for the last few months and knew that they had not been able to sell it.
We ended up paying $100 over invoice which I thought was an acceptable price. I have been liking it so far. I am getting ~45 MPG without trying or ~50+ MPG if I try to hyper-mile it.
Another posting could be done on the inflated numbers shown by the car's instantaneous MPG as well as its trip MPG readings vs. my own calculations when I fill the tank.
|
|
|
|
|
There was a lawsuit recently where a lawyer sued one of the car companies because she wasn't getting anything like the stated mileage. She lost. Wish I could recall the detail.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair.
Those who seek perfection will only find imperfection
nils illegitimus carborundum
me, me, me
me, in pictures
|
|
|
|
|
this.
On the phone & can't even figure out what to search for anyway. Leslie Neilson if you must.
|
|
|
|
|
On my Crimbo list. BTW, Mr DD has the same picture on his FB timeline...
speramus in juniperus
|
|
|
|
|
Reform ECPA[^]
Quote: Reform ECPA: Tell the Government to Get a Warrant
Americans are deeply concerned about NSA surveillance.
But the NSA’s not the only problem. An outdated law says the IRS and hundreds of other agencies can read our communications without a warrant.
That law, known as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), was written over 25 years ago, before the services we use today even existed.
Right now, several bills in Congress would fix this by updating ECPA to require a warrant, but regulatory bodies are blocking reform in order to gain new powers of warrantless access.
We call on the Obama Administration to support ECPA reform and to reject any special rules that would force online service providers to disclose our email without a warrant.
Protect our privacy! Make the Government get a Warrant!
Getting information off the Internet is like taking a drink from a fire hydrant.
- Mitchell Kapor
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, that'll work. 
|
|
|
|
|
Doing nothing will work better?
Take the democratic route, and sign if you wish.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
The 4th Amendment is the 4th Amendment... it doesn't say "except for electronic communications". I agree they should need a warrant. But then again, this administration doesn't follow any rules of any other amendment so why would they start now LOL.
Randy
|
|
|
|
|
rriegel wrote: it doesn't say "except for electronic communications". I agree they should need a warrant
It does however make it rather clear that that possession is part of it. That is why the government has the right to search your trash. And you don't have possession of your email when it is moving between one part of the world and another.
And many forms of electronic communication are not in fact owned by the individual but are instead owned by a corporation. And of course the corporations are rather adamant about protecting their right to look at your electronic communication for absolutely any reason they want to.
|
|
|
|
|
The analogy between trash and electronic communication is invalid. The consideration is more so ownership than possession. When you throw something in the trash you are giving up ownership. When you send something electronically you aren't. Otherwise, your argument could go against copyright. No, there's still ownership whether that ownership is transferred or shared by the recipient is another thing.
|
|
|
|
|
Ownership and possession are not the same thing at all. When you create an e-mail, you initially both own and possess it. To my mind, once you've sent it you still 'own' it even though possession has been transferred to your ISP, intermediaries, and then the intended receiver of the message.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
tgrt wrote: When you throw something in the trash you are giving up ownership
Wrong. That is not what the Supreme Court made the decision on. It was based on giving up a reasonable expectation of privacy.
tgrt wrote: Otherwise, your argument could go against copyright.
Nonsensical argument. Copyright doesn't protect the content from access, it only protects it from commercial use.
tgrt wrote: No, there's still ownership whether that ownership is transferred or shared by the recipient is another thing.
And as I already said, the companies are quite adamant that they own it.
|
|
|
|
|
That may be true for you, but doesn't apply to the rest of us -- our e-mails aren't trash.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: our e-mails aren't trash.
The Supreme Court case the one which allowed searching trash was based on the notion that the person had given up a reasonable right of privacy.
|
|
|
|
|
From what I know all this has been going on rather longer than "this administration" has been holding the steering wheel....
If your neighbours don't listen to The Ramones, turn it up real loud so they can.
“We didn't have a positive song until we wrote 'Now I Wanna Sniff Some Glue!'” ― Dee Dee Ramone
"The Democrats want my guns and the Republicans want my porno mags and I ain't giving up either" - Joey Ramone
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
