Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 16/12/2023 5:37 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 16/12/2023 4:50 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 16/12/2023 2:56 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>>> IMO, most cast have been falling in real prices (inflation
>>>>> adjusted) for many years. The Subaru is surprising, because it is
>>>>> made in Japan, rather thana low cost nation like Thailand, China,
>>>>> Czech Republic or India.
>>>>
>>>> That's probably more to do with Subaru being a relatively niche
>>>> manufacturer with a comparatively small model line-up compared to
>>>> other mainstream manufacturers. They have only two vehicle
>>>> manufacturing plants as far as I'm aware with one being in Japan
>>>> and one in the US, and that's clearly enough to meet their
>>>> manufacturing demands.
>>>
>>> **Nope. That does not explain the fall in inflation-adjusted price
>>> of my Subaru (I haven't compared other models). I'm also not
>>> claiming that Subaru is unique. I was making the point that most car
>>> prices have fallen in the past few decades (inflation-adjusted).
>>
>> Firstly, you can forget the ridiculous notion of "inflation adjusted
>> prices" as it's as much a load of utter bullshit as claiming that
>> grocery prices or in fact the cost of living in general has fallen
>> when "inflation adjusted prices" are applied. It's a load of nonsense.
>
> **No, it is not. It is perfectly valid and has been used for many
> years to explain pricing for everything from houses to potatoes.
>
>  Car
>> prices have continued to steadily climb over the last few decades
>> like everything else.
>
> **No, they have not. They have actually fallen, relative to incomes.
> In 1977, my 2L Ford Escort cost me around 4 months' wages. I was
> earning an average salary back then. An average salary today is
> $90,000.00. 40% of $90k is $36k. $36k will buy a car which is quicker,
> more capable, safer and far more reliable than the old Escort.
>
>
>
>>
>> Secondly, Subaru is a minor player on the world car market, and the
>> fact that they still make cars in Japan while most other
>> manufacturers have moved to cheaper labour markets is most likely
>> more to do with the fact that they don't sell enough cars to justify
>> the cost of building a new manufacturing plant in another country
>> than it is anything else.
>
> **Not my point. By moving to a low cost nation, car manufacturers have
> had the opportunity to reduce prices. IF THEY CHOOSE. Or they can just
> pocket the difference. Subaru has no opportunity to do either, yet the
> cost of their cars (well, the Levorg/WRX Sportswagon) has fallen in
> cost, relative to incomes.
>
>>
>> You also have to take into account that like everyone else they
>> compete against they need to be competitive if they're going to
>> survive. So while their cost per unit price may be higher for
>> building cars in Japan rather than Thailand or South Africa, they
>> have to sell on the same market as everyone else and if they're going
>> to remain competitive then it means they have a significantly smaller
>> profit margin than most other manufacturers.
>
> **Very likely, but has nothing to do with point I made.
>
>>
>> Sucks to be them.
>
> **Sure.
>
>>
>>> In some cases, it is due to the fact that some manufacturers have
>>> opened production plants in low cost nations. Such as: Mercedes -
>>> South Afrika, Toyota - Thailand, Lots of companies - China, Suzuki -
>>> India, etc.
>>
>> I can't think of a single company, be it car manufacturer or anyone
>> else, who has seen a reduction in manufacturing costs as anything
>> other than an increased annual profit. In fact I think the notion
>> that companies move their manufacturing bases to lower cost labour
>> markets with the idea of reducing their manufacturing costs and
>> passing those savings onto the end user is nothing but pure fantasy :)
>
> **Possibly. A very close examination would be needed to verify.
> Equivalent models in the Skoda range are cheaper than their VW ones.
>
>>
>>> Like I said: The surprise to me is that Subaru have been able to
>>> reduce overheads in a high cost nation like Japan.
>>
>> You have no more of an idea of what Subaru's "overheads" are than I
>> or anyone else does, and are just assuming that because they're able
>> to remain in the market competing with manufacturers who's labour
>> costs are most likely lower that they have found some magical way of
>> reducing their costs to maintain their profit margins.
>
> **"Magical"? Nope. Modern manufacturing methods and automation.
>
>>
>> The reality is most likely that they're not doing that at all, and
>> are just making less money per car than the next guy.
>
> **Quite possibly.
>
>>
>>
>>   > I am not surprised that companies like Mercedes have lowered
>> their costs by manufacturing in
>>> South Afrika.
>>
>> It's no secret. They *all* do. Lowering manufacturing costs by moving
>> to cut price labour markets is the exact reason why people set up
>> shop in those countries in the first place, but how that translates
>> into cheaper cars for you and me is not exactly clear. As I said, car
>> prices have done nothing but rise, and all building them in cheap
>> labour countries means is that the manufacturers make more money for
>> every car they sell.
>>
>> Great for them. Not so much for you and me.
>
> **Possibly.
>
>

haven't you learn't yet? you can't talk sense to noddy and expect it to
make sense to him. you can't expect to have a rational discussion with
him. he lacks the integrity and honesty necessary for that. his only
interest is in controversy, and pushing his own views and ideas. I
provided a perfect example to diss his stupid claim, but of course he
has blocked me again. he can't stand facts or truth, or even just common
sense, especially when applied to him. here's what I said, in case you
didn't see it..

LOL! poor old noddy. such things are definitely beyond his ken! on the
12/9/1964 I paid 75 pounds for a 16 year old 1948 Vauxhall, my first
car. in today's prices that's close to $2,500 dollars. today for even
LESS money I could buy a 16 year old Holden Barina, with air bags, auto
transmission, radial tyres, power steering, etc., etc.,

https://www.carsales.com.au/cars/details/2007-holden-barina-tk-auto-my07/SSE-AD-16115998/?Cr=2

someone should ask noddy.. would he rather have the Vauxhall or the
Barrina, lol?

Cars have never been cheaper and better than they are now

--
Have a nice day!..

On 17/12/2023 1:45 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 16/12/2023 5:37 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 16/12/2023 4:50 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 16/12/2023 2:56 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> IMO, most cast have been falling in real prices (inflation
>>>>>> adjusted) for many years. The Subaru is surprising, because it is
>>>>>> made in Japan, rather thana low cost nation like Thailand, China,
>>>>>> Czech Republic or India.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's probably more to do with Subaru being a relatively niche
>>>>> manufacturer with a comparatively small model line-up compared to
>>>>> other mainstream manufacturers. They have only two vehicle
>>>>> manufacturing plants as far as I'm aware with one being in Japan
>>>>> and one in the US, and that's clearly enough to meet their
>>>>> manufacturing demands.
>>>>
>>>> **Nope. That does not explain the fall in inflation-adjusted price
>>>> of my Subaru (I haven't compared other models). I'm also not
>>>> claiming that Subaru is unique. I was making the point that most car
>>>> prices have fallen in the past few decades (inflation-adjusted).
>>>
>>> Firstly, you can forget the ridiculous notion of "inflation adjusted
>>> prices" as it's as much a load of utter bullshit as claiming that
>>> grocery prices or in fact the cost of living in general has fallen
>>> when "inflation adjusted prices" are applied. It's a load of nonsense.
>>
>> **No, it is not. It is perfectly valid and has been used for many
>> years to explain pricing for everything from houses to potatoes.
>>
>>  Car
>>> prices have continued to steadily climb over the last few decades
>>> like everything else.
>>
>> **No, they have not. They have actually fallen, relative to incomes.
>> In 1977, my 2L Ford Escort cost me around 4 months' wages. I was
>> earning an average salary back then. An average salary today is
>> $90,000.00. 40% of $90k is $36k. $36k will buy a car which is quicker,
>> more capable, safer and far more reliable than the old Escort.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Secondly, Subaru is a minor player on the world car market, and the
>>> fact that they still make cars in Japan while most other
>>> manufacturers have moved to cheaper labour markets is most likely
>>> more to do with the fact that they don't sell enough cars to justify
>>> the cost of building a new manufacturing plant in another country
>>> than it is anything else.
>>
>> **Not my point. By moving to a low cost nation, car manufacturers have
>> had the opportunity to reduce prices. IF THEY CHOOSE. Or they can just
>> pocket the difference. Subaru has no opportunity to do either, yet the
>> cost of their cars (well, the Levorg/WRX Sportswagon) has fallen in
>> cost, relative to incomes.
>>
>>>
>>> You also have to take into account that like everyone else they
>>> compete against they need to be competitive if they're going to
>>> survive. So while their cost per unit price may be higher for
>>> building cars in Japan rather than Thailand or South Africa, they
>>> have to sell on the same market as everyone else and if they're going
>>> to remain competitive then it means they have a significantly smaller
>>> profit margin than most other manufacturers.
>>
>> **Very likely, but has nothing to do with point I made.
>>
>>>
>>> Sucks to be them.
>>
>> **Sure.
>>
>>>
>>>> In some cases, it is due to the fact that some manufacturers have
>>>> opened production plants in low cost nations. Such as: Mercedes -
>>>> South Afrika, Toyota - Thailand, Lots of companies - China, Suzuki -
>>>> India, etc.
>>>
>>> I can't think of a single company, be it car manufacturer or anyone
>>> else, who has seen a reduction in manufacturing costs as anything
>>> other than an increased annual profit. In fact I think the notion
>>> that companies move their manufacturing bases to lower cost labour
>>> markets with the idea of reducing their manufacturing costs and
>>> passing those savings onto the end user is nothing but pure fantasy :)
>>
>> **Possibly. A very close examination would be needed to verify.
>> Equivalent models in the Skoda range are cheaper than their VW ones.
>>
>>>
>>>> Like I said: The surprise to me is that Subaru have been able to
>>>> reduce overheads in a high cost nation like Japan.
>>>
>>> You have no more of an idea of what Subaru's "overheads" are than I
>>> or anyone else does, and are just assuming that because they're able
>>> to remain in the market competing with manufacturers who's labour
>>> costs are most likely lower that they have found some magical way of
>>> reducing their costs to maintain their profit margins.
>>
>> **"Magical"? Nope. Modern manufacturing methods and automation.
>>
>>>
>>> The reality is most likely that they're not doing that at all, and
>>> are just making less money per car than the next guy.
>>
>> **Quite possibly.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   > I am not surprised that companies like Mercedes have lowered
>>> their costs by manufacturing in
>>>> South Afrika.
>>>
>>> It's no secret. They *all* do. Lowering manufacturing costs by moving
>>> to cut price labour markets is the exact reason why people set up
>>> shop in those countries in the first place, but how that translates
>>> into cheaper cars for you and me is not exactly clear. As I said, car
>>> prices have done nothing but rise, and all building them in cheap
>>> labour countries means is that the manufacturers make more money for
>>> every car they sell.
>>>
>>> Great for them. Not so much for you and me.
>>
>> **Possibly.
>>
>>
>
> haven't you learn't yet? you can't talk sense to noddy and expect it to
> make sense to him. you can't expect to have a rational discussion with
> him. he lacks the integrity and honesty necessary for that. his only
> interest is in controversy, and pushing his own views and ideas. I
> provided a perfect example to diss his stupid claim, but of course he
> has blocked me again. he can't stand facts or truth, or even just common
> sense, especially when applied to him. here's what I said, in case you
> didn't see it..
>
> LOL! poor old noddy. such things are definitely beyond his ken! on the
> 12/9/1964 I paid 75 pounds for a 16 year old 1948 Vauxhall, my first
> car. in today's prices that's close to $2,500 dollars. today for even
> LESS money I could buy a 16 year old Holden Barina, with air bags, auto
> transmission, radial tyres, power steering, etc., etc.,
>
> https://www.carsales.com.au/cars/details/2007-holden-barina-tk-auto-my07/SSE-AD-16115998/?Cr=2
>
> someone should ask noddy.. would he rather have the Vauxhall or the
> Barrina, lol?

I think I'd take the Vauxhall, if it were in good nick and even with
that horrid Dubonnet front suspension.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/05/767.jpg
>
> Cars have never been cheaper and better than they are now
>
It's Ok, clearly concepts like *inflation* are beyond Darren's ken!

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

Xeno wrote:
> On 17/12/2023 1:45 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 16/12/2023 5:37 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>> On 16/12/2023 4:50 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 16/12/2023 2:56 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> IMO, most cast have been falling in real prices (inflation
>>>>>>> adjusted) for many years. The Subaru is surprising, because it
>>>>>>> is made in Japan, rather thana low cost nation like Thailand,
>>>>>>> China, Czech Republic or India.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's probably more to do with Subaru being a relatively niche
>>>>>> manufacturer with a comparatively small model line-up compared to
>>>>>> other mainstream manufacturers. They have only two vehicle
>>>>>> manufacturing plants as far as I'm aware with one being in Japan
>>>>>> and one in the US, and that's clearly enough to meet their
>>>>>> manufacturing demands.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Nope. That does not explain the fall in inflation-adjusted price
>>>>> of my Subaru (I haven't compared other models). I'm also not
>>>>> claiming that Subaru is unique. I was making the point that most
>>>>> car prices have fallen in the past few decades (inflation-adjusted).
>>>>
>>>> Firstly, you can forget the ridiculous notion of "inflation
>>>> adjusted prices" as it's as much a load of utter bullshit as
>>>> claiming that grocery prices or in fact the cost of living in
>>>> general has fallen when "inflation adjusted prices" are applied.
>>>> It's a load of nonsense.
>>>
>>> **No, it is not. It is perfectly valid and has been used for many
>>> years to explain pricing for everything from houses to potatoes.
>>>
>>>  Car
>>>> prices have continued to steadily climb over the last few decades
>>>> like everything else.
>>>
>>> **No, they have not. They have actually fallen, relative to incomes.
>>> In 1977, my 2L Ford Escort cost me around 4 months' wages. I was
>>> earning an average salary back then. An average salary today is
>>> $90,000.00. 40% of $90k is $36k. $36k will buy a car which is
>>> quicker, more capable, safer and far more reliable than the old Escort.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Secondly, Subaru is a minor player on the world car market, and the
>>>> fact that they still make cars in Japan while most other
>>>> manufacturers have moved to cheaper labour markets is most likely
>>>> more to do with the fact that they don't sell enough cars to
>>>> justify the cost of building a new manufacturing plant in another
>>>> country than it is anything else.
>>>
>>> **Not my point. By moving to a low cost nation, car manufacturers
>>> have had the opportunity to reduce prices. IF THEY CHOOSE. Or they
>>> can just pocket the difference. Subaru has no opportunity to do
>>> either, yet the cost of their cars (well, the Levorg/WRX
>>> Sportswagon) has fallen in cost, relative to incomes.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You also have to take into account that like everyone else they
>>>> compete against they need to be competitive if they're going to
>>>> survive. So while their cost per unit price may be higher for
>>>> building cars in Japan rather than Thailand or South Africa, they
>>>> have to sell on the same market as everyone else and if they're
>>>> going to remain competitive then it means they have a significantly
>>>> smaller profit margin than most other manufacturers.
>>>
>>> **Very likely, but has nothing to do with point I made.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sucks to be them.
>>>
>>> **Sure.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> In some cases, it is due to the fact that some manufacturers have
>>>>> opened production plants in low cost nations. Such as: Mercedes -
>>>>> South Afrika, Toyota - Thailand, Lots of companies - China, Suzuki
>>>>> - India, etc.
>>>>
>>>> I can't think of a single company, be it car manufacturer or anyone
>>>> else, who has seen a reduction in manufacturing costs as anything
>>>> other than an increased annual profit. In fact I think the notion
>>>> that companies move their manufacturing bases to lower cost labour
>>>> markets with the idea of reducing their manufacturing costs and
>>>> passing those savings onto the end user is nothing but pure fantasy :)
>>>
>>> **Possibly. A very close examination would be needed to verify.
>>> Equivalent models in the Skoda range are cheaper than their VW ones.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Like I said: The surprise to me is that Subaru have been able to
>>>>> reduce overheads in a high cost nation like Japan.
>>>>
>>>> You have no more of an idea of what Subaru's "overheads" are than I
>>>> or anyone else does, and are just assuming that because they're
>>>> able to remain in the market competing with manufacturers who's
>>>> labour costs are most likely lower that they have found some
>>>> magical way of reducing their costs to maintain their profit margins.
>>>
>>> **"Magical"? Nope. Modern manufacturing methods and automation.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The reality is most likely that they're not doing that at all, and
>>>> are just making less money per car than the next guy.
>>>
>>> **Quite possibly.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   > I am not surprised that companies like Mercedes have lowered
>>>> their costs by manufacturing in
>>>>> South Afrika.
>>>>
>>>> It's no secret. They *all* do. Lowering manufacturing costs by
>>>> moving to cut price labour markets is the exact reason why people
>>>> set up shop in those countries in the first place, but how that
>>>> translates into cheaper cars for you and me is not exactly clear.
>>>> As I said, car prices have done nothing but rise, and all building
>>>> them in cheap labour countries means is that the manufacturers make
>>>> more money for every car they sell.
>>>>
>>>> Great for them. Not so much for you and me.
>>>
>>> **Possibly.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> haven't you learn't yet? you can't talk sense to noddy and expect it
>> to make sense to him. you can't expect to have a rational discussion
>> with him. he lacks the integrity and honesty necessary for that. his
>> only interest is in controversy, and pushing his own views and ideas.
>> I provided a perfect example to diss his stupid claim, but of course
>> he has blocked me again. he can't stand facts or truth, or even just
>> common sense, especially when applied to him. here's what I said, in
>> case you didn't see it..
>>
>> LOL! poor old noddy. such things are definitely beyond his ken! on
>> the 12/9/1964 I paid 75 pounds for a 16 year old 1948 Vauxhall, my
>> first car. in today's prices that's close to $2,500 dollars. today
>> for even LESS money I could buy a 16 year old Holden Barina, with air
>> bags, auto transmission, radial tyres, power steering, etc., etc.,
>>
>> https://www.carsales.com.au/cars/details/2007-holden-barina-tk-auto-my07/SSE-AD-16115998/?Cr=2
>>
>>
>> someone should ask noddy.. would he rather have the Vauxhall or the
>> Barrina, lol?
>
> I think I'd take the Vauxhall, if it were in good nick and even with
> that horrid Dubonnet front suspension.
>
> https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/05/767.jpg

yes, we had to keep topping them up with oil

>>
>> Cars have never been cheaper and better than they are now
>>
> It's Ok, clearly concepts like *inflation* are beyond Darren's ken!
>
>

--
Have a nice day!..

On 17/12/2023 7:10 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Xeno wrote:
>> On 17/12/2023 1:45 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 16/12/2023 5:37 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>>> On 16/12/2023 4:50 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>> On 16/12/2023 2:56 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> IMO, most cast have been falling in real prices (inflation
>>>>>>>> adjusted) for many years. The Subaru is surprising, because it
>>>>>>>> is made in Japan, rather thana low cost nation like Thailand,
>>>>>>>> China, Czech Republic or India.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's probably more to do with Subaru being a relatively niche
>>>>>>> manufacturer with a comparatively small model line-up compared to
>>>>>>> other mainstream manufacturers. They have only two vehicle
>>>>>>> manufacturing plants as far as I'm aware with one being in Japan
>>>>>>> and one in the US, and that's clearly enough to meet their
>>>>>>> manufacturing demands.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Nope. That does not explain the fall in inflation-adjusted price
>>>>>> of my Subaru (I haven't compared other models). I'm also not
>>>>>> claiming that Subaru is unique. I was making the point that most
>>>>>> car prices have fallen in the past few decades (inflation-adjusted).
>>>>>
>>>>> Firstly, you can forget the ridiculous notion of "inflation
>>>>> adjusted prices" as it's as much a load of utter bullshit as
>>>>> claiming that grocery prices or in fact the cost of living in
>>>>> general has fallen when "inflation adjusted prices" are applied.
>>>>> It's a load of nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> **No, it is not. It is perfectly valid and has been used for many
>>>> years to explain pricing for everything from houses to potatoes.
>>>>
>>>>  Car
>>>>> prices have continued to steadily climb over the last few decades
>>>>> like everything else.
>>>>
>>>> **No, they have not. They have actually fallen, relative to incomes.
>>>> In 1977, my 2L Ford Escort cost me around 4 months' wages. I was
>>>> earning an average salary back then. An average salary today is
>>>> $90,000.00. 40% of $90k is $36k. $36k will buy a car which is
>>>> quicker, more capable, safer and far more reliable than the old Escort.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Secondly, Subaru is a minor player on the world car market, and the
>>>>> fact that they still make cars in Japan while most other
>>>>> manufacturers have moved to cheaper labour markets is most likely
>>>>> more to do with the fact that they don't sell enough cars to
>>>>> justify the cost of building a new manufacturing plant in another
>>>>> country than it is anything else.
>>>>
>>>> **Not my point. By moving to a low cost nation, car manufacturers
>>>> have had the opportunity to reduce prices. IF THEY CHOOSE. Or they
>>>> can just pocket the difference. Subaru has no opportunity to do
>>>> either, yet the cost of their cars (well, the Levorg/WRX
>>>> Sportswagon) has fallen in cost, relative to incomes.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You also have to take into account that like everyone else they
>>>>> compete against they need to be competitive if they're going to
>>>>> survive. So while their cost per unit price may be higher for
>>>>> building cars in Japan rather than Thailand or South Africa, they
>>>>> have to sell on the same market as everyone else and if they're
>>>>> going to remain competitive then it means they have a significantly
>>>>> smaller profit margin than most other manufacturers.
>>>>
>>>> **Very likely, but has nothing to do with point I made.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sucks to be them.
>>>>
>>>> **Sure.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> In some cases, it is due to the fact that some manufacturers have
>>>>>> opened production plants in low cost nations. Such as: Mercedes -
>>>>>> South Afrika, Toyota - Thailand, Lots of companies - China, Suzuki
>>>>>> - India, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't think of a single company, be it car manufacturer or anyone
>>>>> else, who has seen a reduction in manufacturing costs as anything
>>>>> other than an increased annual profit. In fact I think the notion
>>>>> that companies move their manufacturing bases to lower cost labour
>>>>> markets with the idea of reducing their manufacturing costs and
>>>>> passing those savings onto the end user is nothing but pure fantasy :)
>>>>
>>>> **Possibly. A very close examination would be needed to verify.
>>>> Equivalent models in the Skoda range are cheaper than their VW ones.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Like I said: The surprise to me is that Subaru have been able to
>>>>>> reduce overheads in a high cost nation like Japan.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have no more of an idea of what Subaru's "overheads" are than I
>>>>> or anyone else does, and are just assuming that because they're
>>>>> able to remain in the market competing with manufacturers who's
>>>>> labour costs are most likely lower that they have found some
>>>>> magical way of reducing their costs to maintain their profit margins.
>>>>
>>>> **"Magical"? Nope. Modern manufacturing methods and automation.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The reality is most likely that they're not doing that at all, and
>>>>> are just making less money per car than the next guy.
>>>>
>>>> **Quite possibly.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   > I am not surprised that companies like Mercedes have lowered
>>>>> their costs by manufacturing in
>>>>>> South Afrika.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's no secret. They *all* do. Lowering manufacturing costs by
>>>>> moving to cut price labour markets is the exact reason why people
>>>>> set up shop in those countries in the first place, but how that
>>>>> translates into cheaper cars for you and me is not exactly clear.
>>>>> As I said, car prices have done nothing but rise, and all building
>>>>> them in cheap labour countries means is that the manufacturers make
>>>>> more money for every car they sell.
>>>>>
>>>>> Great for them. Not so much for you and me.
>>>>
>>>> **Possibly.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> haven't you learn't yet? you can't talk sense to noddy and expect it
>>> to make sense to him. you can't expect to have a rational discussion
>>> with him. he lacks the integrity and honesty necessary for that. his
>>> only interest is in controversy, and pushing his own views and ideas.
>>> I provided a perfect example to diss his stupid claim, but of course
>>> he has blocked me again. he can't stand facts or truth, or even just
>>> common sense, especially when applied to him. here's what I said, in
>>> case you didn't see it..
>>>
>>> LOL! poor old noddy. such things are definitely beyond his ken! on
>>> the 12/9/1964 I paid 75 pounds for a 16 year old 1948 Vauxhall, my
>>> first car. in today's prices that's close to $2,500 dollars. today
>>> for even LESS money I could buy a 16 year old Holden Barina, with air
>>> bags, auto transmission, radial tyres, power steering, etc., etc.,
>>>
>>> https://www.carsales.com.au/cars/details/2007-holden-barina-tk-auto-my07/SSE-AD-16115998/?Cr=2
>>>
>>> someone should ask noddy.. would he rather have the Vauxhall or the
>>> Barrina, lol?
>>
>> I think I'd take the Vauxhall, if it were in good nick and even with
>> that horrid Dubonnet front suspension.
>>
>> https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/05/767.jpg
>
> yes, we had to keep topping them up with oil

Xeno wrote:
> On 17/12/2023 7:10 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> Xeno wrote:
>>> On 17/12/2023 1:45 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 16/12/2023 5:37 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>> On 16/12/2023 4:50 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 16/12/2023 2:56 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> IMO, most cast have been falling in real prices (inflation
>>>>>>>>> adjusted) for many years. The Subaru is surprising, because it
>>>>>>>>> is made in Japan, rather thana low cost nation like Thailand,
>>>>>>>>> China, Czech Republic or India.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's probably more to do with Subaru being a relatively niche
>>>>>>>> manufacturer with a comparatively small model line-up compared
>>>>>>>> to other mainstream manufacturers. They have only two vehicle
>>>>>>>> manufacturing plants as far as I'm aware with one being in
>>>>>>>> Japan and one in the US, and that's clearly enough to meet
>>>>>>>> their manufacturing demands.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **Nope. That does not explain the fall in inflation-adjusted
>>>>>>> price of my Subaru (I haven't compared other models). I'm also
>>>>>>> not claiming that Subaru is unique. I was making the point that
>>>>>>> most car prices have fallen in the past few decades
>>>>>>> (inflation-adjusted).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Firstly, you can forget the ridiculous notion of "inflation
>>>>>> adjusted prices" as it's as much a load of utter bullshit as
>>>>>> claiming that grocery prices or in fact the cost of living in
>>>>>> general has fallen when "inflation adjusted prices" are applied.
>>>>>> It's a load of nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>> **No, it is not. It is perfectly valid and has been used for many
>>>>> years to explain pricing for everything from houses to potatoes.
>>>>>
>>>>>  Car
>>>>>> prices have continued to steadily climb over the last few decades
>>>>>> like everything else.
>>>>>
>>>>> **No, they have not. They have actually fallen, relative to
>>>>> incomes. In 1977, my 2L Ford Escort cost me around 4 months'
>>>>> wages. I was earning an average salary back then. An average
>>>>> salary today is $90,000.00. 40% of $90k is $36k. $36k will buy a
>>>>> car which is quicker, more capable, safer and far more reliable
>>>>> than the old Escort.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Secondly, Subaru is a minor player on the world car market, and
>>>>>> the fact that they still make cars in Japan while most other
>>>>>> manufacturers have moved to cheaper labour markets is most likely
>>>>>> more to do with the fact that they don't sell enough cars to
>>>>>> justify the cost of building a new manufacturing plant in another
>>>>>> country than it is anything else.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Not my point. By moving to a low cost nation, car manufacturers
>>>>> have had the opportunity to reduce prices. IF THEY CHOOSE. Or they
>>>>> can just pocket the difference. Subaru has no opportunity to do
>>>>> either, yet the cost of their cars (well, the Levorg/WRX
>>>>> Sportswagon) has fallen in cost, relative to incomes.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You also have to take into account that like everyone else they
>>>>>> compete against they need to be competitive if they're going to
>>>>>> survive. So while their cost per unit price may be higher for
>>>>>> building cars in Japan rather than Thailand or South Africa, they
>>>>>> have to sell on the same market as everyone else and if they're
>>>>>> going to remain competitive then it means they have a
>>>>>> significantly smaller profit margin than most other manufacturers.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Very likely, but has nothing to do with point I made.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sucks to be them.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Sure.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In some cases, it is due to the fact that some manufacturers
>>>>>>> have opened production plants in low cost nations. Such as:
>>>>>>> Mercedes - South Afrika, Toyota - Thailand, Lots of companies -
>>>>>>> China, Suzuki - India, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't think of a single company, be it car manufacturer or
>>>>>> anyone else, who has seen a reduction in manufacturing costs as
>>>>>> anything other than an increased annual profit. In fact I think
>>>>>> the notion that companies move their manufacturing bases to lower
>>>>>> cost labour markets with the idea of reducing their manufacturing
>>>>>> costs and passing those savings onto the end user is nothing but
>>>>>> pure fantasy :)
>>>>>
>>>>> **Possibly. A very close examination would be needed to verify.
>>>>> Equivalent models in the Skoda range are cheaper than their VW ones.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Like I said: The surprise to me is that Subaru have been able to
>>>>>>> reduce overheads in a high cost nation like Japan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have no more of an idea of what Subaru's "overheads" are than
>>>>>> I or anyone else does, and are just assuming that because they're
>>>>>> able to remain in the market competing with manufacturers who's
>>>>>> labour costs are most likely lower that they have found some
>>>>>> magical way of reducing their costs to maintain their profit
>>>>>> margins.
>>>>>
>>>>> **"Magical"? Nope. Modern manufacturing methods and automation.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The reality is most likely that they're not doing that at all,
>>>>>> and are just making less money per car than the next guy.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Quite possibly.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   > I am not surprised that companies like Mercedes have lowered
>>>>>> their costs by manufacturing in
>>>>>>> South Afrika.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's no secret. They *all* do. Lowering manufacturing costs by
>>>>>> moving to cut price labour markets is the exact reason why people
>>>>>> set up shop in those countries in the first place, but how that
>>>>>> translates into cheaper cars for you and me is not exactly clear.
>>>>>> As I said, car prices have done nothing but rise, and all
>>>>>> building them in cheap labour countries means is that the
>>>>>> manufacturers make more money for every car they sell.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Great for them. Not so much for you and me.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Possibly.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> haven't you learn't yet? you can't talk sense to noddy and expect
>>>> it to make sense to him. you can't expect to have a rational
>>>> discussion with him. he lacks the integrity and honesty necessary
>>>> for that. his only interest is in controversy, and pushing his own
>>>> views and ideas. I provided a perfect example to diss his stupid
>>>> claim, but of course he has blocked me again. he can't stand facts
>>>> or truth, or even just common sense, especially when applied to
>>>> him. here's what I said, in case you didn't see it..
>>>>
>>>> LOL! poor old noddy. such things are definitely beyond his ken! on
>>>> the 12/9/1964 I paid 75 pounds for a 16 year old 1948 Vauxhall, my
>>>> first car. in today's prices that's close to $2,500 dollars. today
>>>> for even LESS money I could buy a 16 year old Holden Barina, with
>>>> air bags, auto transmission, radial tyres, power steering, etc., etc.,
>>>>
>>>> https://www.carsales.com.au/cars/details/2007-holden-barina-tk-auto-my07/SSE-AD-16115998/?Cr=2
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> someone should ask noddy.. would he rather have the Vauxhall or the
>>>> Barrina, lol?
>>>
>>> I think I'd take the Vauxhall, if it were in good nick and even with
>>> that horrid Dubonnet front suspension.
>>>
>>> https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/05/767.jpg
>>
>> yes, we had to keep topping them up with oil
>
> Yes, had a customer during my apprenticeship who also had one,
> beautiful nick but leaky Dubonnet knees, had to top them up every
> service as well. Hope you used the correct oil in yours? From what I
> remember, they used to take shock absorber oil only, same as the lever
> action shocks of that vintage. Use of any other kind of oil tends to
> lead to erratic performance when hot.

Noddy wrote:
> On 17/12/2023 10:26 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 16/12/2023 5:37 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> Firstly, you can forget the ridiculous notion of "inflation adjusted
>>> prices" as it's as much a load of utter bullshit as claiming that
>>> grocery prices or in fact the cost of living in general has fallen
>>> when "inflation adjusted prices" are applied. It's a load of nonsense.
>>
>> **No, it is not. It is perfectly valid and has been used for many
>> years to explain pricing for everything from houses to potatoes.
>
> So house prices have risen relative to inflation, have they? :)

Clue: House prices are more affected by interest rates than inflation.
>>   Car
>>> prices have continued to steadily climb over the last few decades
>>> like everything else.
>>
>> **No, they have not. They have actually fallen, relative to incomes.
>
> This is probably the most ridiculous argument anyone can make in
> relation to prices.

Ooooh no it's not! You've got that position all sewn up Buffo. Your
'sticker price is the only relevant figure' brain-fart is the Bradman of
ridiculous arguments on prices.

Trevor, you must have a masochistic streak wider than the Fraudsters'
ego... well, not that wide, nothing is wider than that, but still bloody
huge to persist in attempting to 'argue' with the fraudulent blowhard.

alvey

Mighty Mouse wrote:

>
> haven't you learn't yet? you can't talk sense to noddy and expect it to
> make sense to him. you can't expect to have a rational discussion with
> him. he lacks the integrity and honesty necessary for that.

Why such a short list?
What did 'knowledge' & 'intelligence' do that got them dropped?

alvey

alvey wrote:
> Mighty Mouse wrote:
>
>>
>> haven't you learn't yet? you can't talk sense to noddy and expect it
>> to make sense to him. you can't expect to have a rational discussion
>> with him. he lacks the integrity and honesty necessary for that.
>
> Why such a short list?
> What did 'knowledge' & 'intelligence' do that got them dropped?
>

they were already a given

>
> alvey

--
Have a nice day!..

On 18/12/2023 10:29 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> alvey wrote:
>> Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> haven't you learn't yet? you can't talk sense to noddy and expect it
>>> to make sense to him. you can't expect to have a rational discussion
>>> with him. he lacks the integrity and honesty necessary for that.
>>
>> Why such a short list?
>> What did 'knowledge' & 'intelligence' do that got them dropped?
>>
>
> they were already a given
>
It was already a given that Darren lacked them! He flunked secondary
school, remember?
>>
>> alvey
>
>

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 17/12/2023 10:09 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> Xeno wrote:
>> On 17/12/2023 7:10 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>> Xeno wrote:
>>>> On 17/12/2023 1:45 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>>> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>> On 16/12/2023 5:37 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>> On 16/12/2023 4:50 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 16/12/2023 2:56 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> IMO, most cast have been falling in real prices (inflation
>>>>>>>>>> adjusted) for many years. The Subaru is surprising, because it
>>>>>>>>>> is made in Japan, rather thana low cost nation like Thailand,
>>>>>>>>>> China, Czech Republic or India.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's probably more to do with Subaru being a relatively niche
>>>>>>>>> manufacturer with a comparatively small model line-up compared
>>>>>>>>> to other mainstream manufacturers. They have only two vehicle
>>>>>>>>> manufacturing plants as far as I'm aware with one being in
>>>>>>>>> Japan and one in the US, and that's clearly enough to meet
>>>>>>>>> their manufacturing demands.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **Nope. That does not explain the fall in inflation-adjusted
>>>>>>>> price of my Subaru (I haven't compared other models). I'm also
>>>>>>>> not claiming that Subaru is unique. I was making the point that
>>>>>>>> most car prices have fallen in the past few decades
>>>>>>>> (inflation-adjusted).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Firstly, you can forget the ridiculous notion of "inflation
>>>>>>> adjusted prices" as it's as much a load of utter bullshit as
>>>>>>> claiming that grocery prices or in fact the cost of living in
>>>>>>> general has fallen when "inflation adjusted prices" are applied.
>>>>>>> It's a load of nonsense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **No, it is not. It is perfectly valid and has been used for many
>>>>>> years to explain pricing for everything from houses to potatoes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Car
>>>>>>> prices have continued to steadily climb over the last few decades
>>>>>>> like everything else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **No, they have not. They have actually fallen, relative to
>>>>>> incomes. In 1977, my 2L Ford Escort cost me around 4 months'
>>>>>> wages. I was earning an average salary back then. An average
>>>>>> salary today is $90,000.00. 40% of $90k is $36k. $36k will buy a
>>>>>> car which is quicker, more capable, safer and far more reliable
>>>>>> than the old Escort.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Secondly, Subaru is a minor player on the world car market, and
>>>>>>> the fact that they still make cars in Japan while most other
>>>>>>> manufacturers have moved to cheaper labour markets is most likely
>>>>>>> more to do with the fact that they don't sell enough cars to
>>>>>>> justify the cost of building a new manufacturing plant in another
>>>>>>> country than it is anything else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Not my point. By moving to a low cost nation, car manufacturers
>>>>>> have had the opportunity to reduce prices. IF THEY CHOOSE. Or they
>>>>>> can just pocket the difference. Subaru has no opportunity to do
>>>>>> either, yet the cost of their cars (well, the Levorg/WRX
>>>>>> Sportswagon) has fallen in cost, relative to incomes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You also have to take into account that like everyone else they
>>>>>>> compete against they need to be competitive if they're going to
>>>>>>> survive. So while their cost per unit price may be higher for
>>>>>>> building cars in Japan rather than Thailand or South Africa, they
>>>>>>> have to sell on the same market as everyone else and if they're
>>>>>>> going to remain competitive then it means they have a
>>>>>>> significantly smaller profit margin than most other manufacturers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Very likely, but has nothing to do with point I made.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sucks to be them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Sure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In some cases, it is due to the fact that some manufacturers
>>>>>>>> have opened production plants in low cost nations. Such as:
>>>>>>>> Mercedes - South Afrika, Toyota - Thailand, Lots of companies -
>>>>>>>> China, Suzuki - India, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can't think of a single company, be it car manufacturer or
>>>>>>> anyone else, who has seen a reduction in manufacturing costs as
>>>>>>> anything other than an increased annual profit. In fact I think
>>>>>>> the notion that companies move their manufacturing bases to lower
>>>>>>> cost labour markets with the idea of reducing their manufacturing
>>>>>>> costs and passing those savings onto the end user is nothing but
>>>>>>> pure fantasy :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Possibly. A very close examination would be needed to verify.
>>>>>> Equivalent models in the Skoda range are cheaper than their VW ones.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Like I said: The surprise to me is that Subaru have been able to
>>>>>>>> reduce overheads in a high cost nation like Japan.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have no more of an idea of what Subaru's "overheads" are than
>>>>>>> I or anyone else does, and are just assuming that because they're
>>>>>>> able to remain in the market competing with manufacturers who's
>>>>>>> labour costs are most likely lower that they have found some
>>>>>>> magical way of reducing their costs to maintain their profit
>>>>>>> margins.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **"Magical"? Nope. Modern manufacturing methods and automation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The reality is most likely that they're not doing that at all,
>>>>>>> and are just making less money per car than the next guy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Quite possibly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   > I am not surprised that companies like Mercedes have lowered
>>>>>>> their costs by manufacturing in
>>>>>>>> South Afrika.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's no secret. They *all* do. Lowering manufacturing costs by
>>>>>>> moving to cut price labour markets is the exact reason why people
>>>>>>> set up shop in those countries in the first place, but how that
>>>>>>> translates into cheaper cars for you and me is not exactly clear.
>>>>>>> As I said, car prices have done nothing but rise, and all
>>>>>>> building them in cheap labour countries means is that the
>>>>>>> manufacturers make more money for every car they sell.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Great for them. Not so much for you and me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Possibly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> haven't you learn't yet? you can't talk sense to noddy and expect
>>>>> it to make sense to him. you can't expect to have a rational
>>>>> discussion with him. he lacks the integrity and honesty necessary
>>>>> for that. his only interest is in controversy, and pushing his own
>>>>> views and ideas. I provided a perfect example to diss his stupid
>>>>> claim, but of course he has blocked me again. he can't stand facts
>>>>> or truth, or even just common sense, especially when applied to
>>>>> him. here's what I said, in case you didn't see it..
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL! poor old noddy. such things are definitely beyond his ken! on
>>>>> the 12/9/1964 I paid 75 pounds for a 16 year old 1948 Vauxhall, my
>>>>> first car. in today's prices that's close to $2,500 dollars. today
>>>>> for even LESS money I could buy a 16 year old Holden Barina, with
>>>>> air bags, auto transmission, radial tyres, power steering, etc., etc.,
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.carsales.com.au/cars/details/2007-holden-barina-tk-auto-my07/SSE-AD-16115998/?Cr=2
>>>>>
>>>>> someone should ask noddy.. would he rather have the Vauxhall or the
>>>>> Barrina, lol?
>>>>
>>>> I think I'd take the Vauxhall, if it were in good nick and even with
>>>> that horrid Dubonnet front suspension.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/05/767.jpg
>>>
>>> yes, we had to keep topping them up with oil
>>
>> Yes, had a customer during my apprenticeship who also had one,
>> beautiful nick but leaky Dubonnet knees, had to top them up every
>> service as well. Hope you used the correct oil in yours? From what I
>> remember, they used to take shock absorber oil only, same as the lever
>> action shocks of that vintage. Use of any other kind of oil tends to
>> lead to erratic performance when hot.
>
> yep, had to use a special oil. and when they started leaking you used a
> thicker one, iirc. btw, here is the actual car ..
> https://auslink.info/pics/vauxhall.jpg

Xeno wrote:
> On 18/12/2023 10:29 am, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> alvey wrote:
>>> Mighty Mouse wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> haven't you learn't yet? you can't talk sense to noddy and expect
>>>> it to make sense to him. you can't expect to have a rational
>>>> discussion with him. he lacks the integrity and honesty necessary
>>>> for that.
>>>
>>> Why such a short list?
>>> What did 'knowledge' & 'intelligence' do that got them dropped?
>>>
>>
>> they were already a given
>>
> It was already a given that Darren lacked them!

that's what I meant

> He flunked secondary school, remember?
>>>
>>> alvey
>>
>>
>

--
Have a nice day!..

alvey wrote:
> Noddy wrote:
>> On 17/12/2023 10:26 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 16/12/2023 5:37 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>> Firstly, you can forget the ridiculous notion of "inflation
>>>> adjusted prices" as it's as much a load of utter bullshit as
>>>> claiming that grocery prices or in fact the cost of living in
>>>> general has fallen when "inflation adjusted prices" are applied.
>>>> It's a load of nonsense.
>>>
>>> **No, it is not. It is perfectly valid and has been used for many
>>> years to explain pricing for everything from houses to potatoes.
>>
>> So house prices have risen relative to inflation, have they? :)
>
> Clue: House prices are more affected by interest rates than inflation.

a number of factors affect house prices. interest rates affect house
prices short term, when they're in effect. inflation affects them long
term. another significant factor is change over time, which is why old
inner city houses keep increasing in value as cites expand, and why
houses in outer suburban areas become more valuable as those areas
gradually become suburban. it's also why someone will pay $1.4 million
for a shed because the land is beachfront.

>>>   Car
>>>> prices have continued to steadily climb over the last few decades
>>>> like everything else.
>>>
>>> **No, they have not. They have actually fallen, relative to incomes.
>>
>> This is probably the most ridiculous argument anyone can make in
>> relation to prices.
>
> Ooooh no it's not! You've got that position all sewn up Buffo. Your
> 'sticker price is the only relevant figure' brain-fart is the Bradman
> of ridiculous arguments on prices.
>
> Trevor, you must have a masochistic streak wider than the Fraudsters'
> ego... well, not that wide, nothing is wider than that, but still
> bloody huge to persist in attempting to 'argue' with the fraudulent
> blowhard.
>
>

yeah, it's a lost cause. next thing you know he'll be telling Trevor he
saw his Subaru drive past his house!  :)

> alvey

--
Have a nice day!..

On 15/12/2023 9:01 am, Ozix wrote:
> Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> They're death traps:
>>
>> https://www.drive.com.au/news/mg-5-mahindra-scorpio-zero-star-safety-ratings/?utm_campaign=syndication&utm_source=smh.com.au&utm_content=article_1&utm_medium=partner
>>
>>
>> Oh and Mahindra, of course.
>>
>
> They achieved a 5-star ANCAP rating for MG4. So they managed to make a
> decent body shell once, but unable or unwilling to do it across the range.

The ANCAP rating system is bullshit. When you can have a 5 star vehicle
that doesn't keep it's rear wheels on the ground during braking there is
something very wrong with the ANCAP rating system. (refer Tank 300 heap
of Chinese garbage)

ANCAP has become all about the amount of useless gadgets while ignoring
fundamentals - like does the vehicle actually stop.

--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."

On 16/12/2023 2:37 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 16/12/2023 4:50 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 16/12/2023 2:56 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>>> IMO, most cast have been falling in real prices (inflation adjusted)
>>>> for many years. The Subaru is surprising, because it is made in
>>>> Japan, rather thana low cost nation like Thailand, China, Czech
>>>> Republic or India.
>>>
>>> That's probably more to do with Subaru being a relatively niche
>>> manufacturer with a comparatively small model line-up compared to
>>> other mainstream manufacturers. They have only two vehicle
>>> manufacturing plants as far as I'm aware with one being in Japan and
>>> one in the US, and that's clearly enough to meet their manufacturing
>>> demands.
>>
>> **Nope. That does not explain the fall in inflation-adjusted price of
>> my Subaru (I haven't compared other models). I'm also not claiming
>> that Subaru is unique. I was making the point that most car prices
>> have fallen in the past few decades (inflation-adjusted).
>
> Firstly, you can forget the ridiculous notion of "inflation adjusted
> prices" as it's as much a load of utter bullshit as claiming that
> grocery prices or in fact the cost of living in general has fallen when
> "inflation adjusted prices" are applied. It's a load of nonsense. Car
> prices have continued to steadily climb over the last few decades like
> everything else.
>

Hahahahahaha.

You are so stupid.

>

--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."

On 18/12/2023 9:34 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 16/12/2023 2:37 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 16/12/2023 4:50 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 16/12/2023 2:56 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>>> IMO, most cast have been falling in real prices (inflation
>>>>> adjusted) for many years. The Subaru is surprising, because it is
>>>>> made in Japan, rather thana low cost nation like Thailand, China,
>>>>> Czech Republic or India.
>>>>
>>>> That's probably more to do with Subaru being a relatively niche
>>>> manufacturer with a comparatively small model line-up compared to
>>>> other mainstream manufacturers. They have only two vehicle
>>>> manufacturing plants as far as I'm aware with one being in Japan and
>>>> one in the US, and that's clearly enough to meet their manufacturing
>>>> demands.
>>>
>>> **Nope. That does not explain the fall in inflation-adjusted price of
>>> my Subaru (I haven't compared other models). I'm also not claiming
>>> that Subaru is unique. I was making the point that most car prices
>>> have fallen in the past few decades (inflation-adjusted).
>>
>> Firstly, you can forget the ridiculous notion of "inflation adjusted
>> prices" as it's as much a load of utter bullshit as claiming that
>> grocery prices or in fact the cost of living in general has fallen
>> when "inflation adjusted prices" are applied. It's a load of nonsense.
>> Car prices have continued to steadily climb over the last few decades
>> like everything else.
>>
>
>
> Hahahahahaha.
>
> You are so stupid.
>
A concrete thinker no less! Never progressed to abstract concepts -
which is why he didn't qualify for any apprenticeship ever.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 15/12/2023 8:22 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 15/12/2023 8:47 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 15/12/2023 9:34 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> They're death traps:
>>>
>>> https://www.drive.com.au/news/mg-5-mahindra-scorpio-zero-star-safety-ratings/?utm_campaign=syndication&utm_source=smh.com.au&utm_content=article_1&utm_medium=partner
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
> Oh and Mahindra, of course.
>>>
>> Well maybe, they obviously aren't the safest things on the road, but
>> the zero rating is largely due to the lack of "Drivers aids". Are they
>> really so essential that they rank equally with
>> crashworthyness?
>
> Yes. They might not do a hell of a lot for you once you're in an
> accident, but they can do a hell of a lot to stop you from getting into
> an accident in the first place.
>
> Watch the video I linked to in my reply to Trevor about how poorly the
> Rav4 does in a Moose Test compared to the Nissan Qashqai or the Kia
> Sorento.
>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtQ24W_lamY
>
> The appalling handling ability of the Rav4 in this test seems to be due
> entirely to a completely inadequate electronic stability control system.

That brings another problem with ANCAP they require these things but
don't test them. The implementation could be complete shit like the
RAV4s ESC shown above but they'd still get 5 stars.

>> When I bought my Mazda 3 it had a 5 star rating, now it would be lucky
>> to make 3 down hill with the wind behind it.
>
> Your Mazda is irrelevant to anything being discussed here.

Nope, it's very relevant, when I bought it those things while available
were not considered necessary, now, for some reason, they are essential

>> It's still the same car with the same protections, but since it
>> doesn't have lane-keep assist, driver attention monitors, or speed
>> warnings, it seems that it's much more dangerous than when I bought
>> it 7 years ago. My feeling is that they should give bonus point for
>> having these things rather than dropping the result to zero for not
>> having them.
>
> Read the article. The MG earned a zero star rating for having a lack of
> safety assistance features *and* a poor level of adult occupant protection.
>
> [quote]
>
>> The MG 5 recorded "significant injury risk measurements for the chest
>> (Poor) and legs (Poor) of the driver in the frontal offset test, and
>> the chest (Poor) and legs (Poor) of the rear passenger in the full
>> width frontal test," according to ANCAP.
>
> [end quote]
>
> Interestingly, the Mahindra scored a higher adult occupant protection
> ranking of 44% compared to the MG's appallingly bad 37%
>
>

Xeno wrote:

>>
> A concrete thinker no less! Never progressed to abstract concepts -
> which is why he didn't qualify for any apprenticeship ever.

'inflation adjusted' is as far from being an "abstract concept" as
Fraudster is from reality. It's common sense, and arguing with someone
who denies it is a pointless waste of time.

alvey

On 19/12/2023 7:12 am, alvey wrote:
> Xeno wrote:
>
>
>>>
>> A concrete thinker no less! Never progressed to abstract concepts -
>> which is why he didn't qualify for any apprenticeship ever.
>
> 'inflation adjusted' is as far from being an "abstract concept" as
> Fraudster is from reality. It's common sense, and arguing with someone
> who denies it is a pointless waste of time.
>
>
> alvey
>
>
To those of us who were able to move on from the concrete operational
stage and into the formal operations stage, for sure, it's common sense.
For other's, like Darren, doomed to remain forever in that little
concrete world, it most certainly is an *abstract concept*.

I do agree that arguing the concept of "inflation adjusted" with a
denier is a pointless waste of time. Puir wee Darren, he's more to be
pitied than scorned.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 18/12/2023 10:11 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 15/12/2023 8:22 pm, Noddy wrote:

>> Watch the video I linked to in my reply to Trevor about how poorly the
>> Rav4 does in a Moose Test compared to the Nissan Qashqai or the Kia
>> Sorento.
>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtQ24W_lamY
>>
>> The appalling handling ability of the Rav4 in this test seems to be
>> due entirely to a completely inadequate electronic stability control
>> system.
>
> That brings another problem with ANCAP they require these things but
> don't test them. The implementation could be complete shit like the
> RAV4s ESC shown above but they'd still get 5 stars.

ESC is a legal requirement on all new cars sold in this country and has
been for some time.

>>> When I bought my Mazda 3 it had a 5 star rating, now it would be
>>> lucky to make 3 down hill with the wind behind it.
>>
>> Your Mazda is irrelevant to anything being discussed here.
>
> Nope, it's very relevant,

How old is your Mazda? 5 years old? More? In *any* comparative test
between new cars available today it is not even *remotely* relevant.

> when I bought it those things while available
> were not considered necessary, now, for some reason, they are essential

Standards change all the time, and that's nothing new. Look at houses
for example. I built my house new 13 years ago and at the time it
complied with every relevant building code required. However today it
would fail because the code has evolved. My house was compliant at the
time, but not today.

Just like your Mazda.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 16/12/2023 4:41 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
> alvey wrote:
>> Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The unfortunate thing with tyres is that a *lot* of their ability to
>>> perform is subjective,
>>
>> What rubbish.
>>
>>> and we've all seen examples of that. How many times have you heard
>>> someone say they have a particular set on their car and love them,
>>> but you had some and thought they were completely shithouse?
>>
>> You drive fourbys. The most important tyre criteria for those mobile
>> speed humps is mileage (kilometreage?)
>>>
>>> Personally I think it's as silly to associate expensive tyres with
>>> quality performance...
>
> not silly at all. it's the normal thing. the more expensive something
> is, the better the quality or performance that's expected. not always
> the case, but as a general rule, so not silly at all to "associate
> expensive tyres with quality performance". what is silly tho, is the
> stupid ideas he comes out with.
>

Of course. The expectation is that you do get better performance from
expensive tyres and in my experience it is most often the case that more
expensive tyres perform better.

In my experience cheap tyres have either not lasted or have under
performed under certain conditions, usually in the wet which is why I
don't buy them.

>>
>> as if you'd know. And as a noted fishbum you probably buy your tyres
>> from the wreckers across the road in lovely Merrimu.
>>

--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."

On 18/12/2023 6:36 pm, Xeno wrote:
> On 18/12/2023 9:34 pm, Clocky wrote:
>> On 16/12/2023 2:37 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>> On 16/12/2023 4:50 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 16/12/2023 2:56 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> IMO, most cast have been falling in real prices (inflation
>>>>>> adjusted) for many years. The Subaru is surprising, because it is
>>>>>> made in Japan, rather thana low cost nation like Thailand, China,
>>>>>> Czech Republic or India.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's probably more to do with Subaru being a relatively niche
>>>>> manufacturer with a comparatively small model line-up compared to
>>>>> other mainstream manufacturers. They have only two vehicle
>>>>> manufacturing plants as far as I'm aware with one being in Japan
>>>>> and one in the US, and that's clearly enough to meet their
>>>>> manufacturing demands.
>>>>
>>>> **Nope. That does not explain the fall in inflation-adjusted price
>>>> of my Subaru (I haven't compared other models). I'm also not
>>>> claiming that Subaru is unique. I was making the point that most car
>>>> prices have fallen in the past few decades (inflation-adjusted).
>>>
>>> Firstly, you can forget the ridiculous notion of "inflation adjusted
>>> prices" as it's as much a load of utter bullshit as claiming that
>>> grocery prices or in fact the cost of living in general has fallen
>>> when "inflation adjusted prices" are applied. It's a load of
>>> nonsense. Car prices have continued to steadily climb over the last
>>> few decades like everything else.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hahahahahaha.
>>
>> You are so stupid.
>>
> A concrete thinker no less! Never progressed to abstract concepts -
> which is why he didn't qualify for any apprenticeship ever.
>

To be serious it's quite a disability he's carrying on his shoulders...
or would be if his head wasn't so fucking big.

I'm not sure I've ever come across anyone so confident in their own
delusion while at the same time proving themselves to be so incredibly
stupid.

--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."

On 19/12/2023 5:31 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 18/12/2023 10:11 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 15/12/2023 8:22 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> Watch the video I linked to in my reply to Trevor about how poorly the
>>> Rav4 does in a Moose Test compared to the Nissan Qashqai or the Kia
>>> Sorento.
>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtQ24W_lamY
>>>
>>> The appalling handling ability of the Rav4 in this test seems to be
>>> due entirely to a completely inadequate electronic stability control
>>> system.
>>
>> That brings another problem with ANCAP they require these things but
>> don't test them. The implementation could be complete shit like the
>> RAV4s ESC shown above but they'd still get 5 stars.
>
> ESC is a legal requirement on all new cars sold in this country and has
> been for some time.
>
>>>> When I bought my Mazda 3 it had a 5 star rating, now it would be
>>>> lucky to make 3 down hill with the wind behind it.
>>>
>>> Your Mazda is irrelevant to anything being discussed here.
>>
>> Nope, it's very relevant,
>
> How old is your Mazda? 5 years old? More? In *any* comparative test
> between new cars available today it is not even *remotely* relevant.
>
>
>
>> when I bought it those things while available were not considered
>> necessary, now, for some reason, they are essential
>
> Standards change all the time, and that's nothing new. Look at houses
> for example. I built my house new 13 years ago and at the time it
> complied with every relevant building code required. However today it
> would fail because the code has evolved. My house was compliant at the
> time, but not today.
>
> Just like your Mazda.
>

So your 13 year house is relevant to a discussion about new cars but
according to you keith's 5 year old car is not relevant to a discussion
about safety features on cars after the posting of a worthless 'moose
test' video on a *5 year old car*.

He's here all week folks.

--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."

Clocky wrote:
> On 16/12/2023 4:41 pm, Mighty Mouse wrote:
>> alvey wrote:
>>> Noddy wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The unfortunate thing with tyres is that a *lot* of their ability
>>>> to perform is subjective,
>>>
>>> What rubbish.
>>>
>>>> and we've all seen examples of that. How many times have you heard
>>>> someone say they have a particular set on their car and love them,
>>>> but you had some and thought they were completely shithouse?
>>>
>>> You drive fourbys. The most important tyre criteria for those mobile
>>> speed humps is mileage (kilometreage?)
>>>>
>>>> Personally I think it's as silly to associate expensive tyres with
>>>> quality performance...
>>
>> not silly at all. it's the normal thing. the more expensive something
>> is, the better the quality or performance that's expected. not always
>> the case, but as a general rule, so not silly at all to "associate
>> expensive tyres with quality performance". what is silly tho, is the
>> stupid ideas he comes out with.
>>
>
> Of course. The expectation is that you do get better performance from
> expensive tyres and in my experience it is most often the case that
> more expensive tyres perform better.
>
> In my experience cheap tyres have either not lasted or have under
> performed under certain conditions, usually in the wet which is why I
> don't buy them.

Michelin tyres seem to highly regarded. when I buy new tyres two of the
characteristics I seek are a soft and quiet ride, but without
sacrificing performance and quality

>
>>>
>>> as if you'd know. And as a noted fishbum you probably buy your tyres
>>> from the wreckers across the road in lovely Merrimu.
>>>

--
Have a nice day!..

Clocky wrote:
> On 18/12/2023 6:36 pm, Xeno wrote:
>> On 18/12/2023 9:34 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>> On 16/12/2023 2:37 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>> On 16/12/2023 4:50 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 16/12/2023 2:56 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> IMO, most cast have been falling in real prices (inflation
>>>>>>> adjusted) for many years. The Subaru is surprising, because it
>>>>>>> is made in Japan, rather thana low cost nation like Thailand,
>>>>>>> China, Czech Republic or India.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's probably more to do with Subaru being a relatively niche
>>>>>> manufacturer with a comparatively small model line-up compared to
>>>>>> other mainstream manufacturers. They have only two vehicle
>>>>>> manufacturing plants as far as I'm aware with one being in Japan
>>>>>> and one in the US, and that's clearly enough to meet their
>>>>>> manufacturing demands.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Nope. That does not explain the fall in inflation-adjusted price
>>>>> of my Subaru (I haven't compared other models). I'm also not
>>>>> claiming that Subaru is unique. I was making the point that most
>>>>> car prices have fallen in the past few decades (inflation-adjusted).
>>>>
>>>> Firstly, you can forget the ridiculous notion of "inflation
>>>> adjusted prices" as it's as much a load of utter bullshit as
>>>> claiming that grocery prices or in fact the cost of living in
>>>> general has fallen when "inflation adjusted prices" are applied.
>>>> It's a load of nonsense. Car prices have continued to steadily
>>>> climb over the last few decades like everything else.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hahahahahaha.
>>>
>>> You are so stupid.
>>>
>> A concrete thinker no less! Never progressed to abstract concepts -
>> which is why he didn't qualify for any apprenticeship ever.
>>
>
>
> To be serious it's quite a disability he's carrying on his
> shoulders... or would be if his head wasn't so fucking big.
>
> I'm not sure I've ever come across anyone so confident in their own
> delusion while at the same time proving themselves to be so incredibly
> stupid.
>

that's quotable!

--
Have a nice day!..

On 19/12/2023 7:31 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 18/12/2023 10:11 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 15/12/2023 8:22 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> Watch the video I linked to in my reply to Trevor about how poorly the
>>> Rav4 does in a Moose Test compared to the Nissan Qashqai or the Kia
>>> Sorento.
>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtQ24W_lamY
>>>
>>> The appalling handling ability of the Rav4 in this test seems to be
>>> due entirely to a completely inadequate electronic stability control
>>> system.
>>
>> That brings another problem with ANCAP they require these things but
>> don't test them. The implementation could be complete shit like the
>> RAV4s ESC shown above but they'd still get 5 stars.
>
> ESC is a legal requirement on all new cars sold in this country and has
> been for some time.

The point, which you seemed to have missed is that there is no testing
of these features. The crap ESC in the video would have helped the RAV4
to get 5 stars here even though it is useless.

The article

https://www.carexpert.com.au/opinion/ancap-has-lost-relevance-when-it-comes-to-safety

Noted this:

"There’s also no actual testing of safety systems on public roads. A lot
of the active safety systems fitted to five-star cars are appallingly
bad to use in real life, but are required for maximum ratings."

>>>> When I bought my Mazda 3 it had a 5 star rating, now it would be
>>>> lucky to make 3 down hill with the wind behind it.
>>>
>>> Your Mazda is irrelevant to anything being discussed here.
>>
>> Nope, it's very relevant,
>
> How old is your Mazda? 5 years old? More? In *any* comparative test
> between new cars available today it is not even *remotely* relevant.
>
>
>
>> when I bought it those things while available were not considered
>> necessary, now, for some reason, they are essential
>
> Standards change all the time, and that's nothing new. Look at houses
> for example. I built my house new 13 years ago and at the time it
> complied with every relevant building code required. However today it
> would fail because the code has evolved. My house was compliant at the
> time, but not today.
>
> Just like your Mazda.
>