Locate an Auto Repair Shop in North Las Vegas, Nevada

North Las Vegas, NV Car Consumer Discussions

Re: The only thing I've ever seen a BMW blow away... [lemko]

by nvbanker on Tue Sep 09 10:17:56 PDT 2008

For me to buy a BMW that even comes close to my DTS, I'd have to go all the way and get a 7-Series and I'd have spent north of $80K+ by then. Yes, but you would have a completely different car too. Better handling, less comfortable, less reliable, much more fun to drive.

Re: Someone needs to let the North Pole know [gagrice]

by larsb on Wed Jul 16 09:33:04 PDT 2008

I think a high speed train from LA to Vegas would be a great idea. Find some big time financiers in LV and get started on that project Gary. It can be your last hobby. :)

Re: Someone needs to let the North Pole know [vchiu]

by gagrice on Wed Jul 09 09:24:50 PDT 2008

That was a well thought out post. I would like to go along with the high speed rail to join the cities. It just does not make any financial sense. I did a quick calculation on taking a trip from San Diego to Florida via rail. At todays fares it is about twice what it would cost for the two of us to drive our Sequoia at 15 MPG round trip. Not to mention 4 nights on a train with no shower each direction. Can high speed rail ever be self sustaining? There is talk of a high speed train from Los Angeles to Las Vegas. Why on earth would I want a penny of my tax dollars spent to help LV get more gamblers from LA? Right today I can fly cross country and rent a car for less than 20% of the cost of rail travel. I don't see it becoming feasible. We do not want the massive debt that Japan has built up with trying to do all those things you mention. They are multiple times more over extended than the USA. Then you have proposed $450 billion in R&D. It would just become more corporate welfare. WHO can you trust with that kind of money floating around? I say reward those that come up with new inventions. Don't pay some one to sit and surf the web. On going to the Moon. We were in a race with the Soviets. Today it would take a lot longer to go to the moon than it did in the 1960s. Wednesday, December 6, 2006 NASA offered a blueprint Monday for sending teams of astronauts to the moon by 2020 and building a permanent base there by 2024. An editor of NASA Watch explains the plans. GWEN IFILL: Now, let's talk money. Is there a national appetite for what it will cost? I read somewhere today $125 billion to get the first landing by 2018. KEITH COWING: Well, that's the question, isn't it? Last year, when the initial version of this was brought out, the very first question from somebody from NPR was, and we're all there waiting to ask it, was: How much will this cost? And we were told that it would be $104 billion to get one mission back there. Well, that was then; this is now. And you really can't get NASA to come up with a number. And it's not -- well, I guess it is they don't quite know what it will cost because an aspect of this architecture is that it's open-sourced. They're looking for a participation from other nations. Now, how much of this would be done by, you know, Europe, for example, or by Russia is to be determined. But NASA is looking to offer the sort of basic infrastructure, how to get people and hardware there, but they still haven't figured out exactly how they're going to do it. And therefore, they're a little shy about giving you a number, and $104 billion, $130 billion, it could be higher. Nobody quite knows. Don't hold your breath on seeing a man on the moon this Century. Too much red tape that was not around in 1960. No incentive on the part of tax payers that are struggling to buy gas for their cars. They want to do what with my tax dollars?

Killing a brand ain't asy-ask Ford.

by 62vetteefp on Tue May 27 09:34:50 PDT 2008

The Dearborn automaker told them it would discuss the fate of Mercury at a dealer meeting that was then planned for April in Las Vegas. Company sources say no such commitment was made. Either way, Ford canceled that meeting. The company is now planning a September meeting in Detroit -- a meeting dealers hope will provide a definitive answer to their question. If Ford says that Mercury will not be killed, dealers want to see the products to back that up. The problem is that other than a hybrid version of the Milan and a freshening of the conventional model due out late this year, there are none. On the other hand, if Ford admits that Mercury is dead, it would deal another blow to the brand's sales and invite lawsuits from dealers. "It's clear that there is no new product for Mercury," said analyst Jim Hossack of AutoPacific in Los Angeles. "The plan is not to kill Mercury. The plan is to let it die." The difference is significant, he said. In 2000, General Motors Corp. unveiled a plan to phase out its Oldsmobile brand over four years and spent about $1 billion paying off dealers and suppliers as a result. But Chrysler LLC, which simply stopped producing Plymouths after it merged with Germany's Daimler AG, managed to avoid much of that cost, Hossack said. When Mark Fields took over as head of Ford's North American operations in 2005, a review of Mercury's viability was at the top of his agenda. At the time, Ford concluded that the cost of eliminating Mercury exceeded the cost of keeping it, given that the rebadged Fords being sold as Mercurys required little in the way of re-engineering. Dealers say Ford already is cutting back, particularly when it comes to advertising. And many dispute the idea they can survive as stand-alone Lincoln stores. Several, like Dave Knittel, general manager of Charlotte County Lincoln Mercury in Florida, say Mercury sales still account for more than half their overall sales volume. He thinks Ford is trying to force Ford and Lincoln Mercury dealers to consolidate. "It's planned obsolescence for us," he said.

Re: motorcity [motorcity6]

by nvbanker on Thu May 22 09:50:13 PDT 2008

Good Luck on your Smart Car!!! Roger Penske will give you a hug..Another scam on the American people..It's a high priced moped.. You are a cynic, motorcity6 - but you happen to be right on most counts! I have been involved in the distribution of the Smart ForTwo for the past couple of years, before Roger Penske bought them all up. The profits being made on those little bedpans was eggregious to say the least! Some people paid north of $30,000 for the gray-market version before the current version with the motorcycle engine came out. You can never drive your way out of that kind of money, I don't care who you are. The car won't last that long. Keep on kicking motor, and keep us entertained!

Re: $4 & $5/Gallon Gasoline... [hpmctorque]

by peetiedog on Fri Mar 07 22:31:49 PST 2008

You're right, the CV/GM/TC trio probably won't continue beyond the '09 model year, and definitely not past the '10 model, but it's not due to the gas mileage. It's due to another short-sighted decision from the ivory tower's executive round table. I'd be one of the first to admit that the Panther Trio in it's current configuration, is too long in the tooth to be a viable long term product offering. I just happen to believe that a nice facelift, a mild interior re-do, and a few up-dated gizmos would allow the old girls to soldier on for another 3-5 years (providing a sizeable up-tic in sales), until a new (worthy) rwd replacement could be brought to market. There hasn't been a significant face-lift in a decade, so they were long overdo, yet kept selling pretty well given the lack of attention afforded them, if you ask me. But alas, the time has come to bid adieu. Ford decided to move away from rwd platforms, in favor of fwd & awd. At the same time, GM and Chrysler developed a newfound affection for rwd, especially for their higher end cars, as did Lexus and Infiniti. And we all know what BMW, Jag and Benz feels about rwd; even Audi is moving to a rear-bias to their Quattro AWD system (especially for their high performance cars) to more simulate rwd predominant balance. And now, even Ford has recognized that it needs to re-develop more rwd offerings (duh!), and have started looking at their new Australian rwd platform for a possible North American adaptation. My question is: Ford, why give up your rear-wheel drive market to your competitors (even if for only a couple years), only to have to come back later and spend lots of money trying to win it back? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Sounds like another of those famous Ford blunders in the making to me. Oh, and by the way hpmctorque, have you looked at the fuel economy ratings on the Taurus/Sable and even the Fusion/Milan/MKZ (no #'s on the MKS yet) compared to the CV/GM/TC? There's only between 2-4 mpg difference. And while that can represent a 10-15% improvement, many people would gladly trade that small of a difference for the other benefits the old Panther-girls offer. Things such as balance, durability, ride quality, stability, handling, safety, lower NVH, lower maintenance (especially front-end work), etcetera. When I take my Town Car on a road trip, let's say an 800+ mile round trip from Napa, CA to Los Angeles or Las Vegas. I average upwards of 21-22 mpg for the trip (and I average about 75+ mph trip speeds). Once I rented a Ford Fusion V6 for a trip to Las Vegas, thinking I'd save a lot of gas money. I only averaged 24 mpg for the trip, the ride quality while nice for a small car, was not even close to my Town Car. A lot buzzier, plus I felt a lot more exhausted and wound-up when I got there and when I got back home. The extra $13.00 I saved on the round trip (about 4 fewer gallons of gas @ $3.19 per gal), wasn't worth the lack of comfort, frustration and stress that came with the smaller, buzzier confines. What some people don't take into consideration is that those smaller, higher revving engines have to work a little harder than the loping, long legged, large car V8 engines when it comes to hill climbing and passing. And I don't believe they come anywhere close to the big, slower turning V8's when it comes to longevity either. I'm convinced that my Town Car's life expectancy is easily 250,000 or even 350,000 miles or more. I'd just like an updated version as would a lot of other people I know and talk to. And as far as gas goes, most of the big, comfy car buffs, like me, don't mind spending $200 - $250 a year in feeding costs for the benefits of a traditional, full sized rwd luxury car. Also I'm of the mind that there's no substitute for extra steel around you if in a major accident (say Town Car vs Accord in a head-on). As for as law enforcement is concerned, there is no substitute for rugged, well balanced, reliable, durable and economical (maintenance & repair wise). Suspensions, steering racks, transaxles (transmissions), tire wear, cooling systems, and more on the Taurus for example, would cost law enforcement agencies far more than the additional fuel charges of the Crown Vic cruisers. California Highway Patrol (and other state's trooper agencies), along with large municipal law enforcement agencies (like L.A.P.D. and L.A. County S.O.) have intensive endurance testing programs for their police cruisers. And year after year, the old fuddy-duddy Ford Crown Vic just keeps on coming out on top, in spite of it's age and weaknesses. Besides, when you're responding to an officer in distress' call for back-up, or when in pursuit of a fleeing felony suspect (jumping over curbs & bottoming out on road dips), I don't think anyone is too concerned about another couple miles-per-gallon. Besides they're the government, they just pass the costs on to us. Taxi services are just as concerned or more about durability, longevity and maintenance costs, which once again tend to favor the good ole Crown Vic. And as far as limo & livery services are concerned, how many front wheel drive stretched limo's have you seen lately, even Cadillac DeVilles (DHS); they're almost as rare as stretched Hummers. Even the livery trade doesn't want fwd cars. They cost too much for maintenance & wear, reliability & durability is far worse, and comfort & ride quality is nowhere near as good. Next time you see a few limo drivers take your own unscientific poll, you'd be hard pressed to find 10% of the owners & operators who'll disagree with that. These people are business people, they don't buy Town Cars because they're all Lincoln enthusiasts; they buy them because they are the best product & value on the market for what they need. My question is: Why, why, why Ford, would you give up this market that has become your birthright, only to have to try and fight to get a piece of it back later? I just don't get it. The MKS, as nice as it is, will not really replace the Town Car with the limo & Livery market, sure you'll see a few stretched MKS' and executive livery cars (sort of a fashion statement, like a stretched Navigator). I think the Chrysler 300 will probably get the lion's share of that market, and Cadillac is working on a full size rwd vehicle that I'm sure will eventually take a piece of that market as well. When Ford does finally bring a viable rwd car to market 4 or 5 years from now, they'll have to fight to get back into that market, which will be expensive; and do you really expect Chrysler and GM to just hand their market share back to Ford, or do think they'll fight like the dickens to keep it?