Locate an Auto Repair Shop in Salina, Oklahoma

Salina, OK Car Consumer Discussions

no title

by alpogi on Thu Sep 25 15:21:24 PDT 2008

Here's a price quote from Sam Linder Honda in Monterey/Salinas, CA: Honda Fit Sport with Nav = $23,000 OTD. :confuse: :surprise: Is that a reasonable price? It seems that this so-called "affordable" car not very affordable...

Re: rocky and lemko [62vetteefp]

by rockylee on Fri Aug 29 04:29:10 PDT 2008

In actuality I thought that Clinton pushed thru the free trade laws with the rest of the world. This act set off a sudden increase in imports and the loss of jobs here and a sudden increase in exports and gain of jobs there. History of the implementation NAFTA was initially pursued by politicians in the United States and Canada supportive of free trade, led by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and the Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari. The three countries signed NAFTA in December 1992, subject to ratification by the legislatures of the three countries. There was considerable opposition in all three countries. In the United States, NAFTA was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative priority in 1993. Since the agreement had been signed by Bush under his fast-track prerogative, Clinton did not alter the original agreement, but complemented it with the aforementioned NAAEC and NAALC. After intense political debate and the negotiation of these side agreements, the U.S. House of Representatives passed NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by 234-200 vote (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor; 43 Republicans, 156 Democrats, and 1 independent against),[6] and the U.S. Senate passed it on the last day of its 1993 session, November 20, 1993, by 61-38 vote (34 Republicans and 27 Democrats voting in favor; 10 Republicans and 28 Democrats against, with 1 Democrat opponent not voting -- Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), an ardent foe of NAFTA, missed the vote because of an illness in his family).[7] It passed 62vetteefp, but it wasn't exactly popular. As I said the passage of NAFTA, was one of a few things I dislike about Bill Clinton, as he was a supporter and so was Al Gore. The republicans as you can see loved NAFTA. And as far as the oil companies. I read that they make $.07/gallon today. To me that is not the big factor in our now $3.75/gallon selling price. Hey anybody know the profit per gallon 8 years ago vs. today? That would be an interesting number. Or another way what percentage of the retail price went into the oil companies bottom line? Got a link because that's impossible !!!! I know the profit margin per gallon for the independent gas station is not very much like $0.07 per gallon if they are lucky. My source is my brother who runs one. Are you sure that isn't what your information said ???? :surprise: The highest quarterly profits in history all on a $0.07 profit margin ??? I would even agree with the oil man, and say that's some fuzzy math !!!! :blush: -Rocky

Re: RDX Opinions [salinas]

by mvs1 on Mon Nov 12 18:24:51 PST 2007

My husband showed me your post so I figured I would reply... When I look at any type of wagon, it doesn't exactly say "hip new mom to me", regardless of the badge on the hood. I have no complaints about the A4...it has been very good to us. I ruled out keeping it for two reasons (1) It doesn't have a few amenities that the new one has, that I really want (Bluetooth, Nav, and a MP3 plug) and (2) I don't trust owning a German vehicle outside of a warranty..although it is so much fun to drive. I am looking for something that will fit the needs of a growing family, without me having to feel like I sold-out on a car that I don't enjoy driving everyday. I didn't really care for the RDX interior. I felt like it had an identity crisis. It didn't feel very luxurious, but didn't feel so bottom of the barrel as the CRV. But if I got it at a cheap enough price, I would consider it. I am seriously rethinking the MDX. After reading alot of reviews from new moms and just raving about how fun it is to drive, and the peace of mind having their children in it. I think I will drive it again, but with the Sport Package. *My husband keeps telling me it will drive like a Cayenne We'll see what $45k compared to 90K will give us. Being the value-conscience person that I am, I want the most car for the least amount of money, but above all, I want a vehicle that will be fun, safe, and not cost me our first born.

Re: RDX Opinions [mvs1]

by salinas on Tue Nov 06 13:50:33 PST 2007

"So after a fun day , she's still undecided, her criteria is simply , fun to drive and room for a new family addition (i.e. storage for baby stuff). " That sounds similar to my situation. Its not that I don't care about performance, but I have to temper that with practical needs about safety, cargo room and reliability, and price. But before all that, I have to like how the car looks or what's the point? So performance ends up kind of the bottom of the list. The funny thing is, this isn't just a female thing to care about looks over performance--my husband and I both liked how the CX-7 drove, but he thought the interior was too cheap and tacky feeling. Just curious about why you ruled out the A4 Avant, seeing as how your wife drives the A4 now..or even the A6 avant. Do you really want a taller car for the storage or for the ...SUVness of it? I ruled the A4 Avant out because of lack of availability (not many wagons on the lots), and it was a bit small for how much money it cost. The A6 was out of the price range new, and again, we just can't find any used to even see how they are. And a few people have warned us about the reliability of audi's. I haven't driven the MDX yet, but I plan to try that and the RDX next. The CRV just feels so econo-sparse on its interior, that I was the one saying it was too "blah" for us. We both really liked the Infinti FX, but the new ones aren't in our price range, which starts the typical issues of trying to find a good used one.

Re: Quick History Lesson [imidazol97]

by rockylee on Tue Jun 03 13:34:14 PDT 2008

Actually imidazol97, if you re read your history you would see it was President George H.W. Bush, who technically opened that gate !!! History of the implementation NAFTA was initially pursued by politicians in the United States and Canada supportive of free trade, led by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and the Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari. The three countries signed NAFTA in December 1992, subject to ratification by the legislatures of the three countries. There was considerable opposition in all three countries. In the United States, NAFTA was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative priority in 1993. Since the agreement had been signed by Bush under his fast-track prerogative, Clinton did not alter the original agreement, but complemented it with the aforementioned NAAEC and NAALC. After intense political debate and the negotiation of these side agreements, the U.S. House of Representatives passed NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by 234-200 vote (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor; 43 Republicans, 156 Democrats, and 1 independent against),[7] and the U.S. Senate passed it on the last day of its 1993 session, November 20, 1993, by 61-38 vote (34 Republicans and 27 Democrats voting in favor; 10 Republicans and 28 Democrats against, with 1 Democrat opponent not voting -- Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), an ardent foe of NAFTA, missed the vote because of an illness in his family).[8] SANCTIONS OF JAPAN: THE OVERVIEW; 100% TARIFFS SET ON 13 TOP MODELS OF JAPANESE CARS By DAVID E. SANGER Published: May 17, 1995 Living up to its threat to impose harsh sanctions on Japan, the Clinton Administration placed a 100 percent tariff today on 13 luxury car models that accounted for $5.9 billion in sales in the United States last year, including the flagship products of Toyota, Nissan and Honda. The tariff, the largest ever imposed by the United States against any trading partner, is to go into effect at 12:01 Saturday morning. Customs inspectors will be instructed to double the wholesale price of every Toyota Lexus, Nissan Infiniti and a number of other cars that roll off Japanese transport ships -- an increase that would make the cars all but unsalable. But Administration officials said the sanctions would be rescinded if Japan and the United States could reach an accord by June 28, giving the two countries six weeks to resolve a dispute that has already gone far beyond the immediate issue of the openness of Japan's market for American cars and car parts. As the argument has broadened tremendously in recent weeks, both sides have warned that the alliance of the world's two largest economies is being badly corroded. "We've put ourselves pretty far out on this one, and there is no backing away now," one of Mr. Clinton's top trade officials said today. "We came to the conclusion that either we draw the line here, or throw in the towel on Japan." Japanese officials contended today that the sanctions violated international trade laws, and said that within days they would bring an action against the United States at the new and still-fragile World Trade Organization in Geneva. In Tokyo, Ryutaro Hashimoto, the Minister of International Trade and Industry, whose prospects of becoming prime minister are resting largely on his handling of the trade dispute, accused Washington of imposing "numerical targets" that Japan must meet "under the threat of unilateral actions, which is nothing but Government intervention in private business activities, and poses a serious challenge to the free trade system." Japanese auto makers were more direct. "The U.S. Government conducts its trade policy in a coercive manner completely beyond our comprehension," said the executive vice president of the Toyota Motor Company, Masaharu Tanaka. In private, Japanese Government officials contended that Mr. Clinton was simply playing Presidential politics, trying to shore up his support among labor unions and middle-class voters who see their jobs threatened by Japan's long reach into the American market. But American officials say that for the first time they have found a way to hit Japan where it hurts -- and when it hurts most, with the strong yen already ravaging Japanese profits. It is unclear how long Japan's auto makers could endure the huge loss of sales that would come from a tariff that would add $20,000 to $40,000 to the cost of each car. After years of battling their way into the American luxury market, they would suddenly be surrendering it to Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Jaguar and some competitive American models. "The U.S. is not going to stand by and watch its workers and its products unfairly treated," said Mickey Kantor, the United States trade representative, who has led the drive to be far tougher with Japan than any past administration has. Among American workers, he said, "very, very few people will be hurt." In fact, the list Mr. Kantor announced today was more a political masterpiece than an economic one. All the cars on the list are produced in Japan, and they all make minimal use of American parts; no vehicles made at Japanese "transplants" in the United States are affected. All of the cars involved cost more than $25,000, enabling Mr. Clinton to argue that he has punished Japan without hurting middle-class American consumers. As one of Mr. Clinton's political advisers said in half-jest the other day, "So we lose the Lexus vote in Greenwich." There are several possibilities for what could happen next. The simplest is that Japanese officials, concluding that they have misread Mr. Clinton's determination, try to patch together the minimal concessions necessary to resolve matters before the June 28 deadline. Presumably, most of the talking would take place before Mr. Clinton and Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama meet at the conference of the Group of Seven nations in Halifax, Nova Scotia, which begins on June 15. But several Administration officials warned today that they expected the two leaders' meeting to be inconclusive and said they doubted that Japan's Government would resolve internal disputes fast enough to act before the deadline. The second possibility is that no agreement will be reached until Japanese auto makers feel enough pain to press the politicians to solve the problem. con't.........

Most recent trip..not as good as others

by troylikesbikes on Sun Jun 01 22:07:23 PDT 2008

For some reason, the stretch from Denver to mid-Kansas in almost anything I drive just never makes me happy. I haven't crunched all the numbers yet, but here is my quickie trip this weekend, tank by tank. ODO MILES GAS MPG 13272 Start 13617 345 9.86 35.0 13813 196 5.14 38.1 14144 331 9.41 35.2 14336 192 5.80 33.1 14726 390 11.31 34.5 14966 240 7.69 31.2 Overall the totals were 1694 miles, 49.2 gallons, 34.4 mpg Disappointing, because the winds were good, not much A/C was used, and I kept the speeds quite reasonable because the entire trip was interstate. At steady 70-80mph anywhere else I would have expected 35-38mpg, but for some reason I seem to pay a solid 10% penalty in the stretch of I70 between Denver and Salina and I don't have a clue why. I've mentioned it before, it happens in the old pickup, 3 motorcycles, and nearly every other vehicle I've traveled that section with. Mark my words, if I had continued on I70 to Pennsylvania, somewhere in Missouri things would have gotten better and by Indiana I would be getting 37-38 mpg at the same speeds I was traveling in Kansas.