Clyde Programming Notes

[lemming]

Originally Posted by clyde

Programming notes:

1. Aramda is gone.
2. 1991 Miata is here.

As you recall, this was meant to be a temporary solution, and I know that it ultimately will be, but at the moment, I am finding it quite difficult to come up with reasons to spend any money on another car.

I have a great amount of lust in my heart for a 2010 Mustang GT w/ Track Pack, 2010 Camaro (not 100% sure on config), 370Z, Charger SRT-8, C6 Corvette of almost any type, and, of course, the Pontiac G8 GXP.

I look at what they all cost relative to what I have into the Miata and I just can't seem to rationalize the price/value relationship.

i actually understand your logic quite well, having once owned a 1991 miata and now owning (sort of) another one.

there is purity in the car that is not found in a lot of other things out there particularly at its pricepoint.

and for 95% of the time, that's what is most pleasing about a car more so than its ability at 10/10ths.

[clyde]

Originally Posted by John V

There never was a 5.0L mustang.

There were 5.0L Mustangs but there were not Mustangs with a displacement of 5.0 liters.

[clyde]

Originally Posted by lemming

i actually understand your logic quite well, having once owned a 1991 miata and now owning (sort of) another one.

there is purity in the car that is not found in a lot of other things out there particularly at its pricepoint.

and for 95% of the time, that's what is most pleasing about a car more so than its ability at 10/10ths.

It's not about purity. It's about function and fun, what it takes to get there and at what cost.

I've got less than $2k into the Miata. A 2005 C6 would probably run me about $28k or so after tax, titling, etc. I can't see how the vette would be 14 times better than the Miata. I can't see how FC's new 987 is 21x better (let alone how that Boxster would be 1.5x better than the C6).

Does the Miata have peeling paint while a late model C6 or 987 should be shiney? Yes. Do the newer cars have tons more creature comforts? Sure. Do those creature comforts interfere with the "purity"? Yes, but they also make the cars much more livable. Do they make them 14-21x more livable?

They certainly can't be 14-21x more fun to drive (which, when you get down to it, is the point), can they?

[John V]

You've managed to combine one of the most fun cars on the planet (early Miata) with a very liberating concept (having a vehicle that you don't erally give a fvck about). Brilliant move.

[lemming]

Originally Posted by clyde

It's not about purity. It's about function and fun, what it takes to get there and at what cost.

I've got less than $2k into the Miata. A 2005 C6 would probably run me about $28k or so after tax, titling, etc. I can't see how the vette would be 14 times better than the Miata. I can't see how FC's new 987 is 21x better (let alone how that Boxster would be 1.5x better than the C6).

Does the Miata have peeling paint while a late model C6 or 987 should be shiney? Yes. Do the newer cars have tons more creature comforts? Sure. Do those creature comforts interfere with the "purity"? Yes, but they also make the cars much more livable. Do they make them 14-21x more livable?

They certainly can't be 14-21x more fun to drive (which, when you get down to it, is the point), can they?

it's at the point of semantics, though.

because my definition of purity is analogous to yours of "function, fun, and price per mile for such".

part of what makes those other cars so damn pricey is 1. the lack of economies of scale, 2. need to push the technological envelope and 3. profitability to continue to justify the car's existence.

you could argue that Mazda somehow still manages to make the MX5 profitable because it subsidizes the cost of the MX5 or the RX8 off of one another (this is where GM is extremely dumb). Mazda also doesn't need to push the technological envelope. the put the smart engineering into the lightweight meaning absolute power is less necessary.

[Sharp11]

Originally Posted by lemming

it's at the point of semantics, though.

because my definition of purity is analogous to yours of "function, fun, and price per mile for such".

part of what makes those other cars so damn pricey is 1. the lack of economies of scale, 2. need to push the technological envelope and 3. profitability to continue to justify the car's existence.

you could argue that Mazda somehow still manages to make the MX5 profitable because it subsidizes the cost of the MX5 or the RX8 off of one another (this is where GM is extremely dumb). Mazda also doesn't need to push the technological envelope. the put the smart engineering into the lightweight meaning absolute power is less necessary.

That's not what he's saying, though, he's not making value judgments on this car vs that car - what he means is, for so little money, he's already having a blast and sees no reason to spend a ton more.

Ed

[lemming]

Originally Posted by Sharp11

That's not what he's saying, though, he's not making value judgments on this car vs that car - what he means is, for so little money, he's already having a blast and sees no reason to spend a ton more.

Ed

purity doesn't have valuation attached to it.

it's just often retrospectively correlated with price tag. like automotive Lipinski's rules.

[equ]

I think both clyde & ed have valid points. You let go of having spend more and more as you grow older for one. The other point is that, for people who understand/get cars, you can go very far on a few bucks.

[clyde]

Originally Posted by lemming

it's at the point of semantics, though.

because my definition of purity is analogous to yours of "function, fun, and price per mile for such".

Yeah, I know that you have a lot of wacky definitions. When you throw a new one out there without letting us know it, though, I have to assume that you're using the same definition that everyone else does.

[lemming]

Originally Posted by clyde

Yeah, I know that you have a lot of wacky definitions. When you throw a new one out there without letting us know it, though, I have to assume that you're using the same definition that everyone else does.

hey you focker. Do you need to install a hard dog bar to cross the miata?