Car Talk 4: The Richard Hertz Rent-A-Car 500

Brothers of brub and brap, this is your safe space.
User avatar
Johnny_P
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Posts: 40489
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:52 am
Drives: Blue short bus
Location: Philly

Detroit wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2019 3:44 pm
CorvetteWaxer wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2019 3:41 pm

:lolol:

Yeah, this is actually why I have a ton of expensive stuff sitting here right now.

I have about $4k in camera gear I can't use anymore, but I don't want to deal with trying to sell it. I really need to bite the bullet and list the stuff.
We don't sell much either for these reasons. People are morans.
Many many forums aren't really any better either.
I used to own a Ford Focus, and cracked a fog light housing. Found a forum dude selling two housings for a cheap price so figured why the hell not. When I got them in, they had been drilled for fucking strobe or extra LED lights or some shit. The pics never showed it. Threw them out. Fucking asshole.
User avatar
ChrisoftheNorth
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 47112
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:10 am
Drives: 4R

Johnny_P wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2019 4:28 pm
CorvetteWaxer wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2019 3:41 pm

:lolol:

Yeah, this is actually why I have a ton of expensive stuff sitting here right now.

I have about $4k in camera gear I can't use anymore, but I don't want to deal with trying to sell it. I really need to bite the bullet and list the stuff.
Can always list it here. I like to think the people on this forum aren’t going to crang every nickel out of an honest, decent price on a used item.
Are you new here?
Desertbreh wrote: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:40 pm My guess would be that Chris took some time off because he has read the dialogue on this page 1,345 times and decided to spend some of his free time doing something besides beating a horse to death.
User avatar
CorvetteWaxer
Senior Master Sirloin
Senior Master Sirloin
Posts: 8381
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:35 pm
Drives: 1986 Hyundai Excel, 351C swap
Location: Where it happens every year

Johnny_P wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2019 4:28 pm
CorvetteWaxer wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2019 3:41 pm

:lolol:

Yeah, this is actually why I have a ton of expensive stuff sitting here right now.

I have about $4k in camera gear I can't use anymore, but I don't want to deal with trying to sell it. I really need to bite the bullet and list the stuff.
Can always list it here. I like to think the people on this forum aren’t going to crang every nickel out of an honest, decent price on a used item.
Yeah, but I'm pretty sure nobody else here owned a Nikon D850.

I've given some gear away to guys here, most recently I gave Sawce a Nikon lens.
User avatar
Johnny_P
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Posts: 40489
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:52 am
Drives: Blue short bus
Location: Philly

Detroit wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2019 4:55 pm
Johnny_P wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2019 4:28 pm

Can always list it here. I like to think the people on this forum aren’t going to crang every nickel out of an honest, decent price on a used item.
Are you new here?
I've sold one thing at asking price and buyer paid shipping on it so :iono: it was pain free.
User avatar
SAWCE
Command Chief Master Sirloin
Command Chief Master Sirloin
Posts: 21776
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:26 pm
Drives: Ebombtra
Location: The mountains

CorvetteWaxer wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2019 3:41 pm
Huckleberry wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2019 3:38 pm

That's with selling anything.

My house got put on to city water, so I listed the water softener system for sale. A guy emailed me with a few questions about the make and model, which I gave to him. He decided to buy the system, and I helped him load it up. About a month or so later, he started blowing up my phone saying his plumber told him that the system isn't sized correctly for his house and demanded a full refund because I sold him an incorrect system. When I told him I'm not a Home Depot, he started going on about how much of a dick I am for not standing behind my products.

So, I asked him to bring his receipt with his fucking used water softener from Craigslist. When he said he didn't have a receipt....

Image
:lolol:

Yeah, this is actually why I have a ton of expensive stuff sitting here right now.

I have about $4k in camera gear I can't use anymore, but I don't want to deal with trying to sell it. I really need to bite the bullet and list the stuff.
:hi: I’d definitely be interested in seeing your list of camera stuff for sale.
User avatar
SAWCE
Command Chief Master Sirloin
Command Chief Master Sirloin
Posts: 21776
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:26 pm
Drives: Ebombtra
Location: The mountains

CorvetteWaxer wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2019 5:14 pm
Johnny_P wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2019 4:28 pm

Can always list it here. I like to think the people on this forum aren’t going to crang every nickel out of an honest, decent price on a used item.
Yeah, but I'm pretty sure nobody else here owned a Nikon D850.

I've given some gear away to guys here, most recently I gave Sawce a Nikon lens.
:wub:
User avatar
CorvetteWaxer
Senior Master Sirloin
Senior Master Sirloin
Posts: 8381
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:35 pm
Drives: 1986 Hyundai Excel, 351C swap
Location: Where it happens every year

Detroit wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2019 3:44 pm
CorvetteWaxer wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2019 3:41 pm

:lolol:

Yeah, this is actually why I have a ton of expensive stuff sitting here right now.

I have about $4k in camera gear I can't use anymore, but I don't want to deal with trying to sell it. I really need to bite the bullet and list the stuff.
We don't sell much either for these reasons. People are morans.
Although likely fake, I saw this on another forum this morning and I laughed a bit.

Image
User avatar
goIftdibrad
Chief Master Soft Brain
Chief Master Soft Brain
Posts: 16746
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:01 am
Drives: straight past the apex

CorvetteWaxer wrote: Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:13 am
Detroit wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2019 3:44 pm
We don't sell much either for these reasons. People are morans.
Although likely fake, I saw this on another forum this morning and I laughed a bit.

Image
Image
brain go brrrrrr
User avatar
max225
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Posts: 42434
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:49 am
Drives: Taco+ Bavarian lemon

https://www.yahoo.com/news/suit-seeking ... 29051.html


Finally ! These fake truck mpg figures need to be corrected ... major bs
User avatar
CaleDeRoo
Senior Master Sirloin
Senior Master Sirloin
Posts: 8012
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2018 8:46 pm
Drives: C5
Location: CLT NC

max225 wrote: Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:37 am https://www.yahoo.com/news/suit-seeking ... 29051.html


Finally ! These fake truck mpg figures need to be corrected ... major bs
Wow I hope the owners get compensated for the possible extra $20 a month they spend because they drive 20mph over the speed the EPA figures are reported for.
User avatar
max225
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Posts: 42434
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:49 am
Drives: Taco+ Bavarian lemon

CaleDeRoo wrote: Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:42 am
max225 wrote: Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:37 am https://www.yahoo.com/news/suit-seeking ... 29051.html


Finally ! These fake truck mpg figures need to be corrected ... major bs
Wow I hope the owners get compensated for the possible extra $20 a month they spend because they drive 20mph over the speed the EPA figures are reported for.
The ranger doesn’t get the advertised 20/26 rating period. That engine combo was in the shitstang i had which wasn’t a house and I averaged 20/21. I mean it’s atrociously wrong
User avatar
D Griff
Trollistrator
Trollistrator
Posts: 28793
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 8:49 am
Drives: Bicycles/Two Feet

The Ranger is just a turd in general. Huge product fail in every way... I mean, launching at the ssame time as the Gladiator? Just terrible. They look straight out of Mexico.
User avatar
ChrisoftheNorth
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 47112
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:10 am
Drives: 4R

max225 wrote: Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:49 am
CaleDeRoo wrote: Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:42 am

Wow I hope the owners get compensated for the possible extra $20 a month they spend because they drive 20mph over the speed the EPA figures are reported for.
The ranger doesn’t get the advertised 20/26 rating period. That engine combo was in the shitstang i had which wasn’t a house and I averaged 20/21. I mean it’s atrociously wrong
I think this is more the .gov's fault than Ford's. They're rated using the EPA test cycle, which keeps engines out of boost with tunes/engines designed to maximize efficiency during the test cycle. Ford's not doing anything different than any other OEM, other than making EVERY engine boosted, which makes fuel economy vary drastically. Basically, they've proved how :bs: the EPA test cycle is and has minimal reflection of real world results.
Desertbreh wrote: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:40 pm My guess would be that Chris took some time off because he has read the dialogue on this page 1,345 times and decided to spend some of his free time doing something besides beating a horse to death.
User avatar
CorvetteWaxer
Senior Master Sirloin
Senior Master Sirloin
Posts: 8381
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:35 pm
Drives: 1986 Hyundai Excel, 351C swap
Location: Where it happens every year

Detroit wrote: Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:52 am
max225 wrote: Tue Jul 23, 2019 10:49 am
The ranger doesn’t get the advertised 20/26 rating period. That engine combo was in the shitstang i had which wasn’t a house and I averaged 20/21. I mean it’s atrociously wrong
I think this is more the .gov's fault than Ford's. They're rated using the EPA test cycle, which keeps engines out of boost with tunes/engines designed to maximize efficiency during the test cycle. Ford's not doing anything different than any other OEM, other than making EVERY engine boosted, which makes fuel economy vary drastically. Basically, they've proved how :bs: the EPA test cycle is and has minimal reflection of real world results.
Yeah, the EPA test needs to be rewritten from the ground up. It is completely unrealistic and nearly impossible to get those kind of numbers in the real world.
User avatar
D Griff
Trollistrator
Trollistrator
Posts: 28793
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 8:49 am
Drives: Bicycles/Two Feet

At least it gives a basis for comparison I guess, something that's rated better in EPA will still be higher MPG, if not as high as the rating indicates.
User avatar
max225
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Posts: 42434
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:49 am
Drives: Taco+ Bavarian lemon

They are knowingly playing the system. Just like saying wrangler rubicon gets 18/23 that’s :fakenews: as well I get you only get to test one model ... but if there are drastic differences in the same line up then :wtf: how does go past the collective conscience
User avatar
CaleDeRoo
Senior Master Sirloin
Senior Master Sirloin
Posts: 8012
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2018 8:46 pm
Drives: C5
Location: CLT NC

Like how the Rebel is rated the same as a non off-road equipped RAM. THE POWER TRAIN IS THE SAME IT MUST RETURN THE SAME MPG.

caps lock :derp:
User avatar
ChrisoftheNorth
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 47112
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:10 am
Drives: 4R

max225 wrote: Tue Jul 23, 2019 11:04 am They are knowingly playing the system. Just like saying wrangler rubicon gets 18/23 that’s :fakenews: as well I get you only get to test one model ... but if there are drastic differences in the same line up then :wtf: how does go past the collective conscience
Everyone is gaming the system...but the big bad corps are at fault, not the .gov.

Don't hate the player...
Desertbreh wrote: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:40 pm My guess would be that Chris took some time off because he has read the dialogue on this page 1,345 times and decided to spend some of his free time doing something besides beating a horse to death.
User avatar
max225
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Posts: 42434
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:49 am
Drives: Taco+ Bavarian lemon

Detroit wrote: Tue Jul 23, 2019 11:22 am
max225 wrote: Tue Jul 23, 2019 11:04 am They are knowingly playing the system. Just like saying wrangler rubicon gets 18/23 that’s :fakenews: as well I get you only get to test one model ... but if there are drastic differences in the same line up then :wtf: how does go past the collective conscience
Everyone is gaming the system...but the big bad corps are at fault, not the .gov.

Don't hate the player...
Playing the system doesn’t make you innocent In the final outcome. Customers eventually catch on and you get stuck with that 2 billion dollar suit. So ask
Yourself ... did it really drive those incremental sales ? Or
Did the lie just get sold as what it was.... a lie. Pointing the finger at others is just as bad as continuing to do this non sense.
Why not state the obvious and ask for a reform .... oh no... can’t do that.
User avatar
ChrisoftheNorth
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 47112
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:10 am
Drives: 4R

D Griff wrote: Tue Jul 23, 2019 11:04 am At least it gives a basis for comparison I guess, something that's rated better in EPA will still be higher MPG, if not as high as the rating indicates.
Well, kind of.

Boosted engines are the worst. They post phenomenal epa ratings because they're tuned to stay out of boost during the test cycle, but that never happens in real world.

NA engines are a bit closer, but there's still a lot of :bs: going on. I personally think that rating exact FE (as required by the .gov) should go away in favor of a range. There's too many variables that impact fuel economy to make a standardized test that applies to everyone everywhere.
Desertbreh wrote: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:40 pm My guess would be that Chris took some time off because he has read the dialogue on this page 1,345 times and decided to spend some of his free time doing something besides beating a horse to death.
User avatar
ChrisoftheNorth
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 47112
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:10 am
Drives: 4R

max225 wrote: Tue Jul 23, 2019 11:25 am
Detroit wrote: Tue Jul 23, 2019 11:22 am
Everyone is gaming the system...but the big bad corps are at fault, not the .gov.

Don't hate the player...
Playing the system doesn’t make you innocent In the final outcome. Customers eventually catch on and you get stuck with that 2 billion dollar suit. So ask
Yourself ... did it really drive those incremental sales ? Or
Did the lie just get sold as what it was.... a lie. Pointing the finger at others is just as bad as continuing to do this non sense.
Why not state the obvious and ask for a reform .... oh no... can’t do that.
We'll see what the outcome of the lawsuits is...I'd be surprised if they actually result in Ford paying anything more than just their own legal fees.

HOPEFULLY the result is exposing how :bs: the EPA test cycle is and there's some .gov reform as a result of it.
Desertbreh wrote: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:40 pm My guess would be that Chris took some time off because he has read the dialogue on this page 1,345 times and decided to spend some of his free time doing something besides beating a horse to death.
User avatar
Huckleberry
Senior Chief Patty Officer
Senior Chief Patty Officer
Posts: 2415
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2018 9:10 am
Drives: 2004 GTO
Location: Hi. I'm in Delaware.

Detroit wrote: Tue Jul 23, 2019 11:26 am
D Griff wrote: Tue Jul 23, 2019 11:04 am At least it gives a basis for comparison I guess, something that's rated better in EPA will still be higher MPG, if not as high as the rating indicates.
Well, kind of.

Boosted engines are the worst. They post phenomenal epa ratings because they're tuned to stay out of boost during the test cycle, but that never happens in real world.

NA engines are a bit closer, but there's still a lot of :bs: going on. I personally think that rating exact FE (as required by the .gov) should go away in favor of a range. There's too many variables that impact fuel economy to make a standardized test that applies to everyone everywhere.
Yes and no. There are boosted engines that provide real world results that meet or exceed the ratings. For example, my 2012 Cruze Eco was rated at 42 on the highway and I was seeing closer to 48.

Ford's entire Ecoboost line-up is notorious for not achieving the posted numbers. They'll run like a bat out of hell, but they aren't sipping gas like advertised. This has been a common complaint since the first trucks hit dealer lots in 2011.
User avatar
ChrisoftheNorth
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 47112
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:10 am
Drives: 4R

Huckleberry wrote: Tue Jul 23, 2019 2:02 pm
Detroit wrote: Tue Jul 23, 2019 11:26 am
Well, kind of.

Boosted engines are the worst. They post phenomenal epa ratings because they're tuned to stay out of boost during the test cycle, but that never happens in real world.

NA engines are a bit closer, but there's still a lot of :bs: going on. I personally think that rating exact FE (as required by the .gov) should go away in favor of a range. There's too many variables that impact fuel economy to make a standardized test that applies to everyone everywhere.
Yes and no. There are boosted engines that provide real world results that meet or exceed the ratings. For example, my 2012 Cruze Eco was rated at 42 on the highway and I was seeing closer to 48.

Ford's entire Ecoboost line-up is notorious for not achieving the posted numbers. They'll run like a bat out of hell, but they aren't sipping gas like advertised. This has been a common complaint since the first trucks hit dealer lots in 2011.
Well, a car tuned for eco will deliver...that's its purpose.

Ford was the first with a huge push into boosted engines on mainline vehicles, and to compensate for less displacement, tuned for performance IRL. But the EPA test cycle is really specific, and tuning to keep the engine out of boost for that test can be done to show a best of both worlds scenario.

It's a decision that could bite them in some way, but it's been going on for nearly a decade now.
Desertbreh wrote: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:40 pm My guess would be that Chris took some time off because he has read the dialogue on this page 1,345 times and decided to spend some of his free time doing something besides beating a horse to death.
User avatar
troyguitar
Command Chief Master Sirloin
Command Chief Master Sirloin
Posts: 20088
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:15 pm
Drives: Trek Domane
Location: Swamp

Huckleberry wrote:
Detroit wrote: Tue Jul 23, 2019 11:26 am
Well, kind of.

Boosted engines are the worst. They post phenomenal epa ratings because they're tuned to stay out of boost during the test cycle, but that never happens in real world.

NA engines are a bit closer, but there's still a lot of :bs: going on. I personally think that rating exact FE (as required by the .gov) should go away in favor of a range. There's too many variables that impact fuel economy to make a standardized test that applies to everyone everywhere.
Yes and no. There are boosted engines that provide real world results that meet or exceed the ratings. For example, my 2012 Cruze Eco was rated at 42 on the highway and I was seeing closer to 48.

Ford's entire Ecoboost line-up is notorious for not achieving the posted numbers. They'll run like a bat out of hell, but they aren't sipping gas like advertised. This has been a common complaint since the first trucks hit dealer lots in 2011.
I almost bought a Cruze Eco :manuel: in 2011. Those are good cars. Probably cheap as hell now too. I think I'm stuck with the Lincoln until it rusts away or blows up :doe:
User avatar
max225
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
Posts: 42434
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:49 am
Drives: Taco+ Bavarian lemon

Those cruises with the 1.4 were weird vehicles... 500lbs heavier than the competition with a tiny 1.4 engine that was completely gutless, but promised "superior" mpg to a civic yet never delivered it.
Locked