DFD

Detroit wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2019 3:44 pm

CorvetteWaxer wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2019 3:41 pm



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.

Johnny_P wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2019 4:28 pm

CorvetteWaxer wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2019 3:41 pm



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.

Johnny_P wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2019 4:28 pm

CorvetteWaxer wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2019 3:41 pm



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.

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?

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....

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.

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.

Detroit wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2019 3:44 pm

CorvetteWaxer wrote: ↑Mon Jul 22, 2019 3:41 pm



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.

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.

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

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.

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

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 the EPA test cycle is and has minimal reflection of real world results.

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 as well I get you only get to test one model ... but if there are drastic differences in the same line up then how does go past the collective conscience

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 as well I get you only get to test one model ... but if there are drastic differences in the same line up then 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...

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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.

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 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.