Dawn, I too often wonder how our ancestors made it. My kids were the first of our family's generation to have been born in Oklahoma, but my husband's parents were born here and raised their families here. His mother told me stories about how hard life was. She said when a grass fire got started, all you could really do was just stand there and watch it consume everything in its path. With only a well to draw water from, all they could do was dig trenches and try to beat it down with gunny sacks. They lost everything they had many times, to fire and flood. Miraculously, they were never hit by a tornado. Can you imagine how discouraging it must've been to live like that? Some of the pictures I have of my husband's grandparents show the entire family all lined up in front of a little wood shanty. DH's grandfather died of gangrene after having a leg accidentally cut off in a farming accident, leaving his grandmother with nine children. The eldest was DH's dad, who was about 18, and the youngest was less than a year old. I remember not having air-conditioning -- or even fans! When I was little, we lived in a two storey old farmhouse not far from Humboldt, KS. We had a one-room schoolhouse about a mile away, but my siblings that went to high school rode the bus to Elsmore. When my mother would describe where we lived, she would say it was "out by Leanna". I never knew where Leanna was. Anyway, in the summer the house would get incredibly hot. We spent a lot of time on the front porch then, but there was still cooking and canning to do, and that had to be done inside. At night, we would spread "pallets" on the ground and sleep under the stars. It was OK, but I always hated it because the bugs would crawl on my ears and I was deathly afraid they were going to go inside my ears and get inside my brain! Funny what a 6-year-old will think. I would panic and start to scream and my poor mom would take me inside and put me to bed there. I remember every now and then turning the pillow over because it would be cooler on the under side. We had rain all night last night, and early, early in the morning yesterday. Last night it just poured. It thundered so hard it shook the house. It's almost 9:00 and it's still raining off and on. It's getting to the point where I don't even look to see how many inches we have, and I almost don't even want to talk about it anymore. I sure wish we could send you some of this. HWY 123 is closed now. It always floods, as the ditches aren't very deep and it's very close to the Caney River. If it keeps on like this, little Coon Creek will jump its banks and then HWY 75 will be closed, too, which will cut us off from Bartlesville. That doesn't happen very often, or for very long, though. There are a couple of other ways to get to Bartlesville from here using country roads, but they usually close off before HWY 75 does. According to Mesonet, we have 60% chance of rain for the remainder of the day and 50% chance tomorrow. I guess I won't be digging in the garden much today.

To nin7xbam: I wasn't expecting 50, but I expected to be better than 40, comfortably. As I said already, my 1990 did get better than 40MPG, even when I drove at 80MPH...and it was an automatic. I have also previously owned a 1986 CRX HF and you are right; those are the fuel economy champs in the Honda lineup. If I drove it a steady 40-45 mph on the road, I could squeeze just barely better than 65 mpg out of it. On my usual somewhat daring mountain trips to/from work (I lived in the Colorado high country at that time), I saw regularly about 55-58MPG. But I also owned, for a time, a 1980 Civic CVCC 1.3L, a two-door hatchback. The penalty with that car was that it was very slow, but it rewarded with fuel economy never worse than about 45, and a few times, better than 50. So, some of my research is actual measurements from Civics I have owned in the past. As far as comparing weight, etc, between cars, here's how it compares between the new 1997 and the old 1990: 1990 engine: 1.5L, 92HP, throttle-body injection 1997 engine: 1.6L, 106HP, multi-point fuel injection 1990 weight: 2480 pounds 1997 weight: 2438 pounds 1990 EPA estimate: 31/34 MPG (actually got 38/44) 1997 EPA estimate: 29/35 MPG (actually getting 33/38) So we see that the 1997 actually weighs LESS than the 1990, but not by much. I do think the exterior of the car has grown, so it's probably having to push a lot more wind out of the way. I was expecting to do better than the 1990 since my '97 had a manual trans. Also, the EPA estimate for the 1997 is slightly higher than for the 1990 on the highway, but I'm doing worse. As far as maintenance, yes, I had it to a mechanic. Shortly after the purchase, it was time for the routine timing belt/water pump replacement (gadzooks that is one EXPENSIVE routine maintenance!!!) and as long as he had it, I asked him to check over all other items that could impact economy or performance. He replaced the air filter, and tested the O2 sensor and pressure under load of the exhaust. It only has 115,000 miles on it, and I've certainly never had Honda problems that young. My 1990 had 125k when I bought it and 240k when I sold it; my 1980 1.3L and 1986 CRX were similarly "vintaged" when I owned them. Now that I think about it, it's probably been 30 years since I have owned a car with less than 100k on the clock. It's just not a spooky amount of miles with today's improved-reliability cars. I do not like "extra toys", fortunately the LX really doesn't have that many. The only annoying toys are the power windows and door locks. The windows are making crunchy noises as they go up and down; the dealer confirms that they do have to replace those motors on occasion. Thankfully, it is devoid of built-in cell phones, remote CD players, power/heated seats, has simple plain steel wheels and is overall a nicely dumbed-down car. When I look at the things that I've had to repair/replace in my cars as they approach 300,000 miles, a tremendous amount of it is "the toys". Engines/trans these days just don't wear out any more. In terms of power, my '97 seems to be about equal to a 1990 with 5 speed. In fact the 1990 that I tried recently is better at high speeds, this possibly due to the smaller wind resistance. I think the '97, due to the MPFI gets a bit more low-end torque, so it feels faster off the line, but for safety, you want the power at high speeds for safe passing. Low-end torque is good for impressing the gang as you peel out of the Dairy Queen, something that has not crossed my mind since I had my 1969 Z-28 in the 70s. I bought a Civic because I wanted a very simple car and very high gas mileage. The '97 is no barn-burner when it comes to acceleration, but there's just a little to spare (at least at sea level - at altitude, it's probably a real dog) and I would happily give it up in exchange for 10 more MPG. I think this is just a reflection of the American desire for more, more, bigger, bigger, more complicated. If a manufacturer actually made their newer models get BETTER fuel economy, the buying public would hate them because they were slower.

cynic: Someone else mentioned the position of the heating elements in an electric water heater in explaining why the lower water temp at the bottom, where the cold water inlet is, can encourage bacteria growth. Perhaps electric tank design will change to a bottom-heating element as in gas heaters to address the bacteria growth issue? I can't help but wonder if there's more contaminants in our water today that is making this a problem now, or if it always existed but we simply didn't know about it? It seems like if this involved an automobile manufacturer, there would be a recall. There was a period when electricity rates were much lower and in low-demand situations (like mine), an electric heater cost less to operate than a gas model. This is because electricity is 100% efficient when used for heating purposes. Standby heat losses with an electric water heater are also much less than a gas model because it can be totally encapsulated with insulation where a gas heater requires exposure of the bottom surface for the flame to transfer heat to the water. A gas water heater loses some heat to room air from the flame and the exhaust as it is piped outdoors. This is "free" heat in the winter, but it increases the air conditioning load in the summer. The difference in cost per energy unit of gas vs electricity has widened considerably over the last thirty years. In fact, natural gas prices in my area have recently declined, while electricity rates have continued to soar. The electric water heater is the original one installed by the builder thirty years ago and it is still functioning problem-free. I know of several homeowners who have conventional gas water heaters that required replacement three times during this period. Tankless on-demand water heaters sound good in theory, but they don't achieve the energy savings originally claimed by manufacturers. In fact, those claims had to be modified in point-of-sale displays. Reliability issues and high repair costs merely add to their high initial purchase price. I closely monitor my energy consumption and utility bills (as you might have guessed). I have all my utility bills filed from when I purchased the house in 1986. A new rotary compressor refrigerator and an LED TV take credit for some of the reduction in hydro use. While electricity consumption has decreased, but the bills have not. If it weren't for all the extra fees, charges and taxes, the monthly bill would be closer to the $20/month I paid in 1986 and not the $50/month bill I receive today. On the brighter side, my phone bill dropped $10/month to $15 when I switched from a dial-up landline to a pre-pay voice only monthly cell phone. I have a roof antenna that receives 42 off-air TV signals, but what I save not paying for cable I pay for Internet (which didn't exist thirty years ago.) Water/sewer used to be flat-rate in the good ol'days with no restriction on consumption. Property taxes however, have increased far more than any utility where I am located. We used to be a small, efficiently-run town that amalgamated with a much larger city. My property taxes have increased from $2,000/year in 1986 to $10,000 this year (which doesn't include a huge increase in water rates). Policing, fire, social services, schools, garbage collection and public transit are responsible for most of the increase. There's also been some extremely wasteful spending/mismanagement reported by the local newspaper. Bigger is definitely not better, or more efficient, in this case!

"The lemon law requires that the car be out of commmission (at the service provider) for 30 straight days-" Are you certain that this is what the Lemon Law in your state says? (I don't know what state you're in, otherwise I would have looked it up.) In California, the Lemon Law is that you have to give the dealer a "reasonable number of attempts to correct the problem," and it goes on to define "reasonable number" as FOUR. The number of days in the shop doesn't factor in -- it's completely dependent on the number of times the dealer attempts to fix it; other than I think (if I recall correctly) that even if you have had the car serviced fewer than four times but the number of days in the shop equals or exceeds a specific number (could be 30), then you can proceed. So, you could have it in only once and qualify if the dealer had it for a month; and you qualify if you have it in four different times, even if they only have the car a few minutes each time. I pursued a remedy under the California Lemon Law because the air conditioner on my new car kept leaking the coolant so that it only put out cold air for a week or so, then it couldn't cool the air any longer. I'd take it in, the dealer would say it was fixed, but the same thing would happen. So, after four times in the shop, I filed a claim. In California, you have to file for arbitration. The arbitration (at least in CA) is binding on the dealer, but not on the consumer. If the finding is in the consumer's favor, the dealer can be ordered to buy back the vehicle. So, we ended up having a meeting with an arbitrator and the Service Manager (who was there as the dealer's representative) made some statement about how there'd been a Service Bulletin about the air conditioning problem and it had been determined that the O rings were defective, and if I would bring my car back in, they'd be happy to replace the O ring for me. I just sat there and smiled sweetly at the guy and said, "during this entire process, waiting to get to the point of having this hearing, I've had my car in your shop at least three times for oil changes and other routine maintenance. I've seen you there each time. You acknowleged my presence each time. But never once did you or any of your staff say anything to me about this alleged Service Bulletin; never once did your staff take the initiative and replace the O ring; and never once did you call me or write to me or in any way notify me about the alleged Service Bulletin. I gave you the required four attempts to fix my air conditioner, and now you've just sat here and said that you have had a fix but that you never offered it to me. Why on Earth would I give you another chance now, when, under the law, I don't have to?" The arbitration was decided in my favor, and the dealer had to buy back my car. There's a formula that they use to determine what amount gets deducted from the full amount -- it has to do with how many miles you put on the vehicle before the first time you reported the problem. I think I'd put somewhere around 400 miles on the car before I took it back because the air conditioner wasn't putting out cold air. They even have to reimburse you for the registration fees you've paid. By the time the dealer handed me a check and I handed over the keys, I'd had the car for about 18 months and I'd put about 25,000 miles on it. And it cost me something like $186 -- that's the amount that was deducted from what I'd paid. I won under the Lemon Law for a problem that wasn't even a safety issue. So you shouldn't give up. Find out EXACTLY what the Lemon Law in your state says.