I am totally and irrationally attached to my old car. We just got a "new" one - a 2008 hyundai santa fe, but I am already thinking about what to get next when we sell this one. We got a killer deal on a low mileage used one and could probably even make money if we sold it today (and would make money if we totaled it). I love having a bigger car with a toddler and I love AWD in bad weather but I do not really love the crappy gas mileage so hoping in a couple of years our options are better for a CUV with better fuel economy (some of the models coming out this year look good so we'll see how good they really are and then look for a good deal in a couple of years). But we just put a lot of money (where a "lot" is relative to the value of the car) our 2001 Honda Accord. NOTHING special about it at all but I just love that car. It needed a new CV joint, 4 new tires, an expensive 100k mile service and new brakes. Somewhat recently it had the timing belt done and a new clutch. It runs like new now and even though it's nothing luxurious or sporty and never was, if I am going somewhere by myself and the weather is OK I will always take the old car. To me it's like that perfectly faded, broken in pair of jeans that are just starting to get good after 10 years. yeah there are a couple of frayed edges but oooh so comfortable. DH wanted to sell it when we got the "new" car and go back down to one car again (we have shared a car for the last 10 years or so that he has been working from home) but it's really much harder to do that with a child... and I just could not bear to give up the old car.

I only mentioned the "nuclear bomb" as a wild, obvious example of something the government doesn't want in the hands of private citizens, followed by several more down-to-earth examples that were more relevant. (Actually, I'm not even sure whether it's illegal to possess or use a nuclear weapon, although I assume it is). I wouldn't support any restrictions on SUV ownership; indeed if such a thing existed it would be difficult to define exactly what constitutes an SUV as opposed to a tall station wagon or a van. But I do support mandates that require reasonable fuel economy, adequate safety for both its occupants (meaning crashworthiness and vehicle stability) and other motorists (limited weight, standard bumper height etc.). The problem with 4WD off-road vehicles is that they are inherently poorly suited for routine on-road driving. In order to provide the needed ground clearance and wheel travel for off-road use, an SUV must have its body raised well into the air, creating a high center of gravity, and in turn a high susceptibility to rollovers. The most capable off-road vehicle available, the Hummer, counteracts this tendency by being very wide, but its width makes it an impractical vehicle for normal roads (and parking spaces). Another approach is to use a hydraulic suspension that can lower the vehicle by several inches at highway speeds, and raise it for off-road or inclement weather use. That is what the Range Rover uses, but it adds about $2000 to the cost and thus isn't widely available. But another serious problem has no easy workarounds. In order to climb or descend steep grades, vehicles like the Jeep or Land Rover must have high bumpers to prevent them from scraping the ground when you begin the ascent or reach the bottom of a steep grade. These high bumpers don't line up with normal car or van bumpers, causing considerable damage to any car they hit. And since heavy SUVs have lots of momentum, that damage is compounded. It doesn't help that SUV brakes and cornering ability are generally subpar compared to cars, again because of the combined effects of weight, high center of gravity, and tires optimised for digging into muck. All of which are good reasons to avoid this type of vehicle unless you really need the off-road capability. No, I don't want the government telling me I don't drive on dirt trails enough to warrant buying an SUV, but I'm also responsible enough to buy a vehicle better suited to my needs if I only drive on public roads. And that goes double if I use my car to transport children. Most buyers of SUVs never take them off-road. Asked why they bought them, they cite roominess, 3 rows of seats, luggage space, bad-weather traction, and the good view of the road ahead from the high seating position. All of these things are available from a 4WD station wagon (except the high seating position) without the negatives associated with off-road trucks. Or you can get a mini van, which is considerably roomier than a like-sized SUV and offers the same high seating position, but with better gas mileage and stability. Some even offer 4WD. Responding to the marketplace, many auto manufacturers are introducing vehicles that look like SUVs but are actually built on car platforms with lighter overall weight and lower center of gravity, rather than the old-school SUVs that are essentially modified pickup trucks. In addition to their safety and environmental advantages, these quasi-SUVs offer a smoother, quieter ride and a more car-like driving experience. As for those reported 100mpg cars, they don't exist, nor is there any conspiracy amongst the auto or oil industries to suppress them if they did. There have been numerous people over the last few decades who've claimed the technology exists to build a 100 mpg car. Of these, exactly zero have produced a viable blueprint for such a car, much less built a working prototype that achieved 100 mpg. The auto industry has spent billions of dollars trying to develop more fuel efficient cars, and they would jump at any technology that could produce such high mileage (especially Ford, which just reported a $5.1 billion loss for the past year and would welcome anything that could boost sales). The best gas mileage currently available is from the Honda and Toyota hybrid electric/gasoline engines, which are good for about 60 mpg in the Honda Insight. But nearly every aspect of that car was compromised in order to deliver high gas mileage. The car seats only 2 people, has no real trunk, lacks air conditioning, and has a maximum capacity of 385 lbs., including luggage. The Toyota (and an upcoming hybrid-powered Honda Civic) are more practical, but their mileage is about 10mpg less. The hybrid engine adds thousands of dollars to the car's price, yet Honda and Toyota lose money on every car they sell. So why do they make them? Because selling a few thousand 50mpg cars allows them to sell additional big, gas-guzzling Lexuses (which have high profit margins) whilst keeping their corporate-average fuel economy above the Government standards. Surely they would build 100mpg cars if they knew how, even if they lost money on every one. Or they would apply that technology to their SUVs so they would get better mileage and thus not face sales restrictions. I don't know how the oil industry would react to ultra-efficient cars, but there's little they could do to stop manufacturers from building them.

1929 Model A Ford, 4 dr with window shade, roll-up, style curtains on rear side windows. Color black - was there any other color? 1949 Plymouth, 6cy, 2dr, 3-sp manaul, column shifter, Blue, the last of the fast back designs. (Horrible rear visibility) 1954 Dodge, 4dr, w/ Red Ram V-8, 3-sp stick. This one was not a large displacement engine, rated only at 140 hp, but was the smoothest running engine that I have ever owned. Color: White top over Blue bottom. 1960 Plymouth Valiant, slant six, 100 hp, automatic, 4 dr, blue. Low torque engine - couldn't get out of the way of itself. Good fuel mileage. No power steering - didn't need it - very good handling. The next year, a longer stroke engine was offered with much more torque. This one was very driveable and became the engine of choice. 1964 Dodge Dart, 273 cid V8, 4 dr, automatic, white w/red interior. This one was a good compromise between, power and fuel economy and room. I wish that I had another similar car today. This one was well liked. The engine was a thin wall cast version of the 318, but with a smaller bore. The bore centers were the same as the 318, thus it was manufactured on the same engine line as the 318. Many engine parts were interchangeable with the 318. 1969 Dodge Coronet, 4 dr, 318 cid V8, blue Just an ordinary sedan to hold my growing family. EPA fix-ups began to appear and degraded performance a bit without any fuel mileage increase - lower compression and a low ratio rear end ( 2.71 to 1) Though I put 115,000 miles on it before moving on. 1974 Dodge Sedan, 400 cid V-8. EPA had struck this engine hard. It was based on the admired 383 V8, an engine upgrade option for station wagons and police cars. To meet EPA requirements, Chrysler lowered the compression ratio and installed a very mild cam. The resulting power was so embarrasing that chrysler bumped the displacement up to 400 cu in to gain back a bit of performance. (An earlier 383 in good tune would run cicles around it.) 1974 Oldsmobile Cutlass, 4 dr, V8. Bought used for a 2nd car and commuter. Had to put in a valve job after 1 yr ownership. As it neared the end of its life, sold it to a junk yard. I didn't want to see this on the road again as it had become dangerous. The body metal holding the rear body mounts had corroded away. The best part of this car: The radio. 1975 Buick Apollo, 270 cid V-8 (Oldsmoblie engine), 4 dr, Yellow. The smallest V8 made by GM. Not a good car. Was purchased as 2nd car for a winter-beater and comuter. Let my kids learn to drive with this one - they were not going to win any stop light drags with it. In fact, they were lucky go to get across a big intersection before the light changed to red. I bought this car during a period of runaway inflation. It was 3 yrs old and loosing value at a lesser rate than my hard earned cash in the savings account. That became part of my rationale for picking it up for a 2nd car. 1976 Buick Estate Wagon, 4 dr, 455 cid V8, Clam shell rear gate and window; 19 ft long! This one was the family land barge and vacation machine. The family had now grown to 5 and this station wagon held us all in comfort on long trips. This was the first year that GM put catalytic converter on all of the Buick line. (GM had put catalytic converters on a few select models the year before as a field trial.) With the converter, Buick put in a better cam and iginition advance curve and got better power plus 2 more miles per gallon. I garaged this one every winter taking it off the streets just before road salting began and it stayed off until next spring after a rain had washed away the salt. I kept this one 13 yrs and it was in very good condition the day I traded it in. It was showing signs of a catalytic converter plugging up, otherwise, the engine was in fine shape. 1980 Chevrolet Citation, V6, 4dr + hatch back, green, my first front wheel driver. A fair car. Had a very good useable interior layout and driver visibility - wished there was a car with those features today. Had too much braking on rear wheels compared to the front - gave the car a tendency to swap ends while braking on slippery surfaces. Over- sped the engine one time when the tranny failed to catch 2nd gear on a downshift - it went all the way to 1st gear at 45 mph. Loosened a rod bearing. GM got the steering geometry right on this one - no torque steer. The Chrysler K-car was plagued with torque ateer. 1983 Chevrolet Citation, V8, 4dr, white Engine was de-tuned a bit, but otherwise the same as the 1980. 1981 Pontiac Phoenix (twin of the Citation), 4 cy "Iron Duke", 4 dr., Brown. A dog. Served as a commuter. When climbibng a grade, engine vibration could be strongly felt in the steering wheel - each firing of the cyliners were perceptable. No. 2 son, a new driver, burned the engine up while driving home from a days outing with the guys. He had not been watching the oil level - it ran out. 1989 Dodge Dynasty, 4 dr, V6, Light blue 1st yr for Chrysler's new computer controlled transmission. It had issues - shifting algorithm should have been revised. It was programmed to give good results on the EPA fuel mileage test, but otherwise, was bad for commuting traffic. Car was too softly spring - people riding in back tended to get car sick. 1992 Dodge Dynasty, V6, 4dr, White. A much better car. Better handling. Held front alignment very well. Shifting algorithn improved, but still had glitches. I put 90,000 miles on it and sold it (cheaply) to my daughter. She moved out of state and later sold the car to her friend. By then, the rocker panels were holed out. I saw the car two years ago and it was still running with upwards of 140,000 miles on it. 1992 Jeep Cherokee, inline 4.0 L 6CY, 4dr, with part and full time 4-wheel drive, Red. Really liked this one. Gas mileage wasn't great, but it took us all over the lower 48 states and into places where an ordunary car could not go. We photograhed many interesting scenics using this vehicle. This one was my prime winter time driver - great in snow - can't beat it. 1998 Dodge Stratus, 4 cy, dual overhead cams, 4 dr, red. An OK car - not great, but OK. Its gets very good gas mileage on trips and that is what I bought it for. Runs great. I beem garaging this one very winter and there are no rust spots. 1998 Jeep Cherokee, in-line 6 cy, 4 dr, again with part and full time 4 wheel drive, Deep Amethyst Purple (appears black under many lighting conditions). Replaces the red Jeep which was getting body rust, but ran well - had 190,000 miles on it.

Until recently, we drove older vehicles. I had a 95 Chrysler Cirrus (bought in 95) and a 02 Mitsubishi Eclipse Spyder (bought in 05). The Chrysler had 107,000 miles on it when sold to 16 year old as her first car. I traded the Spyder in for a 14 Chrysler 300C. Hubby drove his 99 van until the frame rusted out and we replaced with a 12 Ram 1500 PU. My family has always driven older cars. My brother has my dad's 96 Chrysler Sebring convertible and recently ventured into the 2000s by picking up a 03 Jeep Liberty. He drives multiple cars every day (utility purposes), switching between a work van, his personal 00 Dodge van and a 73 Plymouth Gran Fury. He's got a bout 7 cars (never less; you'd understand if you knew our family). My all time favorite car to drive is now in a museum. A 27 Dodge Cabriolet that was in the family for 30+ years. I loved driving it. The heavy duty truck transmission requiring double clutching, the "grabber" brakes that required an oh so gentle touch on the pedal. I miss that car.....Here's a picture of the car being loaded up to take to the museum. The guy's head that you see is the guy who's in charge of the car. We've kept in touch and they haven't modified the car at all. Still looks like this and is driven very frequently. I've been fortunate to have driven cars from every decade starting with the 1920s and I've enjoyed the heck out of each one.