Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I like ATVs is used for serious things. I hate the fact that 95% of a**holes who own these vehicles use them to rape the trails and parks and empty fields in some kind of an attempt to relieve their frustrations. These things are NOT toys but most of them are sold as such.
Yeah, I don't really get that either. I've never seen the draw of just hopping on one and driving it around "for the experience." A bit boring, in my estimation. Not really accomplishing anything even in a leisure sense (to me anyway). Noisy. Annoying. I'd be more prone to ride horses "for fun"... although horses tend to not like me much for some reason. I've never met a horse that didn't throw me at some point in our "relationship." But, yes, the good ATVs are actually made as nice mini work trucks or even tractors. Great idea--especially on a small farm setting or "homestead."
... Economy standards mean that you need electronics and computers to figure air/fuel mixtures, oxygen levels, rpms and other stuff.
To operate your electronic ignition, your fuel system, your anti-lock brakes, your backup tv camera, your game console and dvd player, your automatic parking feature, the heads up display for low light or low vision conditions, then add your heated seats, gps and stereo, you end up with 16 onboard computers to control your ride and traction and trying to keep you from actually driving because you aren't smart enough to actually pay attention to the road while talking on the cell, texting and working your laptop.
My Dw's commuter car [a '11 Prius] has sixteen computers in it. It can do 0 to 60, in 9.7. It has carried four large adults comfortably with a weeks worth of luggage for a 1600 mile road trip. Most of the time my Dw gets 55+/- mpg with it too. The best mileage we have seen has been 62mpg on the interstate holding at 75mph.
Yeah, I used to be a big fan of those back when you'd see them around more often. Those and the very early Ford Broncos. But I liked the Scouts more for, as you said, their simplicity. I wasn't aware of the diesel conversion; that is pretty convenient! I really wish they would make actual production cars/truck now that are that simple. I think the ATV industry is beginning to fill that gap lately. I see ATVs driving all over town (the larger ones) regularly. There's a lot to be said for simplicity.
Why not have simplicity as well as the fastest car on the road?
Many years ago I pulled out a toll booth on the Illinois Tollway. I was driving a 1965 Plymouth with a 426 wedge head. In the next lane was a 300H. The other driver and I never exchanged a glance but somehow we both knew. We stayed dead even up to a bit over 100. Then the Chrysler pulled away as if I were standing still. I had a nonstock speedometer mounted to my dash. When I was doing 130 he was still pulling away.
Chrysler made about thirty of them with a 4 speed stick. Rated horsepower was 410.
I just saw this. Remember it's all mechanical. I wonder if I could still find an additive with tetraethyl lead.
Why not have simplicity as well as the fastest car on the road?
Many years ago I pulled out a toll booth on the Illinois Tollway. I was driving a 1965 Plymouth with a 426 wedge head. In the next lane was a 300H. The other driver and I never exchanged a glance but somehow we both knew. We stayed dead even up to a bit over 100. Then the Chrysler pulled away as if I were standing still. I had a nonstock speedometer mounted to my dash. When I was doing 130 he was still pulling away.
Chrysler made about thirty of them with a 4 speed stick. Rated horsepower was 410.
I just saw this. Remember it's all mechanical. I wonder if I could still find an additive with tetraethyl lead.
Yes, either of those would grace a collection quite well. 410 HP... . The '62 is going for $49,500. Wow, who would have thought back then?
I had a rather rare "70 1/2" Camaro that would probably be worth a chunk of change now (not to mention the '57 Chevy I had for a time). If I remember, I paid $800 for the Camaro. Did the body work. Repainted it. The motor was a well-used high-performance 350. I put a hot-rodded, high-compression 396 in it. With the cam I used, it sounded horrible at "lopey" idle, like it didn't want to run... but when you pressed the gas, it went! I'd hate to pay for the gas it guzzled now (below 5 mpg). I used to actually be able to run high octane aviation fuel in it. Had a huge Holley double pumper carb and tunnel ram manifold (hole in the hood and scoop). Jacked up, 50s on the back with traction bars... ahhh...
But alas... that Camaro would not make a good sufficiency vehicle. Unless I were outrunning Mad Max in a quarter mile.
It's funny what teens and twenty-somethings used to do with their time compared to now. It used to be a big deal "rodding main" on the weekends and beefing old cars up. Rarely do I ever see a "hot rod" driven by the younger crowd, unless you want to call an annoying buzzing Honda with tinted windows and thumping stereo a hot rod.
Ah-oh... I'm not casting off the chains of consumerism talking like this!
Yeah, I don't really get that either. I've never seen the draw of just hopping on one and driving it around "for the experience." A bit boring, in my estimation. Not really accomplishing anything even in a leisure sense (to me anyway). Noisy. Annoying. I'd be more prone to ride horses "for fun"... although horses tend to not like me much for some reason. I've never met a horse that didn't throw me at some point in our "relationship." But, yes, the good ATVs are actually made as nice mini work trucks or even tractors. Great idea--especially on a small farm setting or "homestead."
ATVs and UTEs are excellent around the homestead, especially when your partner is deathly allergic to horses Sure you can do a bunch with oxen and goats, but no one talks about the rough-tough sexy cowboy rolling up in his goat drawn carriage ROFL! You really don't need a large pickup for most of the day to day chores on the homestead, but a good 4-wheeler with a trailer or sled helps tremendously (esp. if they're RE of some sort). They handle better over rough terrain and through trees, and they produce less ground pressure when it's muddy or snowy. And they are much easier to work on than a full-sized truck after you remove the body panels, and a heck of a lot easier to extricate if you get one stuck somewhere! A strong guy, or two smaller females, can flip one back upright if you tip it or wipe out (yes, been there).
Part of the reason they don't make simple vehicles anymore are the regulations requiring air pollution controls, fuel standards for running unleaded gas or multi-fuel, the old vehicles in the 1960s weren't required to have seat belts or air bag or any number of other amenities now required by law.
They are not "amenities", they are life saving devices. Air bag, anti-block brakes etc.
My 2013 Hyundai gets 37 mpg on regular gas. My 1996 Ford T-bird gets 21 at best. The T-bird pollutes more and it is a piece of s*it in terms of quality, I have easily spent many more dollars on it that it cost when I bought it. My 2006 heavy duty diesel truck gets about 18 mpg highway, 12 while towing a trailer with two horses. I looked at a 1976 F-150 and the first thing I realized that with a hitched trailed I would probably get about 5 mpg
Today's manufacturers offer 5 years/50,000 miles bumper-to-bumper warranties. I did not live in the 1960s but I am doubtful that this was offered on a car then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTSilvertip
Economy standards mean that you need electronics and computers to figure air/fuel mixtures, oxygen levels, rpms and other stuff.
Yep, there is a price to pay for being better. The system is more complicated and requires specialized equipment to fix. For a self-sufficiency guy this is a real downside, today you need thousands of dollars in equipment to get started.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTSilvertip
To operate your electronic ignition, your fuel system, your anti-lock brakes, your backup tv camera, your game console and dvd player, your automatic parking feature, the heads up display for low light or low vision conditions, then add your heated seats, gps and stereo, you end up with 16 onboard computers to control your ride and traction and trying to keep you from actually driving because you aren't smart enough to actually pay attention to the road while talking on the cell, texting and working your laptop.
There were many bad drivers who did not pay attention way back in the 60s and 70s and many car accidents even without all the gizmos. It all depends on the person doing the driving. Most of the things you mentioned are not there to help a distracted driver. Traction control is a nice addition, GPS too, stereos were in cars as far as I can remember, heated seats sure help in cold climates (and I cannot see how they can be distracting unless you start feeling warm and cozy and fall asleep!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTSilvertip
The more conveniences added, and the more laws requiring whatever mean more complex vehicles.
Most laws refer to gas mileage and emissions, which, in my opinion is perfectly OK. I always get pissed off that I pay an average of extra $1000+ on a new car because it has complicated emissions equipment in it but the dump truck in front of me is spewing pure black diesel into the air at a rate that I will NEVER to in my entire life. With so many cars on the roads, we NEED these laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTSilvertip
I don't have power steering or power brakes, the air conditioning is the old 2-55 type, (2 windows down at 55 miles an hour), the windshield wipers are vacuum so you have two speeds, too slow or too fast. The heater draws air directly from the outside so sometimes the snow blowing in through the vents means it is snowing harder in the vehicle than outside.
The floorboards are steel so they can and do rust out so you can see the road going under your feet as you drive if you don't take care of it.
But all that just adds to the driving experience...
I guess one can put a positive spin on anything
It all boils down to your perception of what is of higher priority - ease of fixing or all the security, emissions and convenience equipment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTSilvertip
Plus, they pull a small trailer well, the 4 wheel drive means I can get off the pavement, the body is made from steel not plastic so it can take punishment, but I can just knock out the dents or weld any breaks and be back in business.
One of the better improvements in new cars are the lightweight composites and the new frames - they can take direct collisions and side collisions much better than the old cars. Your chances of survival are much better in a new vehicle if you were involved in an accident.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTSilvertip
Not a vehicle for everyone because you have to know basic mechanics and be able to drive without the car telling you where you are or that there is something in the road.
Only a few models of cars today "tell you there is something in the road" - this is a very limited technology and is more of a marketing tool than a real thing. However, driving cars is not a hugely intellectual task to begin with. Google's unmanned car has driven 100s of thousands of miles without a single collision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTSilvertip
Still, for someone looking for a dependable rig that doesn't have electronics and can do multiple tasks economically, it's hard to beat.
As a thing to drive around on my 3,000 acre ranch (if I had one)? Sure . As a backup in case SHTF? Sure! As a daily commuter? Not so much
They are not "amenities", they are life saving devices. Air bag, anti-block brakes etc.
My 2013 Hyundai gets 37 mpg on regular gas. My 1996 Ford T-bird gets 21 at best. The T-bird pollutes more and it is a piece of s*it in terms of quality, I have easily spent many more dollars on it that it cost when I bought it. My 2006 heavy duty diesel truck gets about 18 mpg highway, 12 while towing a trailer with two horses. I looked at a 1976 F-150 and the first thing I realized that with a hitched trailed I would probably get about 5 mpg
Today's manufacturers offer 5 years/50,000 miles bumper-to-bumper warranties. I did not live in the 1960s but I am doubtful that this was offered on a car then.
Yep, there is a price to pay for being better. The system is more complicated and requires specialized equipment to fix. For a self-sufficiency guy this is a real downside, today you need thousands of dollars in equipment to get started.
There were many bad drivers who did not pay attention way back in the 60s and 70s and many car accidents even without all the gizmos. It all depends on the person doing the driving. Most of the things you mentioned are not there to help a distracted driver. Traction control is a nice addition, GPS too, stereos were in cars as far as I can remember, heated seats sure help in cold climates (and I cannot see how they can be distracting unless you start feeling warm and cozy and fall asleep!)
Most laws refer to gas mileage and emissions, which, in my opinion is perfectly OK. I always get pissed off that I pay an average of extra $1000+ on a new car because it has complicated emissions equipment in it but the dump truck in front of me is spewing pure black diesel into the air at a rate that I will NEVER to in my entire life. With so many cars on the roads, we NEED these laws.
I guess one can put a positive spin on anything
It all boils down to your perception of what is of higher priority - ease of fixing or all the security, emissions and convenience equipment.
One of the better improvements in new cars are the lightweight composites and the new frames - they can take direct collisions and side collisions much better than the old cars. Your chances of survival are much better in a new vehicle if you were involved in an accident.
Only a few models of cars today "tell you there is something in the road" - this is a very limited technology and is more of a marketing tool than a real thing. However, driving cars is not a hugely intellectual task to begin with. Google's unmanned car has driven 100s of thousands of miles without a single collision.
As a thing to drive around on my 3,000 acre ranch (if I had one)? Sure . As a backup in case SHTF? Sure! As a daily commuter? Not so much
LMAO!!!
I thought this thread was about "Throwing off the bonds of consumerism" and living a simpler life with fewer amenities.
Guess that is why we have such a consumer driven market always pusing for the next best thing, people want convenience.
I have worked in alternative energies for years and there is always one thing that stands out most in my mind.
It isn't hard to generate enough electricity for basic needs, but folks don't want just enough power for the lights and refrigerator/freezer, no, they want to power their mood lighting and big screen tv. They see a dishwasher as a necessity when dishes can be washed by hand instead.
They like their microwave ovens and electric stoves.
They like having computers and games and electric fireplaces.
Plus, they want a system that needs no maintenance, that pretty much works automatically, and the most thought they want to give to an alternative electrical system is that when they flip the switch, everything comes on no matter what the draw is.
They can't and won't be able to check the system, or understand how to figure what their power needs are. They don't want to have to be knowlegeable about local laws or requirements about service hookups because some places require that you are hooked to the grid even if you are producing your own power.
They don't want to know about the inefficencies of one system vs another type, they know nothing about battery storage or inverters or backup generators, and they don't want to.
They just want everything they have while hooked to the grid, with no thought or labor involved.
Kind of reminicent of this debate on automobiles.
I don't have a "3000 acre ranch", I commute to work about 10 miles per day, and most of the year where I live, ice and snow, torrential rains and wind are the way things are, so a 4 wheel drive isn't a luxury.
I could spend $30k on a nice diesel pickup very easily, but I would rather spend $1500 on a used truck I can work on and still use daily.
My Scouts aren't pretty, don't go real fast, but they get me there, and the '67 makes an average of 26 MPG, so what the heck? I don't drive for hundreds or thousands of miles at a time, but I do go into the back boonies regularly.
Funny you should mention warrenties, because International Harvester back in the 1970's for their Scout II and Terra offered the first 100,000 mile drive train warranty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordyLordy
It all boils down to your perception of what is of higher priority - ease of fixing or all the security, emissions and convenience equipment.
I agree with this statement anyway.
Nobody here is saying that you should drive anything but what you want to and can afford to drive, I just find it amusing that for an anti-consumerism thread, the first thing that car owners want to talk about is convenience and comfort.
It all boils down to your perception of what is of higher priority - ease of fixing or all the security, emissions and convenience equipment.
Well, for me, the ease of fixing is a much higher priority. I see most of the garbage (conveniences) that has been added in the past 20 or 30 years as just another way for the car companies to make a buck. My arm isn't broken and I can roll my own window up, I don't need a GPS since I know how to use a map, I've never used the automatic door locks and remotes even though they are on my car -- I use the key just like I did 30 years ago. Etc, etc. All that crap is just added expense and complexity that I couldn't care less about. And of course, more things to go wrong and waste money on.
As for safety -- that starts with the driver. Most crashes happen because someone wasn't paying attention, someone was driving too fast for the conditions, someone did something stupid, someone didn't know the law or right-of-way, someone was on the phone, someone was drunk... it almost always starts with "someone" not something.
You can put all the "safety" features you want on cars and driver's will just be more secure with their poor driving habits. They will go that much faster, drive that much wilder, and pay that much less attention to their driving, because they think the car will make up for their stupidity. But it won't. Incidents on the road almost always start with a lack of common sense on the part of the driver.
And besides, since we are trying to cast off the chains of consumerism here, it's a given that all that crap thrown on cars these days adds more chains to the consumerism because otherwise a car would be about the cost of ATV/utility vehicle. In fact, in some countries, they are.
I thought this thread was about "Throwing off the bonds of consumerism" and living a simpler life with fewer amenities.
Guess that is why we have such a consumer driven market always pusing for the next best thing, people want convenience.
I was replying to you why certain things are on cars today. ABS, air bags, catalytic converters, seat belts, traction control, improved frames, light and strong materials etc. - are all safety devices and/or fuel efficiency and clean air improvements. They are not there for entertainment. If you go by the "consumer driven" mantra as a negative thing, you may as well go back to the time where cholera killed people and poop ran down the streets of towns.
Shaking the chains of consumerism has to do with making good choices and understanding the trade offs, not going only one direction into oblivion
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTSilvertip
I have worked in alternative energies for years and there is always one thing that stands out most in my mind.
It isn't hard to generate enough electricity for basic needs, but folks don't want just enough power for the lights and refrigerator/freezer, no, they want to power their mood lighting and big screen tv. They see a dishwasher as a necessity when dishes can be washed by hand instead.
Most people spend more water on doing dishes than what an efficient dishwasher would do. It is a combination of water use AND the fact that people will turn on the faucet for three plates instead of waiting for the pile to fill the dishwasher and only do one run. So, there is a trade off there too. "Mood lighting"? A lot of the new light bulbs last longer AND save energy. If you are advocating candles - that's a different story...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTSilvertip
They like their microwave ovens and electric stoves.
They like having computers and games and electric fireplaces.
A microwave can be more efficient to cook in than a stove sometimes. An alternative to electric stove is --- wood stove? That requires wood - a non renewable resource. A great alternative to both is a solar oven. However, it would be a full time job for you to feed a family of four on a solar oven
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTSilvertip
Plus, they want a system that needs no maintenance, that pretty much works automatically, and the most thought they want to give to an alternative electrical system is that when they flip the switch, everything comes on no matter what the draw is.
With a sufficient number of solar panels and batteries and "some" electricity usage curbing, this is achievable. Of course, if you have a 3,000 sq ft McMansion, you will easily spend $50,000 on such a solar system. Most energy loss happens due to poor house insulation AND poor energy use patterns. Heck, just your water heater is responsible for 30% of the use. I suppose you could boil your water while cooking on the wood stove but that ain't much water, again for a family of four that works and goes to school, who will do the water heating and cooking and maintaining the fires and when?
Most devices nowadays are much more efficient than they were 30 years ago or more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTSilvertip
They can't and won't be able to check the system, or understand how to figure what their power needs are. They don't want to have to be knowlegeable about local laws or requirements about service hookups because some places require that you are hooked to the grid even if you are producing your own power.
They don't want to know about the inefficencies of one system vs another type, they know nothing about battery storage or inverters or backup generators, and they don't want to.
They just want everything they have while hooked to the grid, with no thought or labor involved.
Sounds like a great business opportunity to me
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTSilvertip
I don't have a "3000 acre ranch", I commute to work about 10 miles per day, and most of the year where I live, ice and snow, torrential rains and wind are the way things are, so a 4 wheel drive isn't a luxury.
I could spend $30k on a nice diesel pickup very easily, but I would rather spend $1500 on a used truck I can work on and still use daily.
A $1500 truck can easily end up costing you a fortune over its lifetime, depending on what kind of a lemon you bought. It is not only the cost of parts, the cost of way more fuel you will spend in it and the cost on the environment (who cares, right?) - it is also your time. If I have to constantly putz around with it to keep it going and I could spend the time to make more money - well, the trade off may well be worth it.
If I had to drive 10 miles in the middle of winter, freezing my arse off and having snow blow on me through the vents, no thanks. I don't have to sway the other end and drop $80,000 on a Range Rover but I can spend 12,000 on a Kia and it will take me from A to B much more efficiently, it will be better on my wallet in the long run, it will be safer and more comfortable. Sure, in a survival situation it is worth jack s*it but in a survival situation I would rather trust my horse anyways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTSilvertip
My Scouts aren't pretty, don't go real fast, but they get me there, and the '67 makes an average of 26 MPG, so what the heck? I don't drive for hundreds or thousands of miles at a time, but I do go into the back boonies regularly.
That's pretty decent gas mileage!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTSilvertip
Funny you should mention warrenties, because International Harvester back in the 1970's for their Scout II and Terra offered the first 100,000 mile drive train warranty.
Didn't know that. All I know is the warranties I have been observing in the last 20+ years - even to this day Chevy will not offer a 5 year bumper-to-bumper warranty. It tells you something when someone like Hyunday sells so many cars AND is willing to stand by them in case they break 4+ years down the road.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTSilvertip
Nobody here is saying that you should drive anything but what you want to and can afford to drive, I just find it amusing that for an anti-consumerism thread, the first thing that car owners want to talk about is convenience and comfort.
Not everything has to be so black and white. There is such a thing as cherry picking through "progress" and understanding the trade offs. By the way, on the topic of cars, you could easily take a few courses at the local community college and learn how to fix the "new" cars. But even without that, there are quite a few considerations to take into account before you decide to buy the 1956 Chevy 'cause you can work on it.
BTW, the other day I saw a guy who was taking a turn to our post office in his '56 Chevy. It had just rained a little and his '56 was restored to a "T" with the original (drum?) brakes. He took the turn a tiny bit too fast and the brakes locked, he was sliding like a duck on ice until he came to a stop in a tree. It was funny to watch the idiot do that. Would not have happened with a new car but the darn thing he was driving is so heavy, inertia carried it a long way before stopping....
Of course, most of what I said does not hold in a SHTF situation nor does it hold much in a self-sufficiency situation - when you do things on your own, you want them to be as simple as possible.
I was replying to you why certain things are on cars today. ABS, air bags, catalytic converters, seat belts, traction control, improved frames, light and strong materials etc. - are all safety devices and/or fuel efficiency and clean air improvements. They are not there for entertainment. If you go by the "consumer driven" mantra as a negative thing, you may as well go back to the time where cholera killed people and poop ran down the streets of towns.
Shaking the chains of consumerism has to do with making good choices and understanding the trade offs, not going only one direction into oblivion
I can agree with some of that, but not when the trade off is worse than the original problem. Modern "green" solutions include huge amounts of lead, platinum, paladium, cadmium, nickel, arsenic, cyanide, not to mention most of the modern polymers are made from "gasp" oil.
Most of the new battery technology relies heavily on rare earth minerals which require large volumes of dirt to be moved for a very minimal amount of material.
Not economically efficent, not environmentally efficent either.
Most people spend more water on doing dishes than what an efficient dishwasher would do. It is a combination of water use AND the fact that people will turn on the faucet for three plates instead of waiting for the pile to fill the dishwasher and only do one run. So, there is a trade off there too. "Mood lighting"? A lot of the new light bulbs last longer AND save energy. If you are advocating candles - that's a different story...
True, however water can be filter or repurposed, you still need to generate the power to operate the dishwasher, not to mention the plastics made from oil in the parts, and don't forget the phospates in detergent and the factory in a 3rd world country that made the dishwasher in the first place.
New floresent bulbs? Mercury. LED lighting is more efficent, but more expensive at this point, besides, do you really need to light your pool or patio if it isn't being used?
A microwave can be more efficient to cook in than a stove sometimes. An alternative to electric stove is --- wood stove? That requires wood - a non renewable resource. A great alternative to both is a solar oven. However, it would be a full time job for you to feed a family of four on a solar oven
Wood is a plant and yes it is renewable, but I was talking about natural gas which can be made from methane.
With a sufficient number of solar panels and batteries and "some" electricity usage curbing, this is achievable. Of course, if you have a 3,000 sq ft McMansion, you will easily spend $50,000 on such a solar system. Most energy loss happens due to poor house insulation AND poor energy use patterns. Heck, just your water heater is responsible for 30% of the use. I suppose you could boil your water while cooking on the wood stove but that ain't much water, again for a family of four that works and goes to school, who will do the water heating and cooking and maintaining the fires and when?
Again, natural gas works perfectly fine, low emissions, can be made from decomposing natural materials.
Most devices nowadays are much more efficient than they were 30 years ago or more.
Yes, but add the energy usage and manufacturing for the computer chips and it is again a trade off.
Sounds like a great business opportunity to me
Yes it is, and I have done this for a long time. I started in the 1980's designing and building systems, that is why I am very familier with how lazy people can be.
If you want to form a company and soak all those nice folks for your services that should be free because it is "free" energy, go right ahead.
A $1500 truck can easily end up costing you a fortune over its lifetime, depending on what kind of a lemon you bought. It is not only the cost of parts, the cost of way more fuel you will spend in it and the cost on the environment (who cares, right?) - it is also your time. If I have to constantly putz around with it to keep it going and I could spend the time to make more money - well, the trade off may well be worth it.
Or I can buy a solid truck that only requires routine maintenance that I can use for years and years with minimal economic outlay.
My current truck has 300,000 miles on it. If I have to replace a part every so often, it is still much cheaper than monthy payments.
I have a V-10 that makes 15/gallon. I don't use it all the time so the fuel consumption isn't that great, and when I do use it I can pull a 30 ft gooseneck easily that is loaded with several tons of wood or hay or another car or whatever so fewer trips is more economical than multiple trips using a vehicle that doesn't have the capability to do as much work.
If I had to drive 10 miles in the middle of winter, freezing my arse off and having snow blow on me through the vents, no thanks. I don't have to sway the other end and drop $80,000 on a Range Rover but I can spend 12,000 on a Kia and it will take me from A to B much more efficiently, it will be better on my wallet in the long run, it will be safer and more comfortable. Sure, in a survival situation it is worth jack s*it but in a survival situation I would rather trust my horse anyways.
I live in Montana, frozen arses are a way of life and my work is only 5 miles away, hardly long enough to die of exposure. Besides, a good coat, boots and gloves handle the problem anyway, and my little simple 4x4 is great in survival situations.
That's pretty decent gas mileage!
Didn't know that. All I know is the warranties I have been observing in the last 20+ years - even to this day Chevy will not offer a 5 year bumper-to-bumper warranty. It tells you something when someone like Hyunday sells so many cars AND is willing to stand by them in case they break 4+ years down the road.
Not everything has to be so black and white. There is such a thing as cherry picking through "progress" and understanding the trade offs. By the way, on the topic of cars, you could easily take a few courses at the local community college and learn how to fix the "new" cars. But even without that, there are quite a few considerations to take into account before you decide to buy the 1956 Chevy 'cause you can work on it.
You take the classes, then buy the specialized electronics to read what is wrong with the vehicle, and the special tools to take care of all of the special propriatory components, (which have to be ordered in specially), every scenario has it's negatives as well.
BTW, the other day I saw a guy who was taking a turn to our post office in his '56 Chevy. It had just rained a little and his '56 was restored to a "T" with the original (drum?) brakes. He took the turn a tiny bit too fast and the brakes locked, he was sliding like a duck on ice until he came to a stop in a tree. It was funny to watch the idiot do that. Would not have happened with a new car but the darn thing he was driving is so heavy, inertia carried it a long way before stopping....
Easy fix, take your foot off of the gas. The cause of nearly every accident boils down to one part, the nut behind the wheel.
Manual drum brakes do get wet, but you can pump or feather them and they work fine. That is how it was done for many many years before anti-lock brakes automatically did the same thing.
Of course, most of what I said does not hold in a SHTF situation nor does it hold much in a self-sufficiency situation - when you do things on your own, you want them to be as simple as possible.
And I have been into self sufficency for most of my life, and with out a lot of money, you learn to do for yourself which includes learning to fix your equipment.
Would I like a new truck with air conditioning and a satalite radio and heated seats and steering wheel? Sure, I don't like the payments or the fact if it breaks down while I am back of nowhere it probably couldn't be fixed outside of a fully stocked shop.
Everybody can do as they like, I like simple and workable.
Don't let politics cloud your judgement, look at the whole picture. The current "green" energy movement is not the most efficent way, it is the way that is acceptable to the power structure. Most photvoltaic cells are less than 20% efficent unless you are using boron/germanium cells which are around 30%, but very toxic.
Wind is very expensive to set up, usually runs around 22% efficent, and both take battery banks and back up generators and all the other maintenance and work a more efficent system that would cost less would require.
If you want to reduce the amount of consumer products you buy, it isn't that hard with a little research and willingness to work toward your goal.
Last edited by MTSilvertip; 06-24-2013 at 12:42 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But, yes, the good ATVs are actually made as nice mini work trucks or even tractors. Great idea--especially on a small farm setting or "homestead."
. The '62 is going for $49,500. Wow, who would have thought back then? 
Sure you can do a bunch with oxen and goats, but no one talks about the rough-tough sexy cowboy rolling up in his goat drawn carriage ROFL! You really don't need a large pickup for most of the day to day chores on the homestead, but a good 4-wheeler with a trailer or sled helps tremendously (esp. if they're RE of some sort). They handle better over rough terrain and through trees, and they produce less ground pressure when it's muddy or snowy. And they are much easier to work on than a full-sized truck after you remove the body panels, and a heck of a lot easier to extricate if you get one stuck somewhere! A strong guy, or two smaller females, can flip one back upright if you tip it or wipe out (yes, been there).
