Correlation – Nice car, nice house

[creechrr]

[quote=UCGal]Good post, joec.[/quote]

Agreed.

Also, I’d like to add that it seems like a large number of people have luxuries and necessities confused. I’m sure we all know people that fall into this category. I doubt this will ever change but, as long we the “bailout” mentality persists we are only encouraging these people to fail on our dime.

As my mother would say, ” A hard head makes a soft @ss”.

[meadandale]

Hey, I could generally give a crap what people spend their money on….

However, when those same people that are paying $1-2k for a car payment suddenly claim they can’t afford health insurance and want me to pay higher taxes so that the government can provide it for them…that’s when I have a problem.

Many of these same people run up their credit cards spending money they don’t have and then want the government to reign in the CC companies and let them out of their debt and give them a bailout. BS!!!

[meadandale]

Hey, I could generally give a crap what people spend their money on….

However, when those same people that are paying $1-2k for a car payment suddenly claim they can’t afford health insurance and want me to pay higher taxes so that the government can provide it for them…that’s when I have a problem.

Many of these same people run up their credit cards spending money they don’t have and then want the government to reign in the CC companies and let them out of their debt and give them a bailout. BS!!!

[meadandale]

Hey, I could generally give a crap what people spend their money on….

However, when those same people that are paying $1-2k for a car payment suddenly claim they can’t afford health insurance and want me to pay higher taxes so that the government can provide it for them…that’s when I have a problem.

Many of these same people run up their credit cards spending money they don’t have and then want the government to reign in the CC companies and let them out of their debt and give them a bailout. BS!!!

[meadandale]

Hey, I could generally give a crap what people spend their money on….

However, when those same people that are paying $1-2k for a car payment suddenly claim they can’t afford health insurance and want me to pay higher taxes so that the government can provide it for them…that’s when I have a problem.

Many of these same people run up their credit cards spending money they don’t have and then want the government to reign in the CC companies and let them out of their debt and give them a bailout. BS!!!

[meadandale]

Hey, I could generally give a crap what people spend their money on….

However, when those same people that are paying $1-2k for a car payment suddenly claim they can’t afford health insurance and want me to pay higher taxes so that the government can provide it for them…that’s when I have a problem.

Many of these same people run up their credit cards spending money they don’t have and then want the government to reign in the CC companies and let them out of their debt and give them a bailout. BS!!!

[ucodegen]

[quote Werewolf]
1) cost – the bulk of mustangs sold are relatively cheap (say 25k or less) and redeveloping the suspension would cost money
[/quote]

In part, I think this is actually part of the reason.. but I think it is also more one of short-sighted protecting of their margins. There will be an initial cost jump in the design and setup of the manufacturing line, but when that is amortized over the number of units sold.. it will be insignificant.

Camaros have IRS @ 22k for V6.

[quote Werewolf]
The solid rear axle holds up better to clutch drop starts.
[/quote]
Not necessarily. With a straight axle, you end up with a lot of slack in the suspension that suddenly ‘ends’ when all play in the links get taken up. Besides, if this was the real reason, why does the Ford Expedition have independent rear suspension? It is a heavy vehicle with a large engine – much more driveline stress than a Mustang. Prices are more than a Mustang (start 35k), but it is significantly larger, heavier and I am pretty certain that they don’t offer anything smaller than a 4.6L V8.

Besides; if clutch-drops were the problem.. why does the current Camaro have an independent rear suspension? (22k for 3.6L V6).

[ucodegen]

[quote Werewolf]
1) cost – the bulk of mustangs sold are relatively cheap (say 25k or less) and redeveloping the suspension would cost money
[/quote]

In part, I think this is actually part of the reason.. but I think it is also more one of short-sighted protecting of their margins. There will be an initial cost jump in the design and setup of the manufacturing line, but when that is amortized over the number of units sold.. it will be insignificant.

Camaros have IRS @ 22k for V6.

[quote Werewolf]
The solid rear axle holds up better to clutch drop starts.
[/quote]
Not necessarily. With a straight axle, you end up with a lot of slack in the suspension that suddenly ‘ends’ when all play in the links get taken up. Besides, if this was the real reason, why does the Ford Expedition have independent rear suspension? It is a heavy vehicle with a large engine – much more driveline stress than a Mustang. Prices are more than a Mustang (start 35k), but it is significantly larger, heavier and I am pretty certain that they don’t offer anything smaller than a 4.6L V8.

Besides; if clutch-drops were the problem.. why does the current Camaro have an independent rear suspension? (22k for 3.6L V6).

[ucodegen]

[quote Werewolf]
1) cost – the bulk of mustangs sold are relatively cheap (say 25k or less) and redeveloping the suspension would cost money
[/quote]

In part, I think this is actually part of the reason.. but I think it is also more one of short-sighted protecting of their margins. There will be an initial cost jump in the design and setup of the manufacturing line, but when that is amortized over the number of units sold.. it will be insignificant.

Camaros have IRS @ 22k for V6.

[quote Werewolf]
The solid rear axle holds up better to clutch drop starts.
[/quote]
Not necessarily. With a straight axle, you end up with a lot of slack in the suspension that suddenly ‘ends’ when all play in the links get taken up. Besides, if this was the real reason, why does the Ford Expedition have independent rear suspension? It is a heavy vehicle with a large engine – much more driveline stress than a Mustang. Prices are more than a Mustang (start 35k), but it is significantly larger, heavier and I am pretty certain that they don’t offer anything smaller than a 4.6L V8.

Besides; if clutch-drops were the problem.. why does the current Camaro have an independent rear suspension? (22k for 3.6L V6).

[ucodegen]

[quote Werewolf]
1) cost – the bulk of mustangs sold are relatively cheap (say 25k or less) and redeveloping the suspension would cost money
[/quote]

In part, I think this is actually part of the reason.. but I think it is also more one of short-sighted protecting of their margins. There will be an initial cost jump in the design and setup of the manufacturing line, but when that is amortized over the number of units sold.. it will be insignificant.

Camaros have IRS @ 22k for V6.

[quote Werewolf]
The solid rear axle holds up better to clutch drop starts.
[/quote]
Not necessarily. With a straight axle, you end up with a lot of slack in the suspension that suddenly ‘ends’ when all play in the links get taken up. Besides, if this was the real reason, why does the Ford Expedition have independent rear suspension? It is a heavy vehicle with a large engine – much more driveline stress than a Mustang. Prices are more than a Mustang (start 35k), but it is significantly larger, heavier and I am pretty certain that they don’t offer anything smaller than a 4.6L V8.

Besides; if clutch-drops were the problem.. why does the current Camaro have an independent rear suspension? (22k for 3.6L V6).

[ucodegen]

[quote Werewolf]
1) cost – the bulk of mustangs sold are relatively cheap (say 25k or less) and redeveloping the suspension would cost money
[/quote]

In part, I think this is actually part of the reason.. but I think it is also more one of short-sighted protecting of their margins. There will be an initial cost jump in the design and setup of the manufacturing line, but when that is amortized over the number of units sold.. it will be insignificant.

Camaros have IRS @ 22k for V6.

[quote Werewolf]
The solid rear axle holds up better to clutch drop starts.
[/quote]
Not necessarily. With a straight axle, you end up with a lot of slack in the suspension that suddenly ‘ends’ when all play in the links get taken up. Besides, if this was the real reason, why does the Ford Expedition have independent rear suspension? It is a heavy vehicle with a large engine – much more driveline stress than a Mustang. Prices are more than a Mustang (start 35k), but it is significantly larger, heavier and I am pretty certain that they don’t offer anything smaller than a 4.6L V8.

Besides; if clutch-drops were the problem.. why does the current Camaro have an independent rear suspension? (22k for 3.6L V6).

[Coronita]

[quote=meadandale]Hey, I could generally give a crap what people spend their money on….

However, when those same people that are paying $1-2k for a car payment suddenly claim they can’t afford health insurance and want me to pay higher taxes so that the government can provide it for them…that’s when I have a problem.

Many of these same people run up their credit cards spending money they don’t have and then want the government to reign in the CC companies and let them out of their debt and give them a bailout. BS!!![/quote]

Exactly….IF folks want to have $0 savings. That’s fine by me. But then don’t come back and expect me to pay more taxes because you were irresponsible.

[Coronita]

[quote=meadandale]Hey, I could generally give a crap what people spend their money on….

However, when those same people that are paying $1-2k for a car payment suddenly claim they can’t afford health insurance and want me to pay higher taxes so that the government can provide it for them…that’s when I have a problem.

Many of these same people run up their credit cards spending money they don’t have and then want the government to reign in the CC companies and let them out of their debt and give them a bailout. BS!!![/quote]

Exactly….IF folks want to have $0 savings. That’s fine by me. But then don’t come back and expect me to pay more taxes because you were irresponsible.

[Coronita]

[quote=meadandale]Hey, I could generally give a crap what people spend their money on….

However, when those same people that are paying $1-2k for a car payment suddenly claim they can’t afford health insurance and want me to pay higher taxes so that the government can provide it for them…that’s when I have a problem.

Many of these same people run up their credit cards spending money they don’t have and then want the government to reign in the CC companies and let them out of their debt and give them a bailout. BS!!![/quote]

Exactly….IF folks want to have $0 savings. That’s fine by me. But then don’t come back and expect me to pay more taxes because you were irresponsible.

[Coronita]

[quote=meadandale]Hey, I could generally give a crap what people spend their money on….

However, when those same people that are paying $1-2k for a car payment suddenly claim they can’t afford health insurance and want me to pay higher taxes so that the government can provide it for them…that’s when I have a problem.

Many of these same people run up their credit cards spending money they don’t have and then want the government to reign in the CC companies and let them out of their debt and give them a bailout. BS!!![/quote]

Exactly….IF folks want to have $0 savings. That’s fine by me. But then don’t come back and expect me to pay more taxes because you were irresponsible.

[Author]

Posts