I thought that, too!  I rationalize keeping a vanagon because scrapping
old vehicles also has an environmental cost -- after all, it takes
material and use of fuel to build new vehicles, too.  I have a hard time
parsing the trade-off.  Some environmental group has probably done a
pretty good analysis.  However, I've looked for it and not found it.

Dave Mc

On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:29 AM , Jake de Villiers wrote:

> Did I mistakenly surf to the 'Republican List'?
>
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Don Hanson  wrote:
>
>> It seems to me that Big Business is already working on getting the
>> Government to make it difficult/expensive to keep our cars for this
>> "longer
>> time" you mention.  And we, the vehicle owners, just go "Oh well,
>> it's the
>> law".  They (California leads the way, the other states follow)  seem
>> to be
>> trending towards changing rules now without providing for any
>> 'grandfathering' of vehicles built before the new rule...They've
>> begun
>> laying the financial burden of getting a "variance" to a recent new
>> rule
>> right on the owners of older vehicles..
>>  So even though we'd LIKE to keep an effective, paid-for, good
>> running
>> vehicle with plenty of useful potential miles left in it, it becomes
>> easier/less expensive to "junk it" and go buy a new, "better" one
>> that
>> complies with all the newest rules.  Good for the auto industry and
>> good
>> for
>> the politicians they've paid to pass the rules. ..not so good for us.
>>  Midas' Lifetime Warrantee probably would only have to last half a
>> dozen
>> years from now...then the vehicle with the Midas muffler will become
>> legally "inconvenient" to keep on the road because it won't "comply"
>> with
>> the newest rules any longer.
>>   Don Hanson
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 6:45 AM, Dave Mcneely  wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 9:39 PM , Dennis Haynes wrote:
>>>
>>> The Midas lifetime warranty is a bit of a "come on"
>>>>
>>>
>>> We all recognize that the business premises of "life time" warranty,
>>> whether Midas or anyone else, is that most folks will (1) lose the
>>> paperwork, (2) sell the vehicle (these warranties always say "to the
>>> original purchaser"), or (3) just forget.  I was told at a tire shop
>>> that offers a free replacement road hazard warranty that they are
>>> able
>>> to do that because they simply get almost no claims.  It's not that
>>> tires don't fail due to damage, but that most folks even forget the
>>> warranty exists, or the vehicle the tires are on gets sold.  Wonder
>>> how
>>> that is going to play out with the much longer times that folks are
>>> keeping cars (according to national data, not just my perception).
>>>
>>> On the other hand, my brother bought tires from that company, and
>>> has
>>> now had two replacement tires because he drives on rough roads.
>>>
>>> But, if one enforces the warranty, will Midas weasel?  Wouldn't seem
>>> to
>>> make business sense.
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Jake
>
> 1984 Vanagon GL
> 1986 Westy Weekender "Dixie"
>
> Crescent Beach, BC
>
> www.thebassspa.com
> www.crescentbeachguitar.com
> http://subyjake.googlepages.com/mydixiedarlin%27