Ken Norton wrote:
> George wrote:
>
> >Easy to justify at that price. Out here in N. California, we're being
> >gouged to the tune of $1.60 or so. BTW, Ken, have you heard of the new
> >"environmentalist" efforts to put a surtax on "large" SUVs to discourage
> >those of us who prefer to drive them?
>
> Have you seen the price on them lately? I'd say that GM and Ford are doing
> a fine job of premium pricing these things anyway.
Well, the only one I really wish I could afford is the Lincoln Navigator. But
I'd probably hesitate to take one of those into the 'bush' anyway. Yes, they
all are expensive, but have you priced a Honda Accord lately? The Cherokee is a
great bargain these days. New price is not much more than what I paid in 1986.
> With increased insurance
> costs (because those nutty environmentalists are getting killed in their '63
> Beatles),
Yes, I love their reasoning: it's OUR fault for driving big cars that THEY'RE
getting hurt in their little ones. Seems to me that THEY should pay higher
rates because of their higher risks. Course in todays political climate, that's
FAR too logical. (BTW, are most of them driving Paul, George or Ringo? <g>)
> high fuel consumption,
Well, my Cheokee got about 24 on the hiway. Tahoe a BIT less.
> As a current owner of both a Jeep Cherokee (sport) and Suburban I have to
> agree. The Jeep is perfect for OM content, but the Suburban (or Tahoe) is
> required as soon as you talk medium or large format cameras.
I miss the Cherokee. It really handled great. Like an OM. Small, compact, easy
to use in the rough stuff. The Tahoe is more like my Mamiya 645: big, heavy,
ponderous but great for the BIG jobs.
george
>
>
>
> Ken N.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|