current car: bicycle
most recent car: '03 VW GTI VR6
dream car: Porsche Carrera GT

A Countach? Ugh, one of the ugliest cars of all time.

Current = 2001 Corrola

Dream = 1972 something/anything with Lamborghini doors.

@Jamie. You are thinkking of the 80s LeBaron "K" cars when Chrysler was in restructuring. Here is the GTC I had (identical in style and colors).

http://images.gtcarlot.com/gtgallery/15836956-640.jpg

Here is a view with the top down.

http://images.gtcarlot.com/gtgallery/19556215-640.jpg

"Used to be a die-hard GM owner...won't buy another GM until it's no longer government-owned..and even then I might just stick with the rising-in-popularity Hyundia."

Why didn't you get a Ford? Also, I have to agree with Tom. I need a car because I don't live in a big city. But if you lived in a big city, a nice bike is probably a good choice.

I'm thinking about hanging on to my Alero for a while (it's nearly mint, oddly enough for a former rental car), because it might be a collector item in 30-40 years. Aleros were the last cars ever made by Oldsmobile. They made a lot, but I figure that there won't be too many left in near-mint condition in 30-40 years. Mine is a fairly rare variant. Most Aleros were made with inline 4 cylinder engines, and with no factory spoiler. Mine has a factory spoiler, factory V6 170 hp, and second-tier trim.

That seems odd for a rental car. The real question is, in 30-40 years, will it still be in mint condition : )

*3.4 liter engine*

@ hopsyturvy: We don't fetishize cars, it's just that America has a very strong automotive tradition/culture. People are proud of their cars. Even though my car is only worth 4,000 dollars, I wash and hand-dry it every week, vacuum the interior every 2-4 weeks, and wax it every month.

@ abgemacht: See above. It's odd for a compact car. I can't think of any other V6 3.4L-equipped compact car. (Except for the Alero's sister, the Pontiac Grand Am)

I don't doubt you take good care of it, but unless you get another car for daily use, normal wear and tare will do damage over time.

I'll probably switch to using my Jeep in a few years.

Current: 1998 Honda Civic - my wife's old car, she got the Accord when my previous car went boom. It's "worn" (ie: it looks like crap), but mechanically sound.

Previous: 2001 Honda Accord (all I could afford at the time; got it new). Always had electrical issues with it, and then the transmission ate itself.

Before that: 1990 Geo Storm. What a debacle that car was - finally had an oil change where they didn't put the little metal arm down properly, so it fell into the cooling fan. Which seized. Which cased my radiator to overheat and blow out. Which caused my engine to choke.

Dream car: Really don't care what I drive as long as it runs. I'll probably get something small and fuel efficient when the Civic finally gives up the ghost; may find something used if I can get a good deal. Only going to get something big if we need something 'family sized', and with one kid that's just massive overkill right now

Cars open up a lot of opportunities for you, even in a city. I didn't have a car in Austin last year, this year I will, and already my life is changed for the better.

But I agree at least that there are *too many* cars. And I think there are useful ways of getting people to at least use their cars less, maybe even not have one at all.

There is the problem of really hot areas with walking: when you show up to wherever you are drenched in sweat. Say you had to go to a job interview.... not such a good idea.

So I don't know. Ideally you are right there wouldn't be cars in cities at least. But I think we are capable of inventing cars that don't impact the earth any more than, say, the costs to manufacture them. Which, though Sic may still recoil, is a huge step in the right direction esp. if you couple it with effective mass transit.

Oh and I'd like a Saab if I could get one. But I'll probably get a Kia Rio if I ever do buy a car any time soon.

The problem with effective mass transit is it's usually isn't effective unless you have a pretty big city like London or New York. Even in Philly it's less than idea, and sprawl limits it even further

@ stratagos -- Agreed. And who are we kidding? Anyone who can afford a decent car isn't going to use mass transit unless traffic is horrendous.

@TMW (yes, I used your right initials). I worked downtown for two years (you've seen my car list and my current driver) and yet I took the bus everyday. Downtown parking is $120 a month. The bus pass was only $60 and I saved another $100 a month in gas. If it is convenient, I'll use public transit. It just isn't convenient in northern KY unless you work a day job in downtown Cincinnati.

"There is the problem of really hot areas with walking: when you show up to wherever you are drenched in sweat. Say you had to go to a job interview.... not such a good idea."

Cycling and public transport are hardly much better.

I wish that there were decent, clean showers dotted around that you could use for a pound or something. It would be so nice!

@TMW - I actually *prefer* mass transit, as I can get work done on the train, and it forces me to walk a few blocks, and hence get some of the flab off my ass. Unfortunately, mass transit only works if I'm working at a location that is easily *accessible* by mass transit. I already have an hour and a half commute, making it three hours each way to save the environment is asking a bit much ;)

My dream car a 1970 Road Runner Superbird with a 440 6 pack Beep! Beep! Also a Hummer with Mattracks http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skbgWRu96Qs&feature=related

If you don't want to use mass transportation, you don't want to hurt the enviornment (as much), and it's too far to bike/walk, you can always get a subcompact car or a moped.

I don't like it when my fellow conservatives deny global warming. Even if it is a myth, pollution and wastefulness are still bad.

Wastefulness by definition, but pollution, no.

You see, you cannot separate pollution from the benefits brought by causing it. To label pollution bad, one must first establish the opportunity cost of *not* polluting.

But, pollution is still bad, even if it's a necessary consequence of something good.

I'm saying that to talk of it in those terms is to distort the issue. That is precisely what the likes of greenpeace do, namely to (over)state all of the problems that pollution can cause, without acknowledging that the benefits are actually enormous too, and allow us to an extent to pay for the cleanup as well.

Greenhouse gases can be good if you buy cheap land at what will be the new beach front property.

Or you are a farmer.

btw, the IPCC admits that sea level rise has been under 2mm per annum consistently, and in many places has been lower still (0.7mm in Tuvalu, for instance)

Aw shucks I guess I'm going to have to wait longer than I thought.

@ TheGhostmaker In post glacial rebound areas, those numbers are often negative.