I dont know about anyone else, but Ive never been able to find an anti-perspirant/deodorant that actually seemed to help with the sweat. Ive dont really have BO unless I go a few days without a shower, but the anti-perspirant part has been failing me since I began using them. Until yesterday. I got some of that new Mitchum Smart Solid Clinical Performance and it is amazing. 2 days, and not just no moisture on the pits of my undershirts, but no moisture in the actual pit! I was even driving around for a couple hours today - windows down, no A/C - in over 90 degree weather, and my pits stayed as dry as Betty White's vag. This stuff is unbelievable, and unlike all the other brands "clinical performance" versions of AP/deodorant that cost $8 a stick, this stuff is less than $4 a stick. I think Im in love :-*
So yeah, I figured Id give all you other people who have sweaty pits the heads up, and also feel free to use this thread to recommend other products, appliances, porn websites, electronics, clothing, whatever.
Certain Dri is your friend
Blows anything else out of the water, er perspiration.
Stick with a good deodorant instead of antiperspirant. The latter has links to cancer including lymphoma since it uses aluminum. Plus, we are supposed to sweat and let out pores breathe.
QuoteCertain Dri is your friend
Blows anything else out of the water, er perspiration.
Isnt that ladies deodorant?
QuoteStick with a good deodorant instead of antiperspirant. The latter has links to cancer including lymphoma since it uses aluminum. Plus, we are supposed to sweat and let out pores breathe.
Eh, if I get cancer its probably not because of my anti-perspirant.
I'm an old spice solid antiperspirant guy (who even uses the gel?). A guy I went to high school with had a problem with pitting out. Mitchum didn't work for him. During class we'd see how many layers of paper towels it would take for him to pit through his shirt. It was that bad, he eventually had to get his sweat glands removed.
QuoteI'm an old spice solid antiperspirant guy (who even uses the gel?). A guy I went to high school with had a problem with pitting out. Mitchum didn't work for him. During class we'd see how many layers of paper towels it would take for him to pit through his shirt. It was that bad, he eventually had to get his sweat glands removed.
Old Spice couldnt stand up to my pits, although its been years since I tried Old Spice
QuoteI dont know about anyone else, but Ive never been able to find an anti-perspirant/deodorant that actually seemed to help with the sweat. Ive dont really have BO unless I go a few days without a shower, but the anti-perspirant part has been failing me since I began using them. Until yesterday. I got some of that new Mitchum Smart Solid Clinical Performance and it is amazing. 2 days, and not just no moisture on the pits of my undershirts, but no moisture in the actual pit! I was even driving around for a couple hours today - windows down, no A/C - in over 90 degree weather, and my pits stayed as dry as Betty White's vag. This stuff is unbelievable, and unlike all the other brands "clinical performance" versions of AP/deodorant that cost $8 a stick, this stuff is less than $4 a stick. I think Im in love :-*
So yeah, I figured Id give all you other people who have sweaty pits the heads up, and also feel free to use this thread to recommend other products, appliances, porn websites, electronics, clothing, whatever.
headdy, what you are going through is completely normal. there comes a time in every mans life when our bodies start to change and hair starts to pop up in places we never expected. Not to fear, your pubescence will end in time.
I'm with Jaime tho, I heard that shit gives you cancer. I make a habit of showering before I go out. If I'm going to sweat I'm going to sweat, if I'm going to be putting my pits in people's faces I'll use a little d-o for my b-o but not really my thing anymore. Pit cancer is a leading cause of death in America.
QuoteQuoteCertain Dri is your friend
Blows anything else out of the water, er perspiration.
Isnt that ladies deodorant?
Nope. It's a roll on you put on before you go to bed and, voila you're dry as a bone the next day.
I used to sweat profusely from the armpit region. This is a miracle drug for damn sure.
from The Onion:
Finally, a trash bag strong enough to meet the demands of your homicidal tendencies.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4120/4816801812_86b3e18849_b.jpg)
I had a really bad callus on the pad of my left foot from whatever. It got to the point where I had to walk on the sides of my foot because it was that painful. I used Dr Scholls callus remover pads and the liquid callus remover, and it didn't do the trick. I just used the Pet Egg for the first time and it worked, holy!
Nice thread. I haven't received this yet, but based on my level of excitement...and I had a friend who has sat/lounged on one...I feel I can recommend this...further review later. Expensive, but I can't wait to try it out. I got the Super Sac on clearance for $599.00 instead of $719.00. Wanted to go for the Big One, but it literally wouldn't fit in the room I want to put it in, not without clearing everything else out...
http://www.lovesac.com/buy-furniture/sac/supersac.html
So Im getting an HDTV for Xmas and Im sure many people here already have one, so wondered if anyone really liked their TV a lot?? Id also like to know how long youve had it as durability is important to me and why Im pretty much set on going with either a Panasonic, Sony, Toshiba, Samsung, or Sharp...My price range is ~$500-600 which is leaving me between deciding on a 40-42" as the size and either a LCD 1080p 60Hz or a Plasma 720p 600Hz..
QuoteSo Im getting an HDTV for Xmas and Im sure many people here already have one, so wondered if anyone really liked their TV a lot?? Id also like to know how long youve had it as durability is important to me and why Im pretty much set on going with either a Panasonic, Sony, Toshiba, Samsung, or Sharp...My price range is ~$500-600 which is leaving me between deciding on a 40-42" as the size and either a LCD 1080p 60Hz or a Plasma 720p 600Hz..
I was raised by my Dad to trust Consumer Reports. I'll PM you my online login creds so you can do some research. I must say they make pretty solid recommendations with price and quality well balanced.
We got a Vizio 37 inch LCD 1080P screen from Sams Club for $400. I'll get a bigger screen when my kids are a bit older (and more trustworthy). I've been very happy with it and it was a top recommendation from CR.
http://consumerreports.org
This one's about $600, but holiday pricing is gonna be crazy.
Samsung LN40C530
CR's Take
This 40-inch 60Hz Samsung 1080p LCD delivers excellent HD picture quality (and very good SD picture quality) at a comparatively low price, earning it a CR Best Buy designation. The set includes ConnectShare, which lets you play movies, digital photos or music stored on a USB or hard-disk drive.
If I were buying a new HDTV (I've had my 44 inch for 5 years and still loving it), I'd go with 120Hz and 1080p. 60Hz is being phased out.
Please correct me if my info is outdated. I believe the only reason (at this point in time) to go 1080p is for Blu Ray. Cable HD is only broadcast at 720p. Just something to consider as the 720p sets are a bit cheaper.
QuotePlease correct me if my info is outdated. I believe the only reason (at this point in time) to go 1080p is for Blu Ray. Cable HD is only broadcast at 720p. Just something to consider as the 720p sets are a bit cheaper.
You are partly correct. Some networks are in 720p or upconverted SD (standard def), but many others are sending out 1080i signals (and there's still no concensus whether 720p is equal to 1080i). But the really good looking HD live events such as NFL, MLB etc... or even American Idol are likely broadcast in 1080i (which is more of a raw feed). Also, not all TVs are built the same and you'll be able to see differences in quality the better your flatscreen is. As a Blu-ray owner and TV network employee, I can tell you that HD-HBO looks just as great as a new Blu-ray movie. The sound is arguably better on Blu-Ray, but the work people do to convert DVDs - or film - to HD-TV keeps getting better.
And one more thing: if you go 42-inch or higher, get a TV that is 1080p.
QuoteI dont know about anyone else, but Ive never been able to find an anti-perspirant/deodorant that actually seemed to help with the sweat. Ive dont really have BO unless I go a few days without a shower, but the anti-perspirant part has been failing me since I began using them. Until yesterday. I got some of that new Mitchum Smart Solid Clinical Performance and it is amazing. 2 days, and not just no moisture on the pits of my undershirts, but no moisture in the actual pit! I was even driving around for a couple hours today - windows down, no A/C - in over 90 degree weather, and my pits stayed as dry as Betty White's vag. This stuff is unbelievable, and unlike all the other brands "clinical performance" versions of AP/deodorant that cost $8 a stick, this stuff is less than $4 a stick. I think Im in love :-*
So yeah, I figured Id give all you other people who have sweaty pits the heads up, and also feel free to use this thread to recommend other products, appliances, porn websites, electronics, clothing, whatever.
Secret Clinical is my new BFF
QuoteQuotePlease correct me if my info is outdated. I believe the only reason (at this point in time) to go 1080p is for Blu Ray. Cable HD is only broadcast at 720p. Just something to consider as the 720p sets are a bit cheaper.
You are partly correct. Some networks are in 720p or upconverted SD (standard def), but many others are sending out 1080i signals (and there's still no concensus whether 720p is equal to 1080i). But the really good looking HD live events such as NFL, MLB etc... or even American Idol are likely broadcast in 1080i (which is more of a raw feed). Also, not all TVs are built the same and you'll be able to see differences in quality the better your flatscreen is. As a Blu-ray owner and TV network employee, I can tell you that HD-HBO looks just as great as a new Blu-ray movie. The sound is arguably better on Blu-Ray, but the work people do to convert DVDs - or film - to HD-TV keeps getting better.
And one more thing: if you go 42-inch or higher, get a TV that is 1080p.
Ah, I see. Danke, good sir! That's great info :)
QuoteIf I were buying a new HDTV (I've had my 44 inch for 5 years and still loving it), I'd go with 120Hz and 1080p. 60Hz is being phased out.
I agree, but thats where my price range comes into play (and isnt really flexible because its going to be a gift for me). Sticking to those brands mentioned, a 40" LCD thats 1080p and 120Hz is abour $200 outside of my price range. I could get a 32" thats 1080p and 120Hz, but everything Ive read said the difference between 720p and 1080p in sets under 50" is neglible, plus Im kind of set on getting a TV in that 40-42" range. When I was at Best Buy the other day, I looked at a 42" Panasonic Plasma 720p 600Hz and Sony 1080p 60Hz side by side for about a half hour. When standing close, a couple feet away, the Sony's picture definitely looked more crisp and not pixelated, but when standing about 8 feet away - in the range of where TV's of this size should be viewed from, I couldnt really tell a difference. You think there is a noticeable difference in 42" as opposed to starting at 50" though?
I actually wasnt even considering Plasma at first, but I thought its color tones were visibly better when seeing the 2 side by side - and this was in the department store whereas Plasmas are supposed to be best in darker environments to truly see their better black level. Plasmas are also better for sports and movies, and thats at least 80% of what I'll be watching on the TV (plus the 600hz refresh rate compared to 120 or 60hz also helps here).
After talking to DirecTV last night and finding out itll cost over $200 just to get an HD Receiver and have it installed (PLUS a new 2 year agreement!!), Im leaning even more towards the 720p Plasma since who knows how long itll be til I get that rip off installed.
Im definitely going to check out Consumer Reports - Thanks Yac! - to see what they say and get some more information.
QuoteQuoteIf I were buying a new HDTV (I've had my 44 inch for 5 years and still loving it), I'd go with 120Hz and 1080p. 60Hz is being phased out.
I agree, but thats where my price range comes into play (and isnt really flexible because its going to be a gift for me). Sticking to those brands mentioned, a 40" LCD thats 1080p and 120Hz is abour $200 outside of my price range. I could get a 32" thats 1080p and 120Hz, but everything Ive read said the difference between 720p and 1080p in sets under 50" is neglible, plus Im kind of set on getting a TV in that 40-42" range. When I was at Best Buy the other day, I looked at a 42" Panasonic Plasma 720p 600Hz and Sony 1080p 60Hz side by side for about a half hour. When standing close, a couple feet away, the Sony's picture definitely looked more crisp and not pixelated, but when standing about 8 feet away - in the range of where TV's of this size should be viewed from, I couldnt really tell a difference. You think there is a noticeable difference in 42" as opposed to starting at 50" though?
I actually wasnt even considering Plasma at first, but I thought its color tones were visibly better when seeing the 2 side by side - and this was in the department store whereas Plasmas are supposed to be best in darker environments to truly see their better black level. Plasmas are also better for sports and movies, and thats at least 80% of what I'll be watching on the TV (plus the 600hz refresh rate compared to 120 or 60hz also helps here).
After talking to DirecTV last night and finding out itll cost over $200 just to get an HD Receiver and have it installed (PLUS a new 2 year agreement!!), Im leaning even more towards the 720p Plasma since who knows how long itll be til I get that rip off installed.
Im definitely going to check out Consumer Reports - Thanks Yac! - to see what they say and get some more information.
Couple of things. First, I've never had a problem with Vizio and they are flat out cheaper. Also, you can get plasma for much cheaper nowadays than LCD. If the TV is located in an area where there won't be much glare and you don't play too many video games, plasma is a fine option. I have a Vizio LCD and Sanyo plasma (both cheaper brands) and have had both for at least 2 years and haven't had a problem with either. They are both 720p and look just fine.
I've never read many (any) TV reviews, and am no expert, but I got a 42" LG at WalMart for $598. That same TV, last I saw, is now $548. LCD. 1080p. I believe it was 60Hz though...I don't have a Blu-Ray player either so I'm sure I'm not getting everything out of it...but it looks fine to me.
I also got a 32" LG for my computer monitor.
I just upgraded my tv after 19 years of watching my 32" magnavox, it's to bad I won't get 19 years out of my next TV. Thank god I waited. After I researched tv's I finally decided on the 55" LG led 1080p. And a PS3 for the blue ray ( call of duty black ops fuckin rocks out ). The TV was $ 1189.00 and the 3 year no interest financing made the decision a little easier, as long as I don't miss a payment ( 25% interest ) The picture clarity on the blue ray is AMAZING.
And I don't use deodorant, my wife likes the wild musk in me, it makes her horny. She says I'm a cross between blue cheese, applewood smoked bacon and Pince Albert Pipe tabacco.
I just hit 1000 posts and it took me almost 5 years....yay me.
QuoteQuoteI dont know about anyone else, but Ive never been able to find an anti-perspirant/deodorant that actually seemed to help with the sweat. Ive dont really have BO unless I go a few days without a shower, but the anti-perspirant part has been failing me since I began using them. Until yesterday. I got some of that new Mitchum Smart Solid Clinical Performance and it is amazing. 2 days, and not just no moisture on the pits of my undershirts, but no moisture in the actual pit! I was even driving around for a couple hours today - windows down, no A/C - in over 90 degree weather, and my pits stayed as dry as Betty White's vag. This stuff is unbelievable, and unlike all the other brands "clinical performance" versions of AP/deodorant that cost $8 a stick, this stuff is less than $4 a stick. I think Im in love :-*
So yeah, I figured Id give all you other people who have sweaty pits the heads up, and also feel free to use this thread to recommend other products, appliances, porn websites, electronics, clothing, whatever.
Secret Clinical is my new BFF
Pffffft....Trish doesn't sweat. She glows! ;) :)
QuoteI just upgraded my tv after 19 years of watching my 32" magnavox, it's to bad I won't get 19 years out of my next TV. Thank god I waited. After I researched tv's I finally decided on the 55" LG led 1080p. [highlight]And a PS3 for the blue ray[/highlight] ( call of duty black ops fuckin rocks out ). The TV was $ 1189.00 and the 3 year no interest financing made the decision a little easier, as long as I don't miss a payment ( 25% interest ) The picture clarity on the blue ray is AMAZING.
And I don't use deodorant, my wife likes the wild musk in me, it makes her horny. She says I'm a cross between blue cheese, applewood smoked bacon and Pince Albert Pipe tabacco.
I just hit 1000 posts and it took me almost 5 years....yay me.
PS3 is seriously one of the greatest entertainment systems ever. Even if you are not a gaming fan, you have a blu ray player, you can stream a ton of netflix movies & even watch Jacket T5 youtube vids on your flatscreen. I make sure to hug my PS3 on a nightly basis :P
QuoteQuoteIf I were buying a new HDTV (I've had my 44 inch for 5 years and still loving it), I'd go with 120Hz and 1080p. 60Hz is being phased out.
I agree, but thats where my price range comes into play (and isnt really flexible because its going to be a gift for me). Sticking to those brands mentioned, a 40" LCD thats 1080p and 120Hz is abour $200 outside of my price range. I could get a 32" thats 1080p and 120Hz, but everything Ive read said the difference between 720p and 1080p in sets under 50" is neglible, plus Im kind of set on getting a TV in that 40-42" range. When I was at Best Buy the other day, I looked at a 42" Panasonic Plasma 720p 600Hz and Sony 1080p 60Hz side by side for about a half hour. When standing close, a couple feet away, the Sony's picture definitely looked more crisp and not pixelated, but when standing about 8 feet away - in the range of where TV's of this size should be viewed from, I couldnt really tell a difference. You think there is a noticeable difference in 42" as opposed to starting at 50" though?
I actually wasnt even considering Plasma at first, but I thought its color tones were visibly better when seeing the 2 side by side - and this was in the department store whereas Plasmas are supposed to be best in darker environments to truly see their better black level. Plasmas are also better for sports and movies, and thats at least 80% of what I'll be watching on the TV (plus the 600hz refresh rate compared to 120 or 60hz also helps here).
After talking to DirecTV last night and finding out itll cost over $200 just to get an HD Receiver and have it installed (PLUS a new 2 year agreement!!), Im leaning even more towards the 720p Plasma since who knows how long itll be til I get that rip off installed.
Im definitely going to check out Consumer Reports - Thanks Yac! - to see what they say and get some more information.
You can't rely on or trust side-by-side comparisons at shitty box-stores such as Best Buy, unless you are testing TVs with Blu-ray (with a direct connection). If you are comparing network HD-TV signals, the cable inputs have been split multiple times to feed all the TV sets, so degradation comes into play. Also, the kids that work at these places don't know shit. Also, Best Buy more than likely has an agenda about what TVs they want to sell, so they'll often look the best or have the most eye-pleasing presentation.
As for LCD vs plasma, I'd go plasma in a heartbeat. They have better blacks and colour vibrancy.
QuoteQuoteI just upgraded my tv after 19 years of watching my 32" magnavox, it's to bad I won't get 19 years out of my next TV. Thank god I waited. After I researched tv's I finally decided on the 55" LG led 1080p. [highlight]And a PS3 for the blue ray[/highlight] ( call of duty black ops fuckin rocks out ). The TV was $ 1189.00 and the 3 year no interest financing made the decision a little easier, as long as I don't miss a payment ( 25% interest ) The picture clarity on the blue ray is AMAZING.
And I don't use deodorant, my wife likes the wild musk in me, it makes her horny. She says I'm a cross between blue cheese, applewood smoked bacon and Pince Albert Pipe tabacco.
I just hit 1000 posts and it took me almost 5 years....yay me.
PS3 is seriously one of the greatest entertainment systems ever. Even if you are not a gaming fan, you have a blu ray player, you can stream a ton of netflix movies & even watch Jacket T5 youtube vids on your flatscreen. I make sure to hug my PS3 on a nightly basis :P
You know it, I just set up netflix and set up my playstation store account so I can download or rent HD movies, I noticed the movie selection on netflix is kinda limited. I figured with Blockbuster video on it's deathbed I needed a new medium to access movies so I will give it a try. My only complaint so far is dropping $ 59.99 for new release video games. I still feel like I have yet to scratch the surface on what this thing to do.
QuoteCouple of things. First, I've never had a problem with Vizio and they are flat out cheaper. Also, you can get plasma for much cheaper nowadays than LCD. If the TV is located in an area where there won't be much glare and you don't play too many video games, plasma is a fine option. I have a Vizio LCD and Sanyo plasma (both cheaper brands) and have had both for at least 2 years and haven't had a problem with either. They are both 720p and look just fine.
Do you have a preference between the 2?? Is one better for sports??
QuoteYou know it, I just set up netflix and set up my playstation store account so I can download or rent HD movies, I noticed the movie selection on netflix is kinda limited. I figured with Blockbuster video on it's deathbed I needed a new medium to access movies so I will give it a try.
While the "watch instantly" movies on Netflix is pretty limited, there was always a few good movies in there that Id never seen. And of course, their selection of DVDs by mail is unrivaled. I really need to join back up as Redbox isnt cutting it anymore.
The nice thing about Blockbuster now is they get all movies as soon as the hit on DVD, whereas Netflix and Redbox you have to wait an extra month
Quote
You can't rely on or trust side-by-side comparisons at shitty box-stores such as Best Buy, unless you are testing TVs with Blu-ray (with a direct connection). If you are comparing network HD-TV signals, the cable inputs have been split multiple times to feed all the TV sets, so degradation comes into play. Also, the kids that work at these places don't know shit. Also, Best Buy more than likely has an agenda about what TVs they want to sell, so they'll often look the best or have the most eye-pleasing presentation.
As for LCD vs plasma, I'd go plasma in a heartbeat. They have better blacks and colour vibrancy.
I figured they did something like the bolded because none of the TVs resolutions really amazed me.
Id guess they probably have an agenda too, but I didnt even talk to anyone there. Did my research first, then went in to just take a look and see what my eyes think. Had I not read up, I probably never wouldve considered Plasma because the LCDs look much better in the store since they jack the brightness all the way up so they really pop out to you.
QuoteQuote
You can't rely on or trust side-by-side comparisons at shitty box-stores such as Best Buy, unless you are testing TVs with Blu-ray (with a direct connection). If you are comparing network HD-TV signals, the cable inputs have been split multiple times to feed all the TV sets, so degradation comes into play. Also, the kids that work at these places don't know shit. Also, Best Buy more than likely has an agenda about what TVs they want to sell, so they'll often look the best or have the most eye-pleasing presentation.
As for LCD vs plasma, I'd go plasma in a heartbeat. They have better blacks and colour vibrancy.
I figured they did something like the bolded because none of the TVs resolutions really amazed me.
Id guess they probably have an agenda too, but I didnt even talk to anyone there. Did my research first, then went in to just take a look and see what my eyes think. Had I not read up, I probably never wouldve considered Plasma because the LCDs look much better in the store since they jack the brightness all the way up so they really pop out to you.
Keep in mind house lighting in stores such as Best Buy are set relatively bright, which is not the ideal way to compare HD-TVs.
If you have a good indie high-end stereo/home-theatre store near you, then go there and either buy or pick the salesman's brain. I bought most of my home theatre at a great indie store (Toshiba HD-TV, and 4 of my 5 PSB speakers).
QuoteQuoteCouple of things. First, I've never had a problem with Vizio and they are flat out cheaper. Also, you can get plasma for much cheaper nowadays than LCD. If the TV is located in an area where there won't be much glare and you don't play too many video games, plasma is a fine option. I have a Vizio LCD and Sanyo plasma (both cheaper brands) and have had both for at least 2 years and haven't had a problem with either. They are both 720p and look just fine.
Do you have a preference between the 2?? Is one better for sports??
Nope. If you ask me, the difference is negligible between most tvs and more reflects quibbling over minor matters amongst techies or just dudes who wanna show off their tv. ::) As long as you don't read consistently bad reviews, I say go for it. I mean, you can get a damn fine tv in your price range around 47" if you weren't limited to major brands. Just sayin' if ur not blurayin, I wouldn't sweat the 720
QuoteQuoteQuoteCouple of things. First, I've never had a problem with Vizio and they are flat out cheaper. Also, you can get plasma for much cheaper nowadays than LCD. If the TV is located in an area where there won't be much glare and you don't play too many video games, plasma is a fine option. I have a Vizio LCD and Sanyo plasma (both cheaper brands) and have had both for at least 2 years and haven't had a problem with either. They are both 720p and look just fine.
Do you have a preference between the 2?? Is one better for sports??
Nope. If you ask me, the difference is negligible between most tvs and more reflects quibbling over minor matters amongst techies or just dudes who wanna show off their tv. ::) As long as you don't read consistently bad reviews, I say go for it. I mean, you can get a damn fine tv in your price range around 47" if you weren't limited to major brands. Just sayin' if ur not blurayin, I wouldn't sweat the 720
Yeah. I dont have a PS3 yet, but I certainly plan on getting one eventually. That'll probably be my next big electronics addition actually. Hows does the bluray look on your 720?? Im assuming you watch bluray on there since you got a PS3.
Which also makes me want to ask, why do you same Plasmas are a fine option if I dont play video games?? If the Plasma has a higher refresh rate, wouldnt that be better for games? Ive read the "plasma burn-in" thing is basically a myth, and if it wasnt when they first came out, it is now thanks to improvement in technology.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteCouple of things. First, I've never had a problem with Vizio and they are flat out cheaper. Also, you can get plasma for much cheaper nowadays than LCD. If the TV is located in an area where there won't be much glare and you don't play too many video games, plasma is a fine option. I have a Vizio LCD and Sanyo plasma (both cheaper brands) and have had both for at least 2 years and haven't had a problem with either. They are both 720p and look just fine.
Do you have a preference between the 2?? Is one better for sports??
Nope. If you ask me, the difference is negligible between most tvs and more reflects quibbling over minor matters amongst techies or just dudes who wanna show off their tv. ::) As long as you don't read consistently bad reviews, I say go for it. I mean, you can get a damn fine tv in your price range around 47" if you weren't limited to major brands. Just sayin' if ur not blurayin, I wouldn't sweat the 720
Yeah. I dont have a PS3 yet, but I certainly plan on getting one eventually. That'll probably be my next big electronics addition actually. Hows does the bluray look on your 720?? Im assuming you watch bluray on there since you got a PS3.
Which also makes me want to ask, why do you same Plasmas are a fine option if I dont play video games?? If the Plasma has a higher refresh rate, wouldnt that be better for games? Ive read the "plasma burn-in" thing is basically a myth, and if it wasnt when they first came out, it is now thanks to improvement in technology.
Burn-in isn't a myth with plasmas. But, only 24-7 gamers need to worry about burn-in. Mix-up viewing uses and you'll have nothing to worry about. All TV models are susceptible to burn-in; I work with all forms and all have burn-in issues since we leave them on all the time and often doing the same chores (and on the same channels).
TV I decided on sold out from Costco and isnt listed on their site anymore. They had it cheaper than anywhere else Ive seen with a free 2 year warranty >:(
bump bc Clark needs new headphones and I probably need a recommendation on something I havent even realized yet.
Okay, on Wednesday I can upgrade my Verizon LG enV®3 to my first smartphone.
I'd like some advice, but here's what I've determined...
Don't need 4G in NH. Won't get an iPhone.
Also want a decent camera and video capability.
I've narrowed it down to Motorola Droid 3 ($195) or Droid X2 ($100). D3 has physical keyboard, 1080p video, better overall customer reviews; X2 has slightly bigger screen, 720p video, costs $95 less, better CNET review.
(http://i-cdn.phonearena.com/images/review/2790-image/Motorola-DROID-3-vs-Motorola-DROID-X2.jpg)
Thoughts? (leaning toward the Droid 3 Droid X2 Droid 3) :-\
FWIW, I just recently upgraded and switched from a Blackberry I've had for the last several years to a Droid.
Because of my affinity towards the Blackberry, I opted for the Motorola Droid Pro:
(http://www.gadgetvenue.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/motorola-droid-pro.jpg)
It had all the features of the Droid X2 but it had the keyboard like my Blackberry which I like. For me, the choice was between the Droid 3 and the Pro and I went with the Pro because it was about $100.00 cheaper. Yes, the screen isn't as big, but it's still bigger than what I had with my Blackberry.
Looking at your 2 choices I'd go with the 3 because of the keyboard...
I've only had one smartphone, my current iPhone 4. Just curious as to why you're opposed to the iPhone? I really like it. Having 2 cameras on the phone (one facing each way) is pretty nice for picture taking, Skype, Facetime, etc. It's the only Apple product I have. The only gripe I have with it is the fact that I hate itunes. It doesn't group my songs properly, doesn't let me put certain songs on it from my library (some sort of DRM problem). Other than that, the phone is great. Tougher than I expected too. I spilled a can of 7-Up on it, dropped it a few times, the dog chewed on it for a minute...still works fine.
Thanks for the input!
re: iPhone. Price, iTunes, reception problems, price, iTunes... That said, maybe I'll give it a shot. I hear its screen and camera are excellent.
I do like the physical keyboard on the Droid 3, but hear some complaints about the camera. Honestly, I'd like a phone that works first and foremost as a phone, with a decent camera so I can leave the digital camera at home most times. I want text and email capabilities that I currently have, and a decent web browser. I won't use it for music much. I keep going back and forth between these two.
EDIT: Okay, I'm now debating the Droid 3 ($200), Droid X2 ($100), and the iPhone 4S (16GB- $200)
Yeah, it's a bit pricey. I paid $200 + a 2 year plan for my iPhone. Sometimes I wish I had At&T so I could talk and browse at the same time. Can't really think of any other complaints about the phone, honestly. I use it for a LOT of different things. I'm a pretty slow typer on the phone...it's no fault of the phone's, just user ineptitude...one nice thing about the touchscreen keypad: if you turn it sideways, it gets bigger! (the buttons, that is) A nice feature for people like me. I never take my camera anymore, unless I'm going somewhere where I think I might take a LOT of pictures or somewhere really special. I also like the fact that there are so many accessories out there for the iPhone/iPod. I bring it to work, where I have a docking radio, so it's always charged and I get to listen to sweet jamz all day :thumbsup: No problems here with the reception/voice quality either. I'd like to play around with a Droid sometime, though, just to see what the differences really are.
My wife just got an iphone 4 when I got my droid (another reason I went the cheaper route with my droid pro ;) )and while I haven't played with her phone nearly enough to be a true judge, just by the little I have used it, it doesn't seem all that different with the exception of the itunes compatibility and the 16 gig of memory of which I wouldn't take advantage of because I don't use itunes and I have a Zune for my music enjoyment. I'd say the camera is better as well come to think of it, especially for indoor photos where the light isn't so good. Although, my Droid Pro only has a 5 megapixel camera and the Droid 3 has an 8 megapixel camera I believe as does the new iphone 4s.
My wife got her iphone because the school where she teaches is all apple and they just got an ipod lab to use as teaching tools with the kids. So she has the ability to use her phone to be compatible with the ipod lab which is pretty cool.
I've done a lot of research in narrowing down to these three models. The X2 is half the cost of the iPhone 4S or Droid 3. It has lower res video (720p) but the largest display (4.3 in.). Looks big! While the iPhone 4S screen is almost a full inch smalller (3.5 in.), early reports are that it is a sharp display and makes the phone overall smaller and lighter than the Droids. The improved camera is also testing very well. Honestly, part of my thinking is a good camera for MMJ MSG NYC 12/14 and other future shows. I told myself I'd never do an Apple product, but I can finally have the functions and technology of the iPod, iTouch, and a good camera in one phone, so I think that's my decision.
Thanks for the input!!!
Quote from: johnnYYac on Nov 01, 2011, 11:27 AM
I've done a lot of research in narrowing down to these three models. The X2 is half the cost of the iPhone 4S or Droid 3. It has lower res video (720p) but the largest display (4.3 in.). Looks big! While the iPhone 4S screen is almost a full inch smalller (3.5 in.), early reports are that it is a sharp display and makes the phone overall smaller and lighter than the Droids. The improved camera is also testing very well. Honestly, part of my thinking is a good camera for MMJ MSG NYC 12/14 and other future shows. I told myself I'd never do an Apple product, but I can finally have the functions and technology of the iPod, iTouch, and a good camera in one phone, so I think that's my decision.
Thanks for the input!!!
I honestly don't think you'll regret it, Yac. I never wanted an Apple product either, but I had 3 friends who had the iPhone, they're all smart people who investigate products before they buy them, and they all loved the phone, and now I do too! :thumbsup:
Quote from: Hawkeye on Nov 01, 2011, 12:44 PM
Quote from: johnnYYac on Nov 01, 2011, 11:27 AM
I've done a lot of research in narrowing down to these three models. The X2 is half the cost of the iPhone 4S or Droid 3. It has lower res video (720p) but the largest display (4.3 in.). Looks big! While the iPhone 4S screen is almost a full inch smalller (3.5 in.), early reports are that it is a sharp display and makes the phone overall smaller and lighter than the Droids. The improved camera is also testing very well. Honestly, part of my thinking is a good camera for MMJ MSG NYC 12/14 and other future shows. I told myself I'd never do an Apple product, but I can finally have the functions and technology of the iPod, iTouch, and a good camera in one phone, so I think that's my decision.
Thanks for the input!!!
I honestly don't think you'll regret it, Yac. I never wanted an Apple product either, but I had 3 friends who had the iPhone, they're all smart people who investigate products before they buy them, and they all loved the phone, and now I do too! :thumbsup:
The iPhone will make you a better man AND a better lover. :thumbsup:
I only date Droid owners.
Have you lost respect for me, Maggie? I'm a happily married man, but I'd hate to lose you over my phone. :'(
;D ;D ;D
Despite the damage it might cause to my relationship to ALady, I bought the iPhone 4S today. Thanks for the advice. Now if I can just put it down...
I got the iPhone 4s when it came out a couple weeks ago. i converted from the droid X. In comparison, i love the free apps the droid app store provides. it seems like everything in the apple store cost something. i dont mind because i don't use too many apps. I love/hate the itunes. it' gets me in trouble because Id rather be using my ipod classic and not my phone but it's just too easy to download an album on your phone! I love iCloud. I've been able to download music I purchased YEARS ago that i've lost on old hard drives of my computers. Siri is fun to talk to. I've used her a couple times. she does well. I also tell her goodnight.
as far as the camera it's amazing with good lighting, like most cameras. it's not the best in low light. no complaints about that, it's still an amazing phone!
Considering a new (used) car. Need it to be in the $4000-8000 range. Would like something AWD or 4x4, something I can haul a fair amount in, something with a really nice interior. Good gas mileage is a plus. High reliability is desired.
Currently considering
1) 2001 Audi Allroad - $4950, 160k (miles) - so far, the most tricked out and exciting to me. Decent cargo room, twin turbo, lots of features, very nice interior. High miles though. I did find another one 300 miles away with only 130k for $5200.
2) 2003 Acura MDX - $7500, 160k - roomier interior, nice interior, but not as nice as the Audi, 3rd row seating, supposedly very reliable
3) 2004 Cadillac SRX - $6800, 140k (transfer case is not working) - love the sunroof in this thing...it's huge at over 5 feet long. Have heard some reliability issues, especially with the AWD. Decent interior too.
Any thoughts or other suggestions?
None of the above. It's Snoop Deville or nothing!
(http://image.lowridermagazine.com/f/8343894/0407_10z+1974_cadillac_snoop_deville+front_side_view.jpg)
I'd steer clear of that Audi... and I'm generally a fan of VW/Audi.
http://www.audiforums.com/forum/allroad-model-line-47/common-problems-112190/ (http://www.audiforums.com/forum/allroad-model-line-47/common-problems-112190/)
Quote from: YouAre_GivenToFly on Nov 29, 2011, 01:24 PM
I'd steer clear of that Audi... and I'm generally a fan of VW/Audi.
http://www.audiforums.com/forum/allroad-model-line-47/common-problems-112190/ (http://www.audiforums.com/forum/allroad-model-line-47/common-problems-112190/)
That sucks, I was pretty high on that car :'(
I think it's between the Audi and the MDX. The MDX is the safer choice, reliability-wise, just not as "fun." The Cadillac and the Audi are so much bolder, looks-wise. The Audi is $2500 cheaper, and if anything goes wrong I'd probably just sell it as-is and cut my losses. Whew! on the price of fixing those turbos! If I could find an Allroad with the 4.2 V8, I may take that. Haven't found one yet though. Tough decisions.
My buddy has a 2011 VW Tiguan. Wish I could afford that! Pretty nice. Huge moonroof, AWD, nice leather, touchscreen, etc.
Quote from: Hawkeye on Nov 29, 2011, 02:15 PM
Quote from: YouAre_GivenToFly on Nov 29, 2011, 01:24 PM
I'd steer clear of that Audi... and I'm generally a fan of VW/Audi.
http://www.audiforums.com/forum/allroad-model-line-47/common-problems-112190/ (http://www.audiforums.com/forum/allroad-model-line-47/common-problems-112190/)
That sucks, I was pretty high on that car :'(
I think it's between the Audi and the MDX. The MDX is the safer choice, reliability-wise, just not as "fun." The Cadillac and the Audi are so much bolder, looks-wise. The Audi is $2500 cheaper, and if anything goes wrong I'd probably just sell it as-is and cut my losses. Whew! on the price of fixing those turbos! If I could find an Allroad with the 4.2 V8, I may take that. Haven't found one yet though. Tough decisions.
My buddy has a 2011 VW Tiguan. Wish I could afford that! Pretty nice. Huge moonroof, AWD, nice leather, touchscreen, etc.
That air suspension on the Audi seems like more trouble than it is worth.
Since about 2005-2006 VW & Audi seemed to have stepped up their game in regards to reliability and quality. I like the new Tiguan, too.
Full disclosure: I own a 2010 Golf.
Quote from: YouAre_GivenToFly on Nov 29, 2011, 02:29 PM
Quote from: Hawkeye on Nov 29, 2011, 02:15 PM
Quote from: YouAre_GivenToFly on Nov 29, 2011, 01:24 PM
I'd steer clear of that Audi... and I'm generally a fan of VW/Audi.
http://www.audiforums.com/forum/allroad-model-line-47/common-problems-112190/ (http://www.audiforums.com/forum/allroad-model-line-47/common-problems-112190/)
That sucks, I was pretty high on that car :'(
I think it's between the Audi and the MDX. The MDX is the safer choice, reliability-wise, just not as "fun." The Cadillac and the Audi are so much bolder, looks-wise. The Audi is $2500 cheaper, and if anything goes wrong I'd probably just sell it as-is and cut my losses. Whew! on the price of fixing those turbos! If I could find an Allroad with the 4.2 V8, I may take that. Haven't found one yet though. Tough decisions.
My buddy has a 2011 VW Tiguan. Wish I could afford that! Pretty nice. Huge moonroof, AWD, nice leather, touchscreen, etc.
That air suspension on the Audi seems like more trouble than it is worth.
Since about 2005-2006 VW & Audi seemed to have stepped up their game in regards to reliability and quality. I like the new Tiguan, too.
Full disclosure: I own a 2010 Golf.
Yeah the turbos and the air suspension worry me a bit. If they go out, it's pretty much game over for me. I would probably be more worried, but I have a 1998 Lincoln Continental with air suspension, and I've had no problems with it...totally different car, I know. I'm just struggling with research vs. luck. You can research all you want, by a boring yet reliable car, and have something go bad anyway. I guess it's all about weighing the odds and prioritizing. I like all the gadgets and features, until they go wrong! I've had good luck with this Lincoln though. 200k+ miles on it now. It's showing its age, but overall, it's been good. One tranny replacement back in 2005 or so (I bought it in 2004). Other than that, just the usual stuff...been going through some rotors lately though. One reason I'm getting rid of the car.
I'm going to test drive the Audi and the MDX for sure, maybe the Cadillac...get a feel for them.
Quote from: ALady on Nov 01, 2011, 02:30 PM
I only date Droid owners.
bob has a droid....should I keep an eye on you lady ? :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Quote from: YouAre_GivenToFly on Nov 29, 2011, 02:29 PM
Quote from: Hawkeye on Nov 29, 2011, 02:15 PM
Quote from: YouAre_GivenToFly on Nov 29, 2011, 01:24 PM
I'd steer clear of that Audi... and I'm generally a fan of VW/Audi.
http://www.audiforums.com/forum/allroad-model-line-47/common-problems-112190/ (http://www.audiforums.com/forum/allroad-model-line-47/common-problems-112190/)
That sucks, I was pretty high on that car :'(
I think it's between the Audi and the MDX. The MDX is the safer choice, reliability-wise, just not as "fun." The Cadillac and the Audi are so much bolder, looks-wise. The Audi is $2500 cheaper, and if anything goes wrong I'd probably just sell it as-is and cut my losses. Whew! on the price of fixing those turbos! If I could find an Allroad with the 4.2 V8, I may take that. Haven't found one yet though. Tough decisions.
My buddy has a 2011 VW Tiguan. Wish I could afford that! Pretty nice. Huge moonroof, AWD, nice leather, touchscreen, etc.
That air suspension on the Audi seems like more trouble than it is worth.
Since about 2005-2006 VW & Audi seemed to have stepped up their game in regards to reliability and quality. I like the new Tiguan, too.
Full disclosure: I own a 2010 Golf.
I know all too well about the problems with air suspensions. I own a '95 Range Rover Classic, and while I absolutely love the look of it, it is a pain to take care of and keep full of gas. I had to have the coil spring conversion done last winter although the cost has come down quite a bit to what it was several years ago, it was still a significant repair bill.
I recently bought an '05 VW Passat V6 Wagon manual 5 speed because my Rover was costing me way too much at the gas pump. I had an '02 Passat Wagon manual 5 speed that I bought new and I really liked the way it drove, and the price was really right for the '05 Passat I bought. The manual transmission is really what sold me though. But, the money I'm saving on gas basically pays for the car payment which is always a bonus. I do still have my Rover for the winter months as the thing is a freaking tank in the snow which I love! 8) We also use it to tow our pop-up camper in the summer months... :)
Quote from: iLikeBeer on Nov 29, 2011, 02:43 PM
Quote from: YouAre_GivenToFly on Nov 29, 2011, 02:29 PM
Quote from: Hawkeye on Nov 29, 2011, 02:15 PM
Quote from: YouAre_GivenToFly on Nov 29, 2011, 01:24 PM
I'd steer clear of that Audi... and I'm generally a fan of VW/Audi.
http://www.audiforums.com/forum/allroad-model-line-47/common-problems-112190/ (http://www.audiforums.com/forum/allroad-model-line-47/common-problems-112190/)
That sucks, I was pretty high on that car :'(
I think it's between the Audi and the MDX. The MDX is the safer choice, reliability-wise, just not as "fun." The Cadillac and the Audi are so much bolder, looks-wise. The Audi is $2500 cheaper, and if anything goes wrong I'd probably just sell it as-is and cut my losses. Whew! on the price of fixing those turbos! If I could find an Allroad with the 4.2 V8, I may take that. Haven't found one yet though. Tough decisions.
My buddy has a 2011 VW Tiguan. Wish I could afford that! Pretty nice. Huge moonroof, AWD, nice leather, touchscreen, etc.
That air suspension on the Audi seems like more trouble than it is worth.
Since about 2005-2006 VW & Audi seemed to have stepped up their game in regards to reliability and quality. I like the new Tiguan, too.
Full disclosure: I own a 2010 Golf.
I know all too well about the problems with air suspensions. I own a '95 Range Rover Classic, and while I absolutely love the look of it, it is a pain to take care of and keep full of gas. I had to have the coil spring conversion done last winter although the cost has come down quite a bit to what it was several years ago, it was still a significant repair bill.
I recently bought an '05 VW Passat V6 Wagon manual 5 speed because my Rover was costing me way too much at the gas pump. I had an '02 Passat Wagon manual 5 speed that I bought new and I really liked the way it drove, and the price was really right for the '05 Passat I bought. The manual transmission is really what sold me though. But, the money I'm saving on gas basically pays for the car payment which is always a bonus. I do still have my Rover for the winter months as the thing is a freaking tank in the snow which I love! 8) We also use it to tow our pop-up camper in the summer months... :)
V6 Passat wagon with a manual? You're exactly what I want to be when I grow up.
Quote from: YouAre_GivenToFly on Nov 29, 2011, 03:17 PM
Quote from: iLikeBeer on Nov 29, 2011, 02:43 PM
Quote from: YouAre_GivenToFly on Nov 29, 2011, 02:29 PM
Quote from: Hawkeye on Nov 29, 2011, 02:15 PM
Quote from: YouAre_GivenToFly on Nov 29, 2011, 01:24 PM
I'd steer clear of that Audi... and I'm generally a fan of VW/Audi.
http://www.audiforums.com/forum/allroad-model-line-47/common-problems-112190/ (http://www.audiforums.com/forum/allroad-model-line-47/common-problems-112190/)
That sucks, I was pretty high on that car :'(
I think it's between the Audi and the MDX. The MDX is the safer choice, reliability-wise, just not as "fun." The Cadillac and the Audi are so much bolder, looks-wise. The Audi is $2500 cheaper, and if anything goes wrong I'd probably just sell it as-is and cut my losses. Whew! on the price of fixing those turbos! If I could find an Allroad with the 4.2 V8, I may take that. Haven't found one yet though. Tough decisions.
My buddy has a 2011 VW Tiguan. Wish I could afford that! Pretty nice. Huge moonroof, AWD, nice leather, touchscreen, etc.
That air suspension on the Audi seems like more trouble than it is worth.
Since about 2005-2006 VW & Audi seemed to have stepped up their game in regards to reliability and quality. I like the new Tiguan, too.
Full disclosure: I own a 2010 Golf.
I know all too well about the problems with air suspensions. I own a '95 Range Rover Classic, and while I absolutely love the look of it, it is a pain to take care of and keep full of gas. I had to have the coil spring conversion done last winter although the cost has come down quite a bit to what it was several years ago, it was still a significant repair bill.
I recently bought an '05 VW Passat V6 Wagon manual 5 speed because my Rover was costing me way too much at the gas pump. I had an '02 Passat Wagon manual 5 speed that I bought new and I really liked the way it drove, and the price was really right for the '05 Passat I bought. The manual transmission is really what sold me though. But, the money I'm saving on gas basically pays for the car payment which is always a bonus. I do still have my Rover for the winter months as the thing is a freaking tank in the snow which I love! 8) We also use it to tow our pop-up camper in the summer months... :)
V6 Passat wagon with a manual? You're exactly what I want to be when I grow up.
I was thinking of getting a Passat at one time...I don't remember what turned me off from them? Reliability issues? (or at least rumors of such) Not flashy enough/not a luxurious interior?
Quote from: Hawkeye on Nov 29, 2011, 01:12 PM
Considering a new (used) car. Need it to be in the $4000-8000 range. Would like something AWD or 4x4, something I can haul a fair amount in, something with a really nice interior. Good gas mileage is a plus. High reliability is desired.
Currently considering
1) 2001 Audi Allroad - $4950, 160k (miles) - so far, the most tricked out and exciting to me. Decent cargo room, twin turbo, lots of features, very nice interior. High miles though. I did find another one 300 miles away with only 130k for $5200.
2) 2003 Acura MDX - $7500, 160k - roomier interior, nice interior, but not as nice as the Audi, 3rd row seating, supposedly very reliable
3) 2004 Cadillac SRX - $6800, 140k (transfer case is not working) - love the sunroof in this thing...it's huge at over 5 feet long. Have heard some reliability issues, especially with the AWD. Decent interior too.
Any thoughts or other suggestions?
If you want reliability, decent mileage w/AWD, etc. I'd recommend you look at Subaru Forester. A 2004 would be at the high end of your price range. I'm typing this from my 2009 and love it! It replaced my 2001. I suppose it may be smaller than what you're looking at, but its been a great all-around vehicle, great in snow, and hauls trash and recycling every 2 weeks. It holds a lot with the back seat down. It seats my whole family with good legroom- me, the wife, and 3 kids.
Quote from: johnnYYac on Nov 29, 2011, 05:28 PM
Quote from: Hawkeye on Nov 29, 2011, 01:12 PM
Considering a new (used) car. Need it to be in the $4000-8000 range. Would like something AWD or 4x4, something I can haul a fair amount in, something with a really nice interior. Good gas mileage is a plus. High reliability is desired.
Currently considering
1) 2001 Audi Allroad - $4950, 160k (miles) - so far, the most tricked out and exciting to me. Decent cargo room, twin turbo, lots of features, very nice interior. High miles though. I did find another one 300 miles away with only 130k for $5200.
2) 2003 Acura MDX - $7500, 160k - roomier interior, nice interior, but not as nice as the Audi, 3rd row seating, supposedly very reliable
3) 2004 Cadillac SRX - $6800, 140k (transfer case is not working) - love the sunroof in this thing...it's huge at over 5 feet long. Have heard some reliability issues, especially with the AWD. Decent interior too.
Any thoughts or other suggestions?
If you want reliability, decent mileage w/AWD, etc. I'd recommend you look at Subaru Forester. A 2004 would be at the high end of your price range. I'm typing this from my 2009 and love it! It replaced my 2001. I suppose it may be smaller than what you're looking at, but its been a great all-around vehicle, great in snow, and hauls trash and recycling every 2 weeks. It holds a lot with the back seat down. It seats my whole family with good legroom- me, the wife, and 3 kids.
Was considering the Forester at one point too. Seems like a great vehicle. The interior is a little pedestrian for me, but I'll definitely keep it in mind.
The more I read about that Allroad, the more scared I become. Basically, it sounds like you better be able to do the work yourself. I've worked on a '69 Firebird plenty of times, but this looks like something else. They're recommending a code-reader that costs $1200, just to do the diagnostics. :o
OK Kindle fire vs. Nook Color. Any opinions. For the kiddies.
Quote from: YouAre_GivenToFly on Nov 29, 2011, 03:17 PM
V6 Passat wagon with a manual? You're exactly what I want to be when I grow up.
LOL! Yeah, my first Passat Wagon was just the 4 cylinder turbo. We actually special ordered it from Germany because it was so hard to find a manual wagon. My wife actually found my current car on AutoTrader. I wanted another manual, but when I saw it was a V6 to boot? :D :o I owed my wife big time for that find! :thumbsup:
Quote from: Hawkeye on Nov 29, 2011, 02:15 PM
Quote from: YouAre_GivenToFly on Nov 29, 2011, 01:24 PM
I'd steer clear of that Audi... and I'm generally a fan of VW/Audi.
http://www.audiforums.com/forum/allroad-model-line-47/common-problems-112190/ (http://www.audiforums.com/forum/allroad-model-line-47/common-problems-112190/)
That sucks, I was pretty high on that car :'(
I think it's between the Audi and the MDX. The MDX is the safer choice, reliability-wise, just not as "fun." The Cadillac and the Audi are so much bolder, looks-wise. The Audi is $2500 cheaper, and if anything goes wrong I'd probably just sell it as-is and cut my losses. Whew! on the price of fixing those turbos! If I could find an Allroad with the 4.2 V8, I may take that. Haven't found one yet though. Tough decisions.
My buddy has a 2011 VW Tiguan. Wish I could afford that! Pretty nice. Huge moonroof, AWD, nice leather, touchscreen, etc.
As someone who used to have an Audi, I wouldnt buy one unless you dont care about how much you'll spend on repairs. I had a 1999 Audi A6 Quattro (4WD) from about 2004-2009 (It was my Dad's before I got it, so it was well maintained), and a pretty serious repair and numerous weird ones were needed every year. I finally sold it about a year ago for $1500 because it needed $3000+ worth of repairs (mainly a whole new exhaust system), and I couldnt afford to maintain it anymore. I loved the car, and it drove great, but it cost far too much to keep it tip top and you'll read most places that Audi need more repairs than Benz's, Beamers, etc.
So, IMO, steer clear of the Audi even if you love it during the test drive.
As much as that Audi would be awesome, now is probably not the time :(
Have these in mind right now:
1) 2003 Acura MDX - nice interior, lots of interior space, poor gas mileage
2) 2005 Outback XT - better gas mileage, nice interior, a little pricey
3) 2005 Jetta Sportwagen (diesel) - best gas mileage
If anyone has ever owned one of these cars or knows anything about them, feel free to chime in!
Quote from: Hawkeye on Dec 01, 2011, 01:22 PM
As much as that Audi would be awesome, now is probably not the time :(
Have these in mind right now:
1) 2003 Acura MDX - nice interior, lots of interior space, poor gas mileage
2) 2005 Outback XT - better gas mileage, nice interior, a little pricey
3) 2005 Jetta Sportwagen (diesel) - best gas mileage
If anyone has ever owned one of these cars or knows anything about them, feel free to chime in!
Chiming in. PM sent.
Went with a 2004 Acura MDX. In my estimation, the practical choice...for family man, you know :) A little pricey for the miles...130k, $9,927...but in very good shape and it books for $13k. Black with black leather interior. Picking it up Thursday. Thanks for all the input, esp JY!