Date:         Fri, 10 Mar 2006 09:45:35 -0800
Reply-To:     Malcolm Stebbins <mwstebbins@YAHOO.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Malcolm Stebbins <mwstebbins@YAHOO.COM>
Subject:      Re: Diesel Subaru Conversions
In-Reply-To:  <HLEOIDHOBDDMFNGNDPOKKECCCJAA.al_knoll@pacbell.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

--- Pensioner <al_knoll@PACBELL.NET> wrote:
> In summary you'll save $370 per year in fuel costs for 10000 miles per year.
> How many years to break even on the installation is left as an excercise for
> the reader.  Seems to be over ten years

I plan on doing some 'outback' driving, so for me, it may also be that the 600 kms per diesel tank
verses the 400 km per gas tank will actually make a difference.  I know I could take along extra
gas cans, but I'd do that anyway.

Also let's factor in the 'average' family that gets 2 or 3 weeks vacation per year and factor in
the probability of an 'older' engine breaking down and 'robbing' the vacation days, versus the
probability of the 'new' engine breaking down.  Also factor in the time it takes to find a vanagon
mechanic, versus a Ford or Subaru mechanic, while those vacation days are ticking away.

Put that into your "numbers".

> Numbers rule!

IMHO it is more appropriate to use 'Utility Theory" and not numeric 'estimated values' in making
these personal/family decisions.  'Peace of mind' may be 'worth' the $14,000 (or $10,000, or
$5,000) engine conversion, where-as your numbers make it 'appear' otherwise.

If we put 'ego' into the equation, all the numbers in the world will NOT explain that decision!.

IMHO numbers DON'T rule. Numbers often confuse.  Emotion rules!   M





__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com