Attention srellim234

[Ever Victorious]

I figure since I was an *** in public, I should probably apologize in public.

You probably didn't know about the rash of people we had repeating over and over "Nissan is lying about fuel economy", when it was the EPA that gave them the numbers.

I won't argue the commercial, since as you stated I am 2 states removed from it.

I walked into work this morning and got the scare of my life, something that boiled down basically to me in essence losing health insurance for both myself and my newborn son. I had a meltdown today. I had no right to take it out on you, and I am sorry.

That said, though... Car manufacturers are very careful to disclaim where their numbers come from, and the "false advertising" flag can only be waved so many times before it's old hat. Everyone here knows the mileage they used was 2007 EPA. Everyone knows that EPA testing is inaccurate. So please... don't go there.

[srellim234]

1. Apology accepted.

2. Sorry to hear about the insurance scare. Did it get worked out o.k.?

3. I'm sure that Nissan met the letter of the law on the ad, which is why I brought up that they probably put the 2007 disclaimer in fine print where nobody could see it. A video recorder, stop action and a magnifying glass would probably be necessary to find it, but it was probably there.

So, for my part, "false advertising" was the wrong term. "Misleading advertising" would have been more accurate. Nissan is aware of the real-life gas mileage figures. The advertising is legal, but not very ethical since even the EPA has downgraded those 2007 figures.

I've been critical of the gas mileage, primarily because our Versa has the worst "sticker to real-life" drop-off in mpg of any car I've been around, and the real-life figures reported at other websites confirm the drop for most other drivers as well. I just keep searching for reasons to explain it.

I guess I'll just resign myself to what I'm getting out of the car. It's a good little car, but not the commuter car we were told and expected it to be.
Modified by srellim234 at 9:47 PM 9/24/2007

[Ever Victorious]

After fighting with my employer for 7 hours instead of, well, working... I got MOST of what I had back. Lost half my dental insurance, which really blows, because I used that more than the medical part.

It is unfortunate that in real life, the CVT doesn't get anywhere close to its EPA estimates. To me, though, it's not surprising. Automatics (of all types) are inherently more mechanically complex than manual transmissions. The more complex a device, the lower its maximum efficiency percentage is.

I will give car manufacturers credit... some of the newest 5 speed automatics ALMOST match manuals for fuel efficiency. Nothing will ever match a manual, though, except another manual.

[srellim234]

......The more complex a device, the lower its maximum efficiency percentage is....

That is almost exactly the quote my dad's cousin used when he quit NASA before the first shuttle flight went up. He described it as the type of design that would lead to one in 60 or 70 flights being lost. He had been high up in NASA since the original Mercury and Gemini flights.

On the insurance front, were the insurance cutbacks done to all employees or just your job title? Sounds pretty poor that they didn't sit down with you ahead of time to discuss that they were considering the cuts. They should have been willing to give you time to explore other options instead of blindsiding you.

[Ever Victorious]

On the insurance front, were the insurance cutbacks done to all employees or just your job title? Sounds pretty poor that they didn't sit down with you ahead of time to discuss that they were considering the cuts. They should have been willing to give you time to explore other options instead of blindsiding you.

Allegedly the company didn't know until the very beginning of this month that we would not be continuing on with our existing health plan, and spent the entire month negotiating the contract with the new company. The crappy thing is that I don't think our company actually read everything like they say they did. Because if they did, they would have realized that the dental plan they signed up for, while having identical deductibles and limits as our old plan, has only 9 total in-network dentists in the whole state. Hence why I effectively lost half my insurance... they pay up to 80% of the contracted rate, which is so low that noone around here wants to take it. Ergo, it's probably about 50% of what it ACTUALLY costs. The rest comes out of my checkbook.

What's worse is that this all boiled down to the company freaking out about a 25% increase in employee premiums, that they didn't think the employees would want to pay. For some people that would have been steep $150/mo), but those are the people with stay-at-home spouses anyway... you know, the kind who are rich enough to absorb that kind of hit. My personal premiums would have increased just $40/mo, and I would have GLADLY paid that.

Now I will be paying $12/mo less, and getting subpar care because 2 of my 5 doctors are not in-network.

[srellim234]

That's terrible. Sounds like the employees need to collectively put pressure on the company to revisit the issue, if that's at all possible.

[starlight0229]

That is almost exactly the quote my dad's cousin used when he quit NASA before the first shuttle flight went up. He described it as the type of design that would lead to one in 60 or 70 flights being lost. He had been high up in NASA since the original Mercury and Gemini flights.

I wonder if he knew my uncle who went up on the fifth shuttle flight...

[srellim234]

If your uncle was in the program during Apollo flights I'm sure they knew each other. My dad's cousin was responsible for taking care of the astronauts, things like bailing them out when they got in trouble with the local police among many other things. The astronauts liked him so much they even brought back stuff from the moon and gave it to him.