: Pricing and opinions on a 2010 STS



45wheelgun
10-20-10, 08:37 PM
I have a friend looking at a "factory owned - company car" 2010 with 36 miles on the odometer. In service date of 8/2009. Could it have been a car show car? Regardless, 1 year burnt on the warranty.

Almost fully loaded. V8, Nav, Side Blind Zone Alert, Lane Departure Warning, Head-Up Display, Rear entertainment, Active steering, Adaptive Cruise Control, Premium steering gear (wtf?),Performance Cooling package, all electric cooling package, and Xenon headlights w/IntelliBeam & washers. Radiant Silver/Gray Leather. I'm not sure what it is missing.

The tires are P235/50R18 FRONT AND P255/45R18 REAR MICHELIN, W-RATED, ALL-SEASON, BLACKWALL. Different sizes front and rear? What will these babies cost to replace? Estimated tread life?

What is the "Performance Cooling package, all electric cooling package"?

What is the "Premium Steering Gear"?

The sticker lists MSRP at $74k

The dealer is pricing it at $51.5k.

What do you guys think of the car as well as the pricing?

If the car is purchased, should he also get the CPO? The dealer wants $1500 for it.

RippyPartsDept
10-20-10, 09:43 PM
definitely get the CPO, (can't stress that enough)... it seems a fair price too, but maybe try and get them to build the CPO into the $51.5k price or take a few hundred off? can't hurt to try
i think the cooling package relates to cooled seats maybe (blows some cool air up through the seat to keep your back and but cool in the hot months)
premium steering gear probably makes a slightly tighter circle than standard gear - never really seen it advertised though
michelin tires are good - the different sizes means you can't do full rotations (only side to side, if your tires aren't directional - if they are then no tire movement at all)
but i wouldn't worry too much about that - the michelins last a good long time and you'll still get your money's worth out of them
i usually recommend you stick w/ michelin for replacements but there are a few other brands that make matching tires in those sizes (and as time goes on maybe more brands will too)
the michelins might cost around $1000 to replace - but if you're lucky or 'know someone' you can get them for even less... try pricing them out now on tirerack.com to get a better idea

sounds like a great deal, but i really do wonder why it never not more than 36 miles put on it... that does require an explanation in my mind
with the VIN, I (or others on here w/ the access) can run the service history to see if there's ever been any work done on the car - just to make sure they're not pulling any funny business on you

turnerbend
10-20-10, 10:21 PM
In 2007 I got a 05 STS with 4000 miles on odometer. Showroom custom car that sat in Florida showroom for 2 years.

EChas3
10-20-10, 11:54 PM
It's a 1SG. Primo! The cooling is a mechanical fan in addition to the electric fans. Remember, heat is your enemy. While the ZF Steering option isn't clearly defined, I can tell you the 'turn in' is a step above most STS's. And that is saying something.

It's likely got MRC, Auto High Beams, full tuscany leather, etc. If it also has the 3.23 gearing it's the sweatest setup you'll find in a STS (IMHO). In today's market, it may even be a good deal. Don't scrimp - go CPO. (But get rid of the MXM Michelin's if mounted - do you see snow?)

What color?

45wheelgun
10-21-10, 08:36 AM
It's a 1SG. Primo!...It's likely got MRC, Auto High Beams, full tuscany leather, etc. If it also has the 3.23 gearing it's the sweatest setup you'll find in a STS (IMHO). In today's market, it may even be a good deal. Don't scrimp - go CPO. (But get rid of the MXM Michelin's if mounted - do you see snow?)

What color?

It is Silver. I forgot to mention it is an AWD version, but not a Platinum Edition so no Tuscany leather. It does not appear to have the Performance Handling package either. It does have MRC and Auto High Beams, and the 3.23 gearing.

What is the effect of having the 3.23 gearing compared to the standard 3.42 ratio?

We are in Ohio with frequent trips to Cleveland in the winter, so yes we see snow. I'm not sure what flavor of Michelin's are on it.

Any idea of what dealer cost is on CPO? It would be nice to know in the bargaining process.

The paperwork shows it is coming from:

GM
CVO - Warren Tech Center
7111 E 11 MILE RD
WARREN MI 48092-2709

Does that help explain the 36 Miles to anyone?

Thanks for the help guys...

Dave

EChas3
10-23-10, 12:47 PM
Standard V8 gear in 2007 was 2.73 and gets good mileage with the 6-speed automatic.

If your car is an AWD V8 with ACC, it's almost certainly a 1SG with the R8E Gas Guzzler Tax. (My 2006 MSRP was $66,000. IMHO, the mileage (and smallish tank) is the only real weakness to the STS. Cadillac removed many of the trim-level-option-package restrictions in later model years. So it's possible it doesn't have the Luxury Performance but I doubt this car lacks anything. (You wouldn't have Positrac if you have AWD; they are mutually exclusive.)

I'm still in love with my 1SG after almost two years. Not perfect, but it is an outstanding American car.

CPO should be no more than $1,500. I think delaer's cost is close to that if they really perform the CPO checklist; probably half that if they simply enroll the car. If you can get it on that car, you get very close to a 6-year (from in service date) 100,000 mile bumper-to-bumper manfacturer's warranty that includes loaners for all warranty visits. Time your warranty repairs with normal maintenance (not hard) and your only out-of-pocket costs will be for oil changes, other maintenance and wear items.

I'd push for a price in the $40's but the sales side of the market is up compared to 2008 when I bought my car. My wife bought hers 8 months before. She's my negotiator because she doesn't bat an eye while standing up to leave a deal.

The art of sales is to get the buyer to think of it as their car. The art of buying comes from a realization that a dealer pays to have that unit on the lot. Every sale they lose or delay is more money paid on their floor-plan line of credit. What's one month on $40k? ($200 they lose each month it sits).

caddyfat2
10-23-10, 01:12 PM
1SG does have 100% Tuscany leather.

Giddy
10-23-10, 04:55 PM
While the ZF Steering option isn't clearly defined, I can tell you the 'turn in' is a step above most STS's. And that is saying something

I could not get over the turn in on my 2008 compared to the 2002 Seville STS. I was hitting the curb turning right into my driveway for the first few days until I remembered to make the adjustment.

My AWD 1SG is so, so, so nice to drive.

TobyJohnson11
10-23-10, 09:02 PM
If the car has different size tires on the front than on the back it does have the performance package. Thatís one giveaway for that package. The other way to tell is go into the configure screen on the navigation and there should be an option for performance and touring. That is the other giveaway. Sounds like a fabulous car at a great price. GET THE CPO!!!!! Even at $1500 its worth every penny.

miked
10-24-10, 01:37 AM
That's a great deal. It's what I paid for my 08 1SG back in the day.

turnne
10-24-10, 09:50 AM
I could not get over the turn in on my 2008 compared to the 2002 Seville STS. I was hitting the curb turning right into my driveway for the first few days until I remembered to make the adjustment.

My AWD 1SG is so, so, so nice to drive.
An 02 STS has about the worst turning radius I have ever seen...and almost as bad brakes
You are right the newer body with the 1SG is light years ahead of the older car in that regard

Wow..I am still trying to get over the 30% discount from sticker they are offering on the car


Anyway I say offer $1000 for the CPO option and see what the dealer says

Based on the discount being offered one would think the car is not really that hot of a commodity...which is something you might want to bring to the dealers attention

As mentioned before..its costing the dealer money each month and as fast as these cars lose value..the car is actually costing the dealer money and losing value as it sits

Both points that should be included in the negotiation


Warren

45wheelgun
10-26-10, 10:25 AM
Thanks for all the feedback guys. Tomorrow is the buy date. The dealership also purchased another factory owned vehicle. It is a 2009 STS AWD V8 Platinum in Thunder Grey with <2000 miles on it. The only thing that seems to be missing is the rear entertainment system (no big loss). They both have an in-service date of 8/09 so there is no difference in warrently. Cost of CPO will be the same at $1400. They are asking 43k for the 2009. The purchaser keeps cars for 10+ years so I am less concerned about it being an 09 since they are basically the same car. Seems like the 09 is more car for less money at a cost of 1950 miles. MSRP on the 09 is 78K 4k more then the '10. I have not seen Thunder Grey, is it more attractive then the Silver?

We will get to see and drive them both tomorrow.

cooncat
10-26-10, 10:33 AM
Sounds great. I think the thunder gray has more character than the silver and it is also pretty rare. Everybody seems to have silver these days. That's why I like my stealth gray. I get compliments on mine all the time. If I had the typical silver, black or white, I woudn't be getting the compliments.

caddyfat2
10-26-10, 11:00 AM
That white diamond paint gets it's share of compliments too!

EChas3
10-26-10, 11:02 AM
Sounds great. I think the thunder gray has more character than the silver and it is also pretty rare. Everybody seems to have silver these days. That's why I like my stealth gray. I get compliments on mine all the time. If I had the typical silver, black or white, I woudn't be getting the compliments.

I agree. My wife's 2007 is silver/platinum and it's a common color. She would have preferred Pearl (Diamond) White or Red, but she had to get out of her '98 STS (HG). I think she'd love the Black Cherry. If you prefer to blend in, Silver is the way to go. Thunder Gray gets noticed.

I have Black. It looks sharp but I always see the imperfections.

Giddy
10-26-10, 12:13 PM
I agree. My wife's 2007 is silver/platinum and it's a common color. She would have preferred Pearl (Diamond) White or Red, but she had to get out of her '98 STS (HG). I think she'd love the Black Cherry. If you prefer to blend in, Silver is the way to go. Thunder Gray gets noticed.

I have Black. It looks sharp but I always see the imperfections.

I have the Sunset Blue and receive lots of compliments on its colour, especially since it changes from blue to gray depending on the light outside.

bbshriver
10-26-10, 01:52 PM
Thanks for all the feedback guys. Tomorrow is the buy date. The dealership also purchased another factory owned vehicle. It is a 2009 STS AWD V8 Platinum in Thunder Grey with <2000 miles on it. The only thing that seems to be missing is the rear entertainment system (no big loss). They both have an in-service date of 8/09 so there is no difference in warrently. Cost of CPO will be the same at $1400. They are asking 43k for the 2009. The purchaser keeps cars for 10+ years so I am less concerned about it being an 09 since they are basically the same car. Seems like the 09 is more car for less money at a cost of 1950 miles. MSRP on the 09 is 78K 4k more then the '10. I have not seen Thunder Grey, is it more attractive then the Silver?

I would definitely go for the Platinum assuming it is in similar condition. Equal warranty, unless you hit 100k before the 6 years.

Platinum is assured to have every option, plus premium wood, Tuscany leather, leather wrapped interior (dash, door panels etc) and I believe alcantara headliner.

turnne
10-27-10, 08:24 PM
That white diamond paint gets it's share of compliments too!


My car is white diamond
I actually wanted a silver w/blk leather combo
But equipment level was more important to me than color

I still can't get over these discounts from sticker
Though like I have said before the sticker on these cars is not worth the paper its printed on

If the dealer is selling it for that...and surely making a healthy profit...I wonder what dealer cost was on the car he is offering for $43K...high 30's?
More than a 50% drop rate( from sticker) in one year?


Warren

EChas3
10-27-10, 09:31 PM
That's what it was in 2008. 50% after 1 year & 10,000 miles. 66% when coming off a 3-year lease with less than 40,000 miles.

Add a few G's for the value that was sqaundered by Cash for Clunkers and that's the present day used STS market. (Just my humble opinion, of cource.) :)

turnne
10-28-10, 10:18 AM
That's what it was in 2008. 50% after 1 year & 10,000 miles. 66% when coming off a 3-year lease with less than 40,000 miles.

Add a few G's for the value that was sqaundered by Cash for Clunkers and that's the present day used STS market. (Just my humble opinion, of cource.) :)

So Cash for Clunkers actually raised the values of the STS on the used market?

if that's the case would it have been 75% off after a 36 month lease?

You know I have a co-worker who just sold his 05 DTS. He paid 24K in 2007 with like 28K miles on it. He said he thought he received very good deal

Any way..he had it for sale recently for months and months and finally sold it for $14K with less than 50K on the clock

Yikes!!


Warren

Greg00coupe
10-28-10, 02:24 PM
Here's my history....... Bought my first STS '00 model 3 years off lease. It was what $50K ish sticker???
It had 32K miles I paid $21K. Drove it 4 trouble free years and put 50K miles on it and traded it for the 05 and got $7K.

The '05 top of the line..... 1sg or whatever had a sticker of $63K. It had 32K miles and I paid $24K. I could have done better but it was in perfect shape and I liked the dealer.

So now 3 years later it has 62K on the clock. It's been trouble free except for some door antennas right now. It may be worth $12K on trade, maybe not. I'll drive it for a few more years......... I think it will not drop too much more...... most maybe $5K.

So I have had to very nice cars with high sticker prices. I paid not much more then a compact car. Someone of maybe GM leasing took a beating.

I'll never buy new again......... leasing or me buying cars off leasing is great!!!

EChas3
10-28-10, 10:10 PM
My point is that Cash for Clunkers took working cars off the used car market. High school economics taught me that when suppliy goes down, prices go up. In my market this happened to all makes and models, STS included - around $2-4 large. Of course, YMMV.

I was raised to clean my plate, use it up and wear it out... and then give it to your little brother.

It maddens me to throw away something with value. I recycle everything I can not because I'm 'Green' but because the reverse is wasteful. I do what I can to preserve things of value. I fix things.

To think that the most 'progressive' federal government in the history of the US would discard so much value is just one more example of their lies.

turnne
10-29-10, 04:19 PM
My point is that Cash for Clunkers took working cars off the used car market. High school economics taught me that when suppliy goes down, prices go up. In my market this happened to all makes and models, STS included - around $2-4 large. Of course, YMMV.

I was raised to clean my plate, use it up and wear it out... and then give it to your little brother.

It maddens me to throw away something with value. I recycle everything I can not because I'm 'Green' but because the reverse is wasteful. I do what I can to preserve things of value. I fix things.

To think that the most 'progressive' federal government in the history of the US would discard so much value is just one more example of their lies.

If you are that "green"...I think you are ignoring a couple of things

Cash for clunkers was designed to get cars off the road that:
1. Were not a fuel efficient..ie save fossil fuel
2. Lower emissions...ie....save the air

Using another "green" technology....the one that is much closer to home for most people...namely Greenbacks
It simply does not make economic sense to keep some of these older Cadillacs on the road...or any luxury car for that matter...Cadillacs more so becuase the value hits the bottom so quickly
I am not sure many would be willing to invest in a HG repair for a 99 Deville with 95K...car is worth 3K in great shape...HG repair..what 4-6K
I have seen too many cars in the junkyard with clean straight bodies that had Northstar HG issues
Ditto on the suspension issues....a set of the ISS suspension parts for a pre mag ride car are 4K
And you would likely be putting them on a car that is worth 4K( or less)
Thankfully there is a set of Monroes that you can put on those cars for $1200...by passing the traction and stability control
But still ..to me that's the only option that makes sense for that type of car
You could literally spend thousands and thousands on a 3K car

what percentage of buyer is going to do that?
With a Honda civic you can do these things...much less to repair and the cost to fix vs value of the car delta comes many more years into its life
And much more the type of car that gets handed down to the little brother
You give your brother your old Cadillac and what does he think of you when he finds out it will cost him $4K to have the "check ride control" warning light issue taken care of?

There are a lot of "green" folks out there these days...and a lot more "greenback" folks out there these days
At the end of the day dollars and cents rule

By the way...your high school economics theory if flawed...or should I say you can't apply it to everything
You made the assumption that when supply went down that demand would stay the same..if so the price would rise
Look at the STS..they have sold fewer and fewer each year...there are less of them in the used marketplace...ditto with leftover V8's in dealers showrooms
Using your economics the used car prices as well as the left over V8's should be bringing more money than they have in the past
The opposite is true because the demand is not there for the vehicle

In regard to the "progressive" government...and I don't want to get into politics
But...can I ask if you were against the auto bailout?
Quite frankly ..I am still on the fence as to whether that should have occurred. Ohio is the second largest, next to Michigan, home for GM employees. So you can imagine what Sodom and Gomorrah they were painting in MI, OH and IN about the devastation in the area if GM was allowed to fail.

Warren

KRSTS
10-29-10, 07:04 PM
Good post Warren. Here's my history.
Bought a 1992 STS in 1999 with 55K miles for around $11K. Sold my 86 Deville that I paid $3K in 96 for $2700. In 2008 I bought a CPO 2008 STS with 8K miles that was a GM titled vehicle. Dealer offered me $700 for the 92 and I said I would park it before I gave it away. Parked it on the street and drove it occasionally for the next year. Had a bad HG and front suspension problems but it never failed to start and I could drive for about 20 mins before it overheated. All I had to do was add coolant and change the oil frequently. I was not going to put $3+K into a 17 year old car. Along comes Cash for Clunkers. My son wanted a new Sonata, so I used the 92 as a trade and got $3500 for it with a blown HG and numerous other issues. Also stripped what parts I could and sold them on ebay. The car had about 140K miles on it. Basically, I drove the 92 85K miles for 10 years for $7500, or $750/year depreciation. The only major repair on the 92 was a motor mount and new radiator. C4C got it off the road and made my son and I happy. As an aside I really enjoyed the 92 but I love driving my 2008 much more.

turnne
10-29-10, 07:23 PM
Good post Warren. Here's my history.
Bought a 1992 STS in 1999 with 55K miles for around $11K. Sold my 86 Deville that I paid $3K in 96 for $2700. In 2008 I bought a CPO 2008 STS with 8K miles that was a GM titled vehicle. Dealer offered me $700 for the 92 and I said I would park it before I gave it away. Parked it on the street and drove it occasionally for the next year. Had a bad HG and front suspension problems but it never failed to start and I could drive for about 20 mins before it overheated. All I had to do was add coolant and change the oil frequently. I was not going to put $3+K into a 17 year old car. Along comes Cash for Clunkers. My son wanted a new Sonata, so I used the 92 as a trade and got $3500 for it with a blown HG and numerous other issues. Also stripped what parts I could and sold them on ebay. The car had about 140K miles on it. Basically, I drove the 92 85K miles for 10 years for $7500, or $750/year depreciation. The only major repair on the 92 was a motor mount and new radiator. C4C got it off the road and made my son and I happy. As an aside I really enjoyed the 92 but I love driving my 2008 much more.


I LOVE THE STORY!!!...especially the highlighted part
While the price for it you paid in 99 sounds high..you definitely made up for it in the grand scheme of things
And you extremely well with the Deville..no isf and or buts there

I bought my 02 STS in 2007 for 11K with 59K on the clock....traded it in at 117K ..got $3500
It cost me about $7500 to drive it 58K miles...so you did do better than I did..lol

Somehow I don't think I am going to do as well on the 05.....I paid almost 19K and I think the value of it will be right where the 02 was at its age and mileage
So I am thinking 5K car value in 2-3 more years and 40K more miles

You are a perfect example of buying these cars right and knowing when to call it a "day"


Warren

EChas3
10-29-10, 08:19 PM
I'm not Green, I'm Conservative.

Most of the 'Cash for Clunkers' were older F150 Fords being traded for higher powered new F150's. As Federal programs go, it less wasteful than many. It only cost around twice what was quoted and per capita only cost $8 large to provide each $5,500 benefit (up to a year later). Effeciency?

I don't mind that it didn't even take 'clunkers' off the road, decrease oil consumption or clean the air. Owners of clunkers didn't buy new cars. The US could have saved more of the world's plentiful oil and improved the air quality by eliminating E10 fuel. The cars being traded predominantly already had cats. Cats work. Our Air is cleaner than it has been in hundreds of years.

I object to government exceeding its franchise, mendling in the the citizen's exercise of freedom. The cars destroyed by the program could have provided many millions of miles of transportation. Car prices went up. It's one more failure of the idiots inside the beltway.

turnne
10-30-10, 07:26 AM
I'm not Green, I'm Conservative.

Most of the 'Cash for Clunkers' were older F150 Fords being traded for higher powered new F150's. As Federal programs go, it less wasteful than many. It only cost around twice what was quoted and per capita only cost $8 large to provide each $5,500 benefit (up to a year later). Effeciency?

I don't mind that it didn't even take 'clunkers' off the road, decrease oil consumption or clean the air. Owners of clunkers didn't buy new cars. The US could have saved more of the world's plentiful oil and improved the air quality by eliminating E10 fuel. The cars being traded predominantly already had cats. Cats work. Our Air is cleaner than it has been in hundreds of years.

I object to government exceeding its franchise, mendling in the the citizen's exercise of freedom. The cars destroyed by the program could have provided many millions of miles of transportation. Car prices went up. It's one more failure of the idiots inside the beltway.

Something about your facts don't make sense to me
Based on all the Civics, Corollas and Fusions that were sold
I mean really..look at the spike in sales those three all during cash for clunkers.
I am sure a few of the hundreds of thousands of buyers of those three, under the program, bought something more fuel efficient and emission friendly than they had.
And even if someone got a new F-150....which I don;t think qualified due to its MPG rating...but even if that was the case it had to be more fuel efficient and emission friendly than the 10-15 year old one that was traded in

As for what cost vs what it saves..how do you know what it saved until you have some type of fuel savings data in front of you?

As for cleaner air than we have had in hundreds of years...hmmm
A newer car is more emission friendly...so by changing the average age of all cars on the road..if you could do that...to newer ones then there will be less emissions

For instance if there were still a substantial amount of cars from the 70's on the road...that would have to be a huge difference in emissions
Just look at how the CAFE standards have changed in the last 20 years
Just because the car had a CAT doesn't mean it was anywhere as emission friendly as a new one...really my dads old 1978 Lincoln had a cat and I bet if I looked up the emission ratings of the car he had versus a 2010 version it would be no where close

As for driving up the prices ..I am not sure I saw that

Then there is that safety factor...some of the cars I saw being traded in for that program did n't even look safe to my eyes. I was glad to see cars like that off the road. Some of those cars I saw traded in..I would literally have moved to another lane because I feared for my safety because I thought its fender was going to fall off at 60mph...or they smoked so much it came in my car and made me cough
What is it that worth to make you feel safer/breathe easier and get that type off car off the road?
Thats worth something to me

I personally had less of an issue with the Cash for Clunkers program that I did with the GM/Chrysler bailout...which cost a whole lot more than Cash for clunkers


As I have heard phrases such as...."why would you prop up a failing company...who has produced cars that people didn't want for years?".."there are other brands out there that people will buy".."if they want American Ford is still in business"

If you are that conservative the auto bailout must have made your blood boil. Add to that the fact that the cash for clunkers program cost was a fraction of the auto company bailout money

But like I said before..it really it really all comes down to greenbacks
You have said that you would spend more than the car is worth on a repair.
I don't call that conservative..at least financially anyway
Too me financially conservative would mean..managing the resale value, of lack of, with a keen eye and knowing when its time to move and when the impact to your wallet doesn't make financial sense...considering the asset in question


I am not sure the "conservative" label is something I ever put on myself...but I guess I have to admit..based on the above
I must be a conservative..


Warren

RippyPartsDept
10-30-10, 10:50 AM
"actions speak louder than words"

doesn't matter what you call it... green, liberal, conservative, etc - they're just words
it matters when you're communicating to use the best word to convey your meaning
but when you're trying to characterize a person, or group of people i could care less what one person or groups calls the themselves or calls another person or group
i look at their actions and come to my own conclusion (as everyone should)

turnne
10-30-10, 11:56 AM
"actions speak louder than words"

doesn't matter what you call it... green, liberal, conservative, etc - they're just words
it matters when you're communicating to use the best word to convey your meaning
but when you're trying to characterize a person, or group of people i could care less what one person or groups calls the themselves or calls another person or group
i look at their actions and come to my own conclusion (as everyone should)

People many time categorize themselves into groups because they identify with, hold the same values etc

It really can have nothing to do with what another person thinks they are a member of


Warren

RippyPartsDept
10-30-10, 12:46 PM
see that's kind of what i'm talking about

when people talk about their values it doesn't really mean anything (to me)
what does mean something to me is what actual values they have and that shows in their actions (not their words)

i've been lied to enough times (on purpose or otherwise) to have learned this lesson

sorry for taking this thread off track, 45wheelgun, are you satisfied with the (on topic) responses you've received?

EChas3
10-30-10, 02:47 PM
I said I am conservative. I did not say I was A Conservative. Most may put me in that group because it's convenient and easier than trying to understand a point I'm trying to make. That's OK, it's accurate enough. Think what you like; I'm going to, too!

It's human nature to classify people & things. Our brain can't cope with all the data our senses collect. We have to filter out details and select the information we chose to value as we form our conclusions.

A 'discriminating man' used to be a compliment because it described someone that could recognize details and form accurate conclusions. Now, it means the reverse: a man that notices irrelevant details and form inaccurate conclusions. See why it's so important to teach basic English? (It's one of the hardest languages to learn already!)

turnne
11-01-10, 10:28 AM
I said I am conservative. I did not say I was A Conservative. Most may put me in that group because it's convenient and easier than trying to understand a point I'm trying to make. That's OK, it's accurate enough. Think what you like; I'm going to, too!

It's human nature to classify people & things. Our brain can't cope with all the data our senses collect. We have to filter out details and select the information we chose to value as we form our conclusions.

A 'discriminating man' used to be a compliment because it described someone that could recognize details and form accurate conclusions. Now, it means the reverse: a man that notices irrelevant details and form inaccurate conclusions. See why it's so important to teach basic English? (It's one of the hardest languages to learn already!)

Discriminating can still be quite a compliment
It depends on the specific situation and the context that the word is used in
That example can be used for thousands of words in the English language.
Even the words that you used in your description of discriminating ...irrelevant details
Irrelevant to whom?...its all in the person's taste etc

What one person might consider an irreverent detail..lets say in an automobile since this is an automobile forum...the other might think is a neccesity

In regards to being conservative
I might fit that bill more so than you
1. I really had an issue with the Auto company bailout
Its a much bigger deal to me than the cash for clunkers on any financial scale
2. I am not willing to pour money into a car that is not worth much money
3. I will buy the car..regardless of where its made that fits my needs and financial ability at that time. I will not spend more to buy a like product..regardless of where its made
This cost includes losses in resale value

Warren