solarbird: (Default)
solarbird ([personal profile] solarbird) wrote2009-08-04 07:49 pm
Entry tags:

lolwhat


Data from Yahoo! Finance, chart from The Mess that Greenspan Made,
pointed out to me by [livejournal.com profile] cow

[identity profile] galbinus-caeli.livejournal.com 2009-08-05 03:54 am (UTC)(link)
Why are the Explorers broken down by year, but the Cherokees are not?

[identity profile] galbinus-caeli.livejournal.com 2009-08-05 11:14 am (UTC)(link)
Yet that would be a more internally consistent data set. If the vehicles were not broken out by year, it would probably be:
  1. Ford Explorer
  2. Jeep Grand Cherokee
  3. Jeep Cherokee
  4. Dodge Caravan
  5. ???
I have no use for the Ford Explorer, but that is no reason to massage the data to make it look worse than it actually is.

[identity profile] brombear.livejournal.com 2009-08-05 10:58 pm (UTC)(link)
Problem with the Cherokees is that they have a VERY bad tendency to rust out in a short time! I had a 96 that had very little rust. After 1 really bad winter with lots of salt and slush, I almost put my hand through the rear floorboard. They weren't really good on gas, but weren't that bad on it as well.

[identity profile] epawtows.livejournal.com 2009-08-05 03:18 pm (UTC)(link)
One reason I can think of: Fords have a tendancy to change over model years much more than Jeeps have, particularly during that period. A 1998 Jeep Cherokee is nearly identical to a 2001 model. As I recall, Explorers had two model revamps during that stretch.
Edited 2009-08-05 15:18 (UTC)