mikefitzvw

Hey. Dunno if you'll get to this response or not. I don't think I can read all of your responses because they're so sad, but this one in particular for some reason almost made me cry. I'm 20 and gay, so I kinda have to adopt (or go through some other bizarre, but always deliberate) process of having a kid. You seem to have a good head on your shoulders, and you inspire me to find someone just like you someday that I can help. I wish you didn't have to go through all that, but I wish you luck with your adoptive family. Merry whatever-doesn't-offend-you. :)

Are you still accepting "hey"'s? ;)

Is there a reason, with the average age of cars creeping up to nearly 12 years old, that CR doesn't extend its review commentary to match? I've never owned a car newer than 12 years old, and my current one is 20. A lot of teenagers and millennials are choosing to buy older cars because the market forces don't allow them to buy anything remotely new, and those cars are lasting longer and longer and aren't the deathtraps that a 20-year-old car would've been 20 years ago (despite some likely-crucial differences between models). In spite of CR's relentless insistence that anything without 500 computer-controlled widgets is a deathtrap, the reality is that a lot of those older cars are finding buyers well into their second and even third decade of existence. While your reliability surveys wouldn't mean very much beyond 10-15 years (ownership/maintenance becomes crucial) it would still be a huge benefit to readers to rate the safety, economy, and features of cars up to twice the new-average age of a car - 23 to 24 years. If the average age of a car on the road today is approaching 12 years old, why not tell consumers which ones are the best bargains?

Sincerely, a 201,000-mile 1999 Honda Civic LX driver. :)