Several years ago, when LED Christmas lights were first coming out, I jumped on the craze and bought enough to replace all our lights, inside and outside the home. Problem was, after looking at them, both my wife and I agreed, we hate the way they look. The light they give off is a fraction from incadescent lights, the kind of light they give off is weird and the colours do not look natural. Other disadvantages include no replaceable bulbs and virtually no heat ( for outdoor lights that end up under snow, this is a bad thing ). Advantages are they are cool to the touch ( good for interior lights, especially with small kids around ), they use about 5% of the hydro that traditional lights do and they typically last quite a bit longer before needing replacement ( usually several years ).
Because our kids aren't small and we don't have too many lights inside ( about 700 ), we have kept with incadescent lights, especially considering that we only use mini lights inside. But for outside, I have 6 - 25 light, 25 foot light strings of C9 ( 7 Watt ) bulbs and a moving reindeer with white mini incadescent lights. I thought I would get the LED's this year to save on hydro and even got some NOMA lights from Canadian Tire. I got them up ( took about 90 minutes ). and looked at them in the dark last night...I hate them. The light they give off is wimpy and stupid. So I looked at the box and sat down to do the math to see exactly how much I would actually save on hydro. Here is the result.
Based upon the figures they give ( although they base it upon $0.12/kWhr and here it's about $0.07/kWhr and came up with a yearly hydro savings of $37, given how much we will use them. With the new lights costing about $114 with taxes, this would mean that we wouldn't start seeing a return on our investment until the 4th Christmas season and although the lights have a 5 year limited warranty, I have seen LED lights malfunction after only a little use. So all of this in mind, I took them back, got my money back and I look forward to being the brightest home on the street again with my power-sucking C9's. If it's any concelation, we are very energy and resource conscious in most other ways. We use energy efficient bulbs throughout our home, we don't have electronics or lights on that we aren't using, we recycle everything, necessitating 3 large blue boxes to be full every two weeks and thus only have 1 or 2 bags of garbage and vitually all our electronics and appliances are Energy Star Compliant.
So I wil proudly "carry the torch" of the traditional lights, even with their higher power consumption. After all, doesn't Ontario Hydro need the revenue anyways?
Long live C9's!
Cheers!
Well, we're at another chapter in life here. With my business growing and our family getting busier, it has been harder to make due with one vehicle. We have only made it this far ( over 13 years ), because my awesome mother-in-law has been over the top gracious in giving us rides, or lending us her car, even when it was inconvenient for her. But we knew it was time to have our own second car. We already have a 2007 Dodge Grand Caravan SXT, and so we didn't need or want another large vehicle that would only make us cry all the more at the gas pump. We determined because of price mostly and fuel economy second, that mid-sized cars ( like the Honda Accord & the Toyota Camry ) were not feasible. We also decided that the sub-compacts ( like the Toyota Yaris & the Chevy Aveo ) were a bit too small, especially when needing a vehicle that could carry my DJ gear or if our family wanted to go on shorter, out-of-town trips, like London.
So the compact class it was. I do most of the leg work ( internet research, initial test drives, haggling with sales people ) and narrow it down to a few cars for my wife, Melanie and I, to look at together. This saves her time, energy, and I like doing this sort of stuff anyways. So with all the compact cars represented in the Sarnia area, and factoring all elements like features, ride, price, resale value, reliability records, safety ratings, we narrowed it down to the top two cars in this category...the Mazda 3 and the Hyundai Elantra Touring. This wasn't an easy decision at first. The Mazda was more expensive with less features and less warranty, but boasted a more "fun" driving experience and slightly more comfortable front seats. It also has a longer history of good reliability, but is higher to insure, more costly to repair, but has about a $3000 higher resale value. After much thought, the resale value wasn't a big issue for us, as we plan on keeping the car a long time. The Elantra Touring boasted WAY more interior space...like not even close. The legroom in the backseat is as much or MORE than some mid-sized cars! And the cargo space rivals many SUV's! Additionally, the fit and finished, inside and out, is much higher and feels like a more expensive vehicle. The fuel economy is comparable and about average for this class of car...still much better than our van. The ride of the Elantra is on par with the Mazda for smoothness, if not slightly smoother. It definitely is quiter in regards to wind and engine noise, yet the road noise is not bad. The handling of the Elantra Touring is reminiscent of a Volkswagon Golf...like a train on tracks! The radio has excellent sound and reception ( pulling in stations my van won't ) and is XM Satellite ready. It also has 1/8" & USB inputs. The ergonomics of the cabin are nothing short of brilliant. While it may not be as sleek as the Mazda 3, everything in the Elantra is in a sensible place. The entry to the back seats is amazing and miles ahead of the Mazda 3 and the car has every feature Melanie and I could ever want in a vehicle...much more than the Mazda 3 GS. With 4-wheel disc brakes with ABS, traction control, electronic stability control and 6 air bags, this car is loaded with safety features.
Visibility is great for both outside and all implements within the cabin. Hyundai boasts a 5 year 100,000 km, comprehensive warranty ( formerly known as "bumer to bumper" ). Only Kia has a comparable warranty. Hyundai also offers a one year walk away policy.
So with all this ( and some other minor points ), it became clear to us that the Hyundai was the car for us. The reviews are stellar, both from experts and users. As for performance, the Mazda 3 has a little more bite" in the pedal, but it only boasts a 0.7 second advantage in a 0-60 test. Given that the Elantra Touring is heavier, wider, taller, has larger wheels, higher ground clearance ( better in the snow ), wider tires and is less aerodynamic ( because of the hatchback design), probably accounts for most of that difference. They have the same torque and the Mazda only has 10 more HP. Where the Elantra Touring excells is at mid-acceleration...on the highway, where you need it more. But probably because of it's quiter interior, supple ride, and balanced gearing, it simply doesn't "feel" like it accelerates as well, but the facts say differently. In the end, with our son soon learning to drive, do I want a car that invigorates the driver to "zoom zoom"...nope!
Everyone has different needs and for others, the Mazda 3, or some other vehicle would be best for them and this is why it is great there are many options. What ultimately sold us on the vehicle as the dealership itself ( please don't underestimate this ). Fenwick Motors, with professional staff like Jim MacKenzie, Bob, Phil, Jeremy and Glen Fenwick ( owner ), we knew our experience was going to be very positive. They provided us with a loader vehicle for the weekend until we got the details of our purchase all figured out. This is quality customer service and why we will HIGHLY RECOMMEND Fenwick Motors to everyone.
I hope and trust that this info might be helpful to anyone looking at these cars.
Cheers!
My daughter Ainsleigh celebrated her 10th birthday yesterday and what she wanted most was a new camera. So, being the photographer that I am, I was more than happy to select a new camera for her. We bought her a very inexpensive point and shoot 2 years ago and it recently "bit the biscuit". So I visited my local shop, looked online, researched many reviews and narrowed my selection down to two cameras. The Panasonic DMC-FX48 and the Nikon Coolpix S640. My main criteria were durability, ease of use and of course image quality. I personally prefer quality over bells and whistles, and while some of the other manufacturers competitive products ( Sony, Canon, Fuji, Pentax, etc. ), had more features, these two stood out from the crowd. Their price was the same ( $280 Canadian ), but the Panasonic was discounted $170! Both had good menu navigation, ergonomics, macro ability, rechargeable batteries, exposure compensation, flash control, 5x zoom, video with sound, in camera image touch up, optical image stabilization and face/scene recognition. They both were about the same size and weight ( good for my daughter's small hands ) and had metal bodies. The Nikon boasts a 2 year warranty, faster focus ( about the same as the Nikon D40 ), faster zoom, and a higher ISO ability ( up to 6400 ). The Panasonic on the other hand boasts HD video ( 720p ), slightly better menu navigation, and a wider angle view ( 25mm versus 28mm on the Nikon ). So I brought my laptop to Carman's Foto Source and conducted my own tests.
The performance was about equal when it came to normal lighting conditions with and without the flash, but the speed of the Nikon was noticeable. However, when using the macro mode, the Panasonic has two options. One where you shoot at the wide angle, which doesn't get you as close as the Nikon, and another mode, which uses the telephoto end, which got you much closer than the Nikon, but with significant image quality loss. The Nikon clearly won this test.
The other test I performed was the high ISO test. Because we weren't investing in a DSLR for her yet ( too large, heavy and complex use ), we wanted a good little point and shoot that she could be creative with and start learning the basics of photography. Neither camera allows for control of shutter speed or aperture, but both allow control over the ISO's. Shots from 100 ISO - 400 ISO showed similar good performance. However, once the Panasonic went to 800 ISO, significant noise was visible, while the Nikon remained clean. In the end, the Nikon could produce as clean an image at 3200 ISO as the Panasonic did at 800 ISO. However, the images at 6400 ISO on the Nikon were terrible. Way too much noise and colour saturation loss. But to have a point and shoot capable of 3200 ISO is impressive. I chose the Nikon ( my Nikon nerd heart was warmed ), because the HD video and the slightly wider view of the Panasonic didn't make up for the speed and IQ of the Nikon. My daughter loves her new camera and I hope this quick little review is helpful to anyone looking at these ( or other like products ). Even though, technically they aren't in the same category ( because of the Panasonic's original price ), I felt it perfectly legitimate to compare them. I get annoyed when review sites only review price comparable models, because that's not how consumers always shop.
Cheers!