(cont'd from previous post)

To recap, I mentioned these models:

- Chevrolet/GMC 1500/2500/3500 full-size light truck.
- Chevrolet Suburban/Tahoe / GMC Yukon
- Chevrolet Express/GMC Savana full-size van
- Ford Crown Victoria/Mercury Grand Marquis/Lincoln Towncar
- Ford E-150/E-250/E-350 full-size van
- Toyota Sienna

I should point out that all these models are good on cargo/trunk capacity, and have an ability to tow a trailer for occasionally moving very large items. So there's this practical angle that's lost with most small size economy cars.

What To Stay Away From

I've heard that after '12, the odds are much higher that synthetic oil might be needed, but that's probably not the case for the models I mentioned. Worst part is, it costs twice as much to change the oil if it's synthetic. But, this is unlikely to be a big factor so, you probably shouldn't decide against a model for this sole reason.

I spoke highly of what were essentially Ford and GM "light truck"/full-size van models, as well as the Ford Panther platform. I can't however, say the same for their traditional car models (other than obviously, the Ford Panther platform models).

The last car GM made that I thought was worth a damn was the B-Body platform (Chevrolet Caprice, Buick Roadmaster, Cadillac Fleetwood) but they stopped making those after '96. Some speak highly of the Buick Park Avenue with the 3800 V6 engine, but GM stopped making that after '05, and you mentioned wanting '08 or newer. The Buick Lucerne was produced until '12, but some have the floor shifter while others have a column shifter, and you mentioned you didn't like the Impala so it might have the same problems.

Ford cars seem to be garbage too, except for the Panther platform.

Someone suggested minivans. Chrysler made the first vehicle that could be considered a minivan. However, everything Chrysler makes is unreliable, expensive trash. I've heard Fiat is the Chrysler of Europe, making unreliable trash for the European market. When I heard Chrysler merged with Fiat, I had to laugh. Crap times crap, is crap squared, which makes for a whole lot of crap. Curse Lee Iaccoca for coming up with a plan to save Chrysler in the 80s. But yeah, stay away from anything that Chrysler makes unless you like unreliable vehicles that will quit on you and because of repairs, keeps your wallet empty.

Also, I know you mentioned a budget of $10K which really isn't much to work with, so I doubt this is an issue, but obviously you want to stay away from any of the German brands too. There's a joke that goes like this:

What's more expensive than a new BMW? A used one! The repair costs for them will eat you alive.


Anyway, I hope something I said here is helpful. There's likely other things or factors I haven't thought of, but someone else can chime in.

It really depends on your needs, and what you most need to prioritize.

But anything you decide or go with, it's going to be give and take. Either way, I'll give you some suggestions to think about and consider, as well as strong suggestions about what you most want to avoid.

Suggestions To Consider

The limitations and restrictions you specified, I'm not gonna lie, it's going to make it hard. And anything I'm about to suggest, is most likely going to have lower than average fuel economy.

The good news is, unless you spend a lot of time on the road, the cost of fuel would actually make up a pretty small portion of the overall TCO (total cost of ownership). Insurance, repairs, and (for most) the loan payment would dwarf fuel cost, even if cost reaches $5/gal. or more. While fuel cost could be a consideration, it probably shouldn't be your primary consideration. If you want more details on this, just ask.

First, I'd only recommend something with a column shifter.

I always hated the floor shifter, because 1) such a terrible waste of space, 2) when parallel parking, the driver has to get in from outside on the side of traffic, as opposed to getting in from the passenger side and shuffling over (much safer), 3) for an automatic transmission there's *no* excuse for a floor shifter. I don't know what car designers were thinking. Okay, digression and rant over.

Second, for a sedan or wagon, a front bench seat is preferable. That's another thing car designers seem to have moved away from. Again, I don't know what they're thinking.

My first thought of course, is anything based on the Ford Panther platform, manufactured between '81 and '11. Sadly, Ford discontinued that model because in '12, stability control was mandated and I guess they didn't want to spend the R&D to add it. Panther platform models are Ford Crown Victoria (discontinued after '07, '11 for police models), the Mercury Grand Marquis LS (discontinued after '10), and the Lincoln Towncar (discontinued after '11).

All of these models have a front bench seat, a column shifter, and yes, a couch on wheels. Also, that powertrain platform can be very reliable and long lasting, if maintained properly. It's not uncommon to get 400K miles before the engine needs to be rebuilt. The 4.6L Ford Modular V8 would also have a bit of power, which is always helpful. Supposedly, it's rated for 2K lbs of towing capacity for towing a trailer, but you could probably tow more. Nice for renting a U-Haul trailer for a day when you need to move something big. They're also rear wheel drive, which is a simpler design than front wheel drive. Front wheel drive is usually favored for smaller cars since it's possible to cram more into a smaller space.

Other suggestions include the Ford Econoline/E-series full-size van, or the Chevrolet Express/GMC Savana full-size van.

After '15, Ford only produces the chassis-cab variant of the E-series, to be converted into shuttle buses, cube vans, et. al. but between '08 and '15, they have cargo and passenger van variants. The E-series has two bucket seats in the front row rather than a front bench seat, but it does NOT have a center console that's flush with the front seats, that could pinch if you're wide enough. They also have drink holders integrated into the dashboard, below the stereo, which of course are useful.

The Chevrolet Express/GMC Savana is also similar with the front bucket seats, no center console, and drink cup holders in the front dashboard, below the stereo.

In both cases, again if maintained properly, you can expect to get lots of miles before rebuilding the engine.

Another thought might be the Chevrolet Suburban/Tahoe, or the GMC Yukon, but watch out.. some of them have a center console flush with the two front bucket seats, rather than a bench seat for the front row. But any model you'd likely consider will have a column shifter, and it shares the same powertrain as the 1500 model of automatic transmission GM full-size light trucks, which can be quite reliable if taken care of.

Speaking of, certain models of the Ford F-series or Chevrolet 1500/2500/3500 full-size light trucks could work too. But watch out. Some Ford F-150 models since '11 went the route of the ^$&!!@$( center console and floor shifter despite being automatic. However, traditional pickup models do have a rear area that's exposed to the weather, which is a downside. An extended/crew cab model should mean you could put shopping bags in the second row, however. I fully admit to using the back seat in my sedan to store shopping bags, or the front passenger seat (I'm usually driving alone).

Someone mentioned minivans. If I had to get a "minivan" I'd probably only consider the Toyota Sienna. If Camry reliability is anything to go by, anyway. But I'm not sure what the interior might be like, particularly in the front row.

(cont'd in next post)

I can't say I ever have. That doesn't sound very appetizing. Where did you see this?

How would one even fry butter? Wouldn't the hot oil pretty much melt almost instantly? Whenever I cook mashed potatoes the butter melts very quickly.

On at least one occasion.

There's this bar I go to on occasion (before the virus, anyway), though I didn't go as often as I did to other places. However, I miss it now. It's a bit of a dive, karaoke most nights so the patrons provide their own entertainment, but the beer is cold and the drinks are fairly cheap for the area.

I also can't help but notice that nearly all the staff, and the patrons are overweight and obese, even more so than the local population on average. The patrons do tend to be somewhat less formal than I might like, probably like most Target patrons, but whatever. Also a bit more blue collar than I might prefer, unlike the other place which seems to be more a balanced mix of blue and white collar which I usually prefer, but I digress.

So one time, I saw this couple in their mid 20s there who didn't seem to be regulars, at least I haven't seen them before.

She was Latina, and kind of curvy but not super big. I would guess her BMI would have been right at 25, or slightly higher. But definitely not super skinny. Also came from Louisiana, or a recent ancestor did, but is it Texas.

But her boyfriend and possible fiance, that's a different story. He's white, and he was BIG. At least 250, but probably close to 300 lbs.

The conversation went all over the place, but a couple things really stuck out to me. First was just how food obsessed she seemed to be. Definitely the sort who probably makes large meals, and holidays aren't holidays unless there's a huge feast for everyone.

She was probably quite drunk, but even seemed slightly insistent because I guess she really likes seafood. Almost seemed offended that I had no opinion about it. But I come from the Midwest. While every supermarket does of course have seafood, it's not as big of a thing as it would be in Louisiana. I can't remember the last time I ever had any.

The second thing was about how they met, because I guess I asked about that. I guess when he was 18 or 19, many years before now, he started working at some place, and a coworker was an older family member of hers. At some point, this coworker introduced them. She recalls being skeptical, because he was white, but was glad she was talked into giving him a shot.

But she volunteered another bit of information.. that he was quite skinny at the time.

This means that in the last 5+ years they were together, it looks like he must have doubled his weight, or more. She clearly didn't mind, and I doubt he minded either.

Most likely, he has grown fat off of her cooking, and is probably still getting fatter.

I would guess they will get married, he'll keep eating big, and he'll never weigh under 300 lbs. ever again.


I didn't ask them about feederism, because it would have been awkward. Her mother/aunt/grandmother was with them too for whatever reason.

I wouldn't have known if they would have known what feederism even is.

But, that was the most obvious display and strong hint of feederism I've seen in person, to date.

Really? Hope she keeps it up, though I won't be surprised if she won't want to mix it in with something later.

Most folks don't take to drinking heavy cream straight because it can be kind of thick. So, they usually prefer to mix it into something.

I'll drink half & half like milk, though since that's pretty much all it is.. creamier milk. 10.5% fat vs. 3.5%.

One recipe I like is one bottle of Ensure Plus (or Equate Plus, Wal-Mart's knock off) to 1 cup heavy cream. That's 1,150 calories in only 16 fl. oz., more calories than any milkshake you can get at takeout, in a much smaller size. I think it's easier to drink too, but that's my opinion.

Though lately I've also been adding a cup of half & half to the recipe, so it's 1,470 calories in 24 fl. oz. I'm sure at some point I'll upgrade to a double serving of the original recipe; 2,300 calories in 32 fl. oz.

Apologies if it seemed judgemental, as that wasn't intended. It was curiosity, more than anything.

But yes, being in the service requires certain physical fitness standards including body fat percentage and maximum weight. Sounds like an absolute nightmare for anyone into feederism, so my condolences.

It'll be interesting to see if they ever relax or expand these standards, since right now, probably 80% of those age 18-25 are ineligible to join for one reason or another. The most common reason? 67% are too heavy or fat.

What kind of job has a requirement like that?

Seems unusual, even a bit discriminatory if there isn't a bonafide, legitimate reason for it. Why modeling and acting are the only jobs anywhere where they can hire based on age, race, gender, height, weight, overall looks, etc.

Heard of mobile phone tower technicians being subject to a maximum of 250 lbs because the safety harnesses aren't designed for more, but that seems like B.S. and a cop-out. I don't believe it would be that hard to make a safety harness that could handle more.

Another thought might be sewer plumber because those manholes are only so big, but over time I might expect them to increase in diameter. Newer NYC MTA train cars have wider seats than the old ones, so they must know something.

If that's all Thick-It is, almost may as well just get pure maltodextrin powder for much cheaper, right?

That is, if someone wants to go that route.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Do you mean mixing that weight gain powder (e.g. Serious Mass) with heavy cream?

If so, you will be disappointed and frustrated. Awhile back, I tried to mix this weight gain powder but instead of water or milk, I used half & half.

The mix was SO thick, it was virtually undrinkable. It was very difficult to get through a straw. After only getting about 4 fl. oz. down, I tried to save the rest of it to try later. But I never did, because it was just SO thick.

Heavy cream is even thicker than half & half, as you know. I suspect if you mixed that with the weight gainer powder, even pudding wouldn't be as thick.

Not to mention the fact the weight gain powder is very expensive for the calories. $20 for only 8 scoops of that stuff, and each scoop only have 625 calories or so.

I feel like a better way to get a bit more protein is to just increase the amount of meat you eat, in whatever form you like the best. Add bacon to burgers, or have more bacon or sausage at breakfast. Or add an additional beef patty to your burgers. Usually eat a single? Have a double. Usually have doubles? Have a triple.

For shakes, one good recipe I like is mixing 1 cup of heavy cream (800 cals) with 1 cup of Ensure Plus (350 cals). That's 1,150 calories, about twice as fattening as most milkshakes of a similar volume, yet it tastes just like a more liquid, and a bit less sweet. I recommend having that chilled, if you can. It tastes quite refreshing this way.

Oh and both Kroger (Fortify Plus) and Wal-Mart (Equate Plus) have their knock off store brand equivalents to Ensure Plus. Just as good but much cheaper.

Sure, in theory there's also Boost VHC (530 calories in 1 cup) but it's a slightly worse calories/$ ratio than Equate Plus, though a better value than Ensure Plus.

I don't know what your budget is like, but if it's high enough, I suppose after exercise you could always hit up a fast food joint. Try to work your way up to eating the largest combo if you aren't doing so already. Lots of protein in those burgers. It's too bad you don't have Whataburger, as their triple has an impressive 65g of protein. Maybe you have Freddy's. The McD's Double Quarter Pounder isn't that big but that's an option virtually everywhere.

With any luck this should mean you'll eventually grow into L or XL yoga capris (and possibly more if you want).