Gearing is quite low so I think it manages heavy loads very well. I've certainly stuffed it full. It didn't like the three-test tool box though (drawers pulled out and to the side). Felt a bit light in the nose.
"You spend more time in traffic and less time actually with the kids since people feel that since their children are in a good school, they can outsource the child rearing duties"
Actually my commute is 20min and the traffic highway is pretty light because I leave at 6:30am. And I'm home by 4pm everyday, so I have plenty of family time. And my wife stays home too.
"Wow, thats amazing. I wonder why those evil car companies wouldn't want to bring those over to the states. Do you have any links or references for those vehicles? "
Honda Stream is one of them. And if you ever travelled to Europe or Asia, you'll see plenty of them on the road. As to the "why don't they bring them here." simply $$$$ profit.
"There are two snack boxes, one with 100 calories/serving with 12 servings and the other with 150 calories/serving with six servings. You might think that everybody should go for the first box since it has a static number printed “100 calories” which is lower than on the other box. But, I need to have something more substantial, but not so much that I exceed it. The sweet spot happens to be 150 calories. So, I would prefer the second box."
I'd rather eat one and one half servings of the first box. You get 50% more food for the same calories as the 2nd box.
Incentive to buyers or manufacturers isn’t the right thing because not only is it easy to get around the road blocks, which in turn can penalize those with more honest approach, but also it doesn’t address the key issue: consumption.
Let's see...if people buy a more efficient vehicle instead of a less efficient vehicle they'll consumue less gas. Therefore, if incentives encourage the purchase of more efficient, then incentives will result in less gas consumption.
bobw3: I'd rather eat one and one half servings of the first box. You get 50% more food for the same calories as the 2nd box.
If I understand his point, the real measure of the food's value is the number of calories, which provide energy (which is why we eat in the first place). You may be getting 50 percent more food by volume, but you really aren't gaining anything of value, because the calories provide the benefits.
bobw3: Let's see...if people buy a more efficient vehicle instead of a less efficient vehicle they'll consumue less gas. Therefore, if incentives encourage the purchase of more efficient, then incentives will result in less gas consumption.
But if the price of gas remains steady, or even declines in real dollars (as it did during the 1980s and most of the 1990s), then people may use the more efficient vehicle to drive more miles, and end up consuming as much, or even more, gasoline than before.
I'd rather eat one and one half servings of the first box. You get 50% more food for the same calories as the 2nd box. You would doesn't mean everybody else would too. Does it? How do you plan on controlling that?
if people buy a more efficient vehicle instead of a less efficient vehicle they'll consumue less gas.
- Not if they drive more. - Not if the criteria that defined efficiency of vehicle had flaws to begin with. - Not if now they needed more than one vehicle whereas in the other case they could get by with just one.
Maybe I misread his post. I thought he was looking to get more food, like a bigger serving size for a given amount of calories, but if you're right, then just go for the ones with more calories.
"then people may use the more efficient vehicle to drive more miles, and end up consuming as much, or even more, gasoline than before. "
I mentioned this before, but I think the reason people drive the amount they do has more to do with their distance from work, stores, schools, etc., the number of errands they do, number of kids they have, etc... Not that number is fixed, but I don't see why they would all of a sudden start driving more because they have a car with better MPG. It is possible that folks may take more weekend trips because they now get better MPG with their vehicle, but the majority of the miles they drive I think are pretty fixed. It would be something interesting to study.
"- Not if they drive more. " Zero evidence that just because someone buys a more fuel eficient vehicle they'll start driving more miles.
"- Not if the criteria that defined efficiency of vehicle had flaws to begin with. " Zero evidence that the EPA testing criteria is flawed, although it does have a certain amount of statistical variance, which is normal
"- Not if now they needed more than one vehicle whereas in the other case they could get by with just one. " I'm not sure if I understand this one. Are you saying that a person currently owns a minivan, sells it for a small car and then turns around and also buys a truck??
I'd rather eat one and one half servings of the first box. You get 50% more food for the same calories as the 2nd box. You would doesn't mean everybody else would too. Does it? How do you plan on controlling that?
I thought the idea in this example was to get the most servings for a given calorie intake, but it was sort of a confusing example to start with.
May not be the best place, but since it's active here, how about this:
Iran does something to shut down oil movements, prices go to $150/bo and $6/gallon...shades of '79, you're limited to 5 gallons at a time - what car do you want to be driving?
I've had 3 adults and a child in my Echo (curb weight 2055 pounds, yesssss!) without a problem. Power-wise, there was no noticeable impact.
Too bad Edmunds doesn't show a GVWR for the Echo, and I don't know it offhand. But it is fine for carrying four people around.
And I guess from your post the xA can carry 965 pounds of people and stuff. That's excellent, I am sure you couldn't fit more than that much people/stuff in it anyway, unless you were carrying bricks or lead sheeting or something.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Honda Stream is one of them. And if you ever travelled to Europe or Asia, you'll see plenty of them on the road. As to the "why don't they bring them here." simply $$$$ profit.
Given the cost of the Stream in the UK, I wouldn't think profit would be a factor. I also don't think styling is a big issue with vehicles like the Mazda5 around, I think the Stream is kind of cute (and I like the Mazda5 as well). In googling, I saw a 0-60 time of over 10 seconds, which is getting a little pokey but still safe. If you have a link to specs, that would be great. Is there somewhere that defines the European...well UK testing for fuel economy? What is the urban cycle and the rural cycle, etc?
I'm looking at buying something, so it's on my mind. Besides straight mpg, range is a consideration in a 'crisis' situation - minimizing purchases is a good thing, so I wish the new diesels were here!
Iran does something to shut down oil movements, prices go to $150/bo and $6/gallon...shades of '79, you're limited to 5 gallons at a time - what car do you want to be driving?
I'd buy a Diesel and then start siphoning out of my home heating oil tank! I think it's the same basic stuff, isn't it?
Seriously though, I don't know if I'd change what I drive. I only do around 6,000 miles per year now, so I'd be somewhat insulated, I guess. My truck gets around 12 mpg in local driving, so at $6.00 per gallon, that would be $3,000 per year. I might look into finding some used, cheap little throwaway crap-box to drive around in. But even doing that, I dunno if the economy would work out. Let's say found some little $2000 toy that got 30 mpg in my type of driving. I wouldn't give up my truck, because it's paid for, cheap to insure, and, well, I do need it from time to time.
In the first year, the car would save me about $1800 in fuel. But it would cost $2000 to buy, plus whatever it took to get it inspected, tagged, and titled. Let's say it passes inspection with flying colors, and for this first year I get it on the road for $300 ($100 for sales tax, $128 for 2 years registration, $45 for an inspection, and other odds and ends to fluff it up to $300). Then there's insurance, which I could get for around $300, for liability-only.
So I figure in the first year, I'd pay $2600 to save $1800. Or a net payout of $800. And that's presuming my theoretical $2000 econobox is ultra-reliable. Now the next year, I'd start to see some savings, as long as the car doesn't break down. I'd outlay an extra $300 in insurance, but save $1800 in fuel, so the net savings is $1500. That more than wipes out the $800 loss for the first year, and puts me $700 ahead at the end of the second. I'm not factoring in maintenance here, because while the car would need maintenance, obviously, then the truck would need less since it's not used as often, so it may cancel out.
Iran does something to shut down oil movements, prices go to $150/bo and $6/gallon...shades of '79, you're limited to 5 gallons at a time - what car do you want to be driving?
I'm with gr .. the car I am currently driving (2003 Saturn L300). I've been averaging 23-25MPG lately and only have one more payment left.
I would, however, start to work from home more frequently. I currently commute 20 miles one-way to the office, but I can do just about everything I need at home. I'd look at going to the office only once or twice a week. I could get a tank of gas to last a month at that rate, rather than the tank every 10 days or so ... lessee ... 14 gallons x $6/gal is $84, so I'd save almost $170/mo in gas.
EDIT: Last tank of gas cost me $2.60/gal, so I'm spending $2.60 x 14 x 3 = $109.20 a month.
Zero evidence that just because someone buys a more fuel eficient vehicle they'll start driving more miles.
What would stop anybody from driving more?
Zero evidence that the EPA testing criteria is flawed, although it does have a certain amount of statistical variance, which is normal
To the question asked by texases above, I can get 26-27 mpg in my Accord. EPA rates Fit at 30 mpg and goes on to suggest that mileage will suffer based on driving style, and my driving style happens to be that. So, is it logical for me to assume that Fit would get me about the same mileage as my Accord does?
So, buying a new Fit makes no sense at all to save on gas (even as I ignore the cost to buy a new car). Agreed?
Are you saying that a person currently owns a minivan, sells it for a small car and then turns around and also buys a truck??
No, I am saying that a family needed a family hauler, for five or six. But you want to tax bigger vehicles, and provide incentives to smaller vehicles. So, this family chooses to have two smaller vehicles to fit their needs now.
Or, it could be a bunch of carpoolers. Since larger vehicle that could carry five is being taxed, two folks decide to split and now the same driving is being achieved in two vehicles. Is this the key to conservation? You tell me.
I thought the idea in this example was to get the most servings for a given calorie intake, but it was sort of a confusing example to start with.
Not at all! What you left out is fundamental to conservation, and that is usage.
I live 13 miles from work, so it's a bit far to bike it.
My folks lived about 13 miles from the community college I went attended (SBCC)and I rode almost every day (I drove to my 7-10pm classes). It took about 45 minutes or so with traffic. There were a couple of times natural disasters (floods and fires) closed the freeway and some surface streets and it was only because I was on a bike that I got home at all. What kills me now is the total lack of bike lanes or conceptual understanding from motorists in Michigan. In Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, and even San Jose, they have a little bike icon in left-turn lanes so the traffic light will see the cyclist and change.
Oh yeah 30 mpg in a diesel van in europe should be easy.
The TDV6 LR3 with a manual can hit 34.9 imperial MPG on the euro cycle.
I think that would convert to around 30 mpg in US gallons. If a big nearly 6,000 lbs 4wd SUV can hit 30 mpg then a 1,000-1,5000 lbs lighter 2wd van should do it easily.
So with 7 people that's 210 People Miles Per Gallon.
So 4 up in a Scion is 140 PMG
7 up in a Suburban is 126 PMG
2 up in a Prius is 88 PMG
Interesting huh? So when a 7 passenger Suburban filled up passed 2 up in a Prius the Prius gets to sneer at them.
Doesn't seem fair.
Of course, PMG doesn't really address the issue of amount of total fuel consumed by Americans since we are not all going to the same place at the same time.
"What would stop anybody from driving more? " Nothing What would stop anybody from driving less? Nothing
"So, is it logical for me to assume that Fit would get me about the same mileage as my Accord does? So, buying a new Fit makes no sense at all to save on gas (even as I ignore the cost to buy a new car). Agreed? " No. If you drive any car with a lightfoot you're going to get better MPG. There are folks Fit forum getting over 40mpg. It's more logical to say that if you're driving style gives you good MPG on one car, it will do the same in the other car, as long as you keep your driving style the same.
"No, I am saying that a family needed a family hauler, for five or six. But you want to tax bigger vehicles, and provide incentives to smaller vehicles. So, this family chooses to have two smaller vehicles to fit their needs now. "
I'd say most families needing to carry 5-6 people already have 2 cars, so are you saying they're now going to buy 3?
And I still have no idea what point the food example is supposed to prove.
Well I could see a Suburban in car pool use being put to maximum PMG. If you shuttled 7 people each working day to and fro, one could certainly justify the vehicle as "fuel-efficient".
No sweat. Those really big guys are outta breath after 100 yards.
I just had this funny image of being attacked, like in those safari movies when the rhino bangs up against the Land Rover. I'd guess 8 football players could total my Scion right quick.
Not necessarily. Actually, I don't know about fuel consumption, but remember reading that awhile back, in an attempt to save the environment, they started railroading sightseers to the Grand Canyon, instead of letting them drive in. Only problem is, the Diesel locomotive they were using, it was calculated, put out far more pollutants than the number of private automobiles that it theoritecally took off the road!
Well I could see a Suburban in car pool use being put to maximum PMG. If you shuttled 7 people each working day to and fro, one could certainly justify the vehicle as "fuel-efficient".
Another advantage of shuttling 7 people in a Suburban is that you're only putting wear and tear on one vehicle, instead of up to seven. So in addition to the fuel savings, you're also saving on oil changes, maintenance, tires, brakes, etc, and reducing the ultimate scrappage and need for replacement from up to seven vehicles, down to one.
I think the railroad thing is more of a tourist attraction.. Plus, parking is at a premium.. so, it does help there.. Of course, you give up the ability to come and go as you please.
The Park Service has extensive plans to get cars out of some of the major parks like Grand Canyon and, I think, Yosemite, maybe Yellowstone to some extent. Implementation takes $$, and they're short on those, so I don't know the progress.
While not a true subcompact, the Mazda5 a 6 passenger 3 row vehicle that's only about 180" in length, so it's a good option for a family of 4 who occasionally need to run a couple of more people around from time to time. And it's a lot easier to zip around the parking lots as compared to a full-size minvan, SUV or CUV.
From fueleconomy.gov, the reported MPG of the Mazda5 has been about 25mpg, versus 19mpg for the Sienna, Odyssey and even worse for KIA and Chryler minivans. The new Mazda5 for '08 is getting a 5spd automatic, so it should getting even better MPG. So there should be at least a 25% fuel savings (and reduction in emissions) from getting this vehicle over a lot of the other bigger 3 row vehicles.
And you can get one for less than $20K before any incentives.
And you can get the Mazda 5 with a manual. I found the third row in the Mazda 5 better then the third row in many larger SUVs when I tried it out at the car show last november.
Another new feature for '08 is 2nd row AC fan/ducts behind the first row center console. Since the 2nd row only has two captain chairs, the open space between them will help with airflow to the 3rd row. I'll have to test drive one next summer when it's really hot outside to see how comfortable the third row is on a hot day.
Mazda 5 has to be one of the best room/size/economy tradeoffs going - too bad it has the 'minivan' stigma, not many reasons to go for the CX7 instead. Good comparison to a SUV (edit - I wish they'd lose the 'tuner' taillights):
Maybe they figure it's too cold for year-round use?
DC has so-so bike paths, the one from Bethesda, MD to Georgetown was in good condition last time I checked. But the one in Rock Creek was poor, so you have to ride on the road, and share it with cars on weekdays.
BritishRover: that LR3 got trashed but the passenger compartment looks intact, so I think it did it's job well, i.e. protecting the passengers first.
Driver is a client of mine and she walked away with minor brusies and just sore overall. Her one year old was in the back and was completly untouched.
The people in the Lexus that hit them at over 40 mph were in hospital for at least a week.
There are more pictures in the LR3 thread in the Land Rover section.
RE the Mazda 5 I think would make a great teenager car. You probably couldn't find a used one with a stick easily though. I bet you would have to settle for an automatic. I bet you could get a mid mileage 2006 Mazda 5 in the low teens.
Comments
Gearing is quite low so I think it manages heavy loads very well. I've certainly stuffed it full. It didn't like the three-test tool box though (drawers pulled out and to the side). Felt a bit light in the nose.
Gross Weight: 3305 lbs.
Wow, that is 4 chubby people in there!
Actually my commute is 20min and the traffic highway is pretty light because I leave at 6:30am. And I'm home by 4pm everyday, so I have plenty of family time. And my wife stays home too.
Honda Stream is one of them. And if you ever travelled to Europe or Asia, you'll see plenty of them on the road. As to the "why don't they bring them here." simply $$$$ profit.
I'd rather eat one and one half servings of the first box. You get 50% more food for the same calories as the 2nd box.
Incentive to buyers or manufacturers isn’t the right thing because not only is it easy to get around the road blocks, which in turn can penalize those with more honest approach, but also it doesn’t address the key issue: consumption.
Let's see...if people buy a more efficient vehicle instead of a less efficient vehicle they'll consumue less gas. Therefore, if incentives encourage the purchase of more efficient, then incentives will result in less gas consumption.
If I understand his point, the real measure of the food's value is the number of calories, which provide energy (which is why we eat in the first place). You may be getting 50 percent more food by volume, but you really aren't gaining anything of value, because the calories provide the benefits.
bobw3: Let's see...if people buy a more efficient vehicle instead of a less efficient vehicle they'll consumue less gas. Therefore, if incentives encourage the purchase of more efficient, then incentives will result in less gas consumption.
But if the price of gas remains steady, or even declines in real dollars (as it did during the 1980s and most of the 1990s), then people may use the more efficient vehicle to drive more miles, and end up consuming as much, or even more, gasoline than before.
You would doesn't mean everybody else would too. Does it? How do you plan on controlling that?
if people buy a more efficient vehicle instead of a less efficient vehicle they'll consumue less gas.
- Not if they drive more.
- Not if the criteria that defined efficiency of vehicle had flaws to begin with.
- Not if now they needed more than one vehicle whereas in the other case they could get by with just one.
How do you address these?
"then people may use the more efficient vehicle to drive more miles, and end up consuming as much, or even more, gasoline than before. "
I mentioned this before, but I think the reason people drive the amount they do has more to do with their distance from work, stores, schools, etc., the number of errands they do, number of kids they have, etc... Not that number is fixed, but I don't see why they would all of a sudden start driving more because they have a car with better MPG. It is possible that folks may take more weekend trips because they now get better MPG with their vehicle, but the majority of the miles they drive I think are pretty fixed. It would be something interesting to study.
Zero evidence that just because someone buys a more fuel eficient vehicle they'll start driving more miles.
"- Not if the criteria that defined efficiency of vehicle had flaws to begin with. "
Zero evidence that the EPA testing criteria is flawed, although it does have a certain amount of statistical variance, which is normal
"- Not if now they needed more than one vehicle whereas in the other case they could get by with just one. "
I'm not sure if I understand this one. Are you saying that a person currently owns a minivan, sells it for a small car and then turns around and also buys a truck??
You would doesn't mean everybody else would too. Does it? How do you plan on controlling that?
I thought the idea in this example was to get the most servings for a given calorie intake, but it was sort of a confusing example to start with.
Iran does something to shut down oil movements, prices go to $150/bo and $6/gallon...shades of '79, you're limited to 5 gallons at a time - what car do you want to be driving?
Too bad Edmunds doesn't show a GVWR for the Echo, and I don't know it offhand. But it is fine for carrying four people around.
And I guess from your post the xA can carry 965 pounds of people and stuff. That's excellent, I am sure you couldn't fit more than that much people/stuff in it anyway, unless you were carrying bricks or lead sheeting or something.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Given the cost of the Stream in the UK, I wouldn't think profit would be a factor. I also don't think styling is a big issue with vehicles like the Mazda5 around, I think the Stream is kind of cute (and I like the Mazda5 as well). In googling, I saw a 0-60 time of over 10 seconds, which is getting a little pokey but still safe. If you have a link to specs, that would be great.
Is there somewhere that defines the European...well UK testing for fuel economy? What is the urban cycle and the rural cycle, etc?
And, best of all, it is paid for. I don't want to be making a car payment in addition to paying higher gasoline costs.
I'd buy a Diesel and then start siphoning out of my home heating oil tank! I think it's the same basic stuff, isn't it?
Seriously though, I don't know if I'd change what I drive. I only do around 6,000 miles per year now, so I'd be somewhat insulated, I guess. My truck gets around 12 mpg in local driving, so at $6.00 per gallon, that would be $3,000 per year. I might look into finding some used, cheap little throwaway crap-box to drive around in. But even doing that, I dunno if the economy would work out. Let's say found some little $2000 toy that got 30 mpg in my type of driving. I wouldn't give up my truck, because it's paid for, cheap to insure, and, well, I do need it from time to time.
In the first year, the car would save me about $1800 in fuel. But it would cost $2000 to buy, plus whatever it took to get it inspected, tagged, and titled. Let's say it passes inspection with flying colors, and for this first year I get it on the road for $300 ($100 for sales tax, $128 for 2 years registration, $45 for an inspection, and other odds and ends to fluff it up to $300). Then there's insurance, which I could get for around $300, for liability-only.
So I figure in the first year, I'd pay $2600 to save $1800. Or a net payout of $800. And that's presuming my theoretical $2000 econobox is ultra-reliable. Now the next year, I'd start to see some savings, as long as the car doesn't break down. I'd outlay an extra $300 in insurance, but save $1800 in fuel, so the net savings is $1500. That more than wipes out the $800 loss for the first year, and puts me $700 ahead at the end of the second. I'm not factoring in maintenance here, because while the car would need maintenance, obviously, then the truck would need less since it's not used as often, so it may cancel out.
or this
but not this
because E85 demand has brought up horse feed prices.
Now that is beauty...and less pollution than the horsey.
(just kidding!)
I live 13 miles from work, so it's a bit far to bike it.
Friends with motorcycles make it in half the time, though, because they can split the lanes when it's B2B traffic.
I'm with gr .. the car I am currently driving (2003 Saturn L300). I've been averaging 23-25MPG lately and only have one more payment left.
I would, however, start to work from home more frequently. I currently commute 20 miles one-way to the office, but I can do just about everything I need at home. I'd look at going to the office only once or twice a week. I could get a tank of gas to last a month at that rate, rather than the tank every 10 days or so ... lessee ... 14 gallons x $6/gal is $84, so I'd save almost $170/mo in gas.
EDIT: Last tank of gas cost me $2.60/gal, so I'm spending $2.60 x 14 x 3 = $109.20 a month.
What would stop anybody from driving more?
Zero evidence that the EPA testing criteria is flawed, although it does have a certain amount of statistical variance, which is normal
To the question asked by texases above, I can get 26-27 mpg in my Accord. EPA rates Fit at 30 mpg and goes on to suggest that mileage will suffer based on driving style, and my driving style happens to be that. So, is it logical for me to assume that Fit would get me about the same mileage as my Accord does?
So, buying a new Fit makes no sense at all to save on gas (even as I ignore the cost to buy a new car). Agreed?
Are you saying that a person currently owns a minivan, sells it for a small car and then turns around and also buys a truck??
No, I am saying that a family needed a family hauler, for five or six. But you want to tax bigger vehicles, and provide incentives to smaller vehicles. So, this family chooses to have two smaller vehicles to fit their needs now.
Or, it could be a bunch of carpoolers. Since larger vehicle that could carry five is being taxed, two folks decide to split and now the same driving is being achieved in two vehicles. Is this the key to conservation? You tell me.
I thought the idea in this example was to get the most servings for a given calorie intake, but it was sort of a confusing example to start with.
Not at all! What you left out is fundamental to conservation, and that is usage.
My folks lived about 13 miles from the community college I went attended (SBCC)and I rode almost every day (I drove to my 7-10pm classes). It took about 45 minutes or so with traffic. There were a couple of times natural disasters (floods and fires) closed the freeway and some surface streets and it was only because I was on a bike that I got home at all.
What kills me now is the total lack of bike lanes or conceptual understanding from motorists in Michigan. In Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, and even San Jose, they have a little bike icon in left-turn lanes so the traffic light will see the cyclist and change.
The TDV6 LR3 with a manual can hit 34.9 imperial MPG on the euro cycle.
I think that would convert to around 30 mpg in US gallons. If a big nearly 6,000 lbs 4wd SUV can hit 30 mpg then a 1,000-1,5000 lbs lighter 2wd van should do it easily.
Euro Spec fuel mileage
So 4 up in a Scion is 140 PMG
7 up in a Suburban is 126 PMG
2 up in a Prius is 88 PMG
Interesting huh? So when a 7 passenger Suburban filled up passed 2 up in a Prius the Prius gets to sneer at them.
Doesn't seem fair.
Of course, PMG doesn't really address the issue of amount of total fuel consumed by Americans since we are not all going to the same place at the same time.
Doesn't seem fair.
Only on those two days a year that the Suburban is actually filled to capacity. Of course, the school bus gets to sneer at everyone. :P
Nothing
What would stop anybody from driving less?
Nothing
"So, is it logical for me to assume that Fit would get me about the same mileage as my Accord does? So, buying a new Fit makes no sense at all to save on gas (even as I ignore the cost to buy a new car). Agreed? "
No. If you drive any car with a lightfoot you're going to get better MPG. There are folks Fit forum getting over 40mpg. It's more logical to say that if you're driving style gives you good MPG on one car, it will do the same in the other car, as long as you keep your driving style the same.
"No, I am saying that a family needed a family hauler, for five or six. But you want to tax bigger vehicles, and provide incentives to smaller vehicles. So, this family chooses to have two smaller vehicles to fit their needs now. "
I'd say most families needing to carry 5-6 people already have 2 cars, so are you saying they're now going to buy 3?
And I still have no idea what point the food example is supposed to prove.
Well I could see a Suburban in car pool use being put to maximum PMG. If you shuttled 7 people each working day to and fro, one could certainly justify the vehicle as "fuel-efficient".
The only time NOT to sneer at a Suburban is when it's towing a huge trailer up a steep gravel road and filled with 8 large football players :P
I just had this funny image of being attacked, like in those safari movies when the rhino bangs up against the Land Rover. I'd guess 8 football players could total my Scion right quick.
Sometimes the Rhino fares better. :P
Not necessarily. Actually, I don't know about fuel consumption, but remember reading that awhile back, in an attempt to save the environment, they started railroading sightseers to the Grand Canyon, instead of letting them drive in. Only problem is, the Diesel locomotive they were using, it was calculated, put out far more pollutants than the number of private automobiles that it theoritecally took off the road!
Well I could see a Suburban in car pool use being put to maximum PMG. If you shuttled 7 people each working day to and fro, one could certainly justify the vehicle as "fuel-efficient".
Another advantage of shuttling 7 people in a Suburban is that you're only putting wear and tear on one vehicle, instead of up to seven. So in addition to the fuel savings, you're also saving on oil changes, maintenance, tires, brakes, etc, and reducing the ultimate scrappage and need for replacement from up to seven vehicles, down to one.
I was just there this past Spring...
Truly spectacular!!
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
From fueleconomy.gov, the reported MPG of the Mazda5 has been about 25mpg, versus 19mpg for the Sienna, Odyssey and even worse for KIA and Chryler minivans. The new Mazda5 for '08 is getting a 5spd automatic, so it should getting even better MPG. So there should be at least a 25% fuel savings (and reduction in emissions) from getting this vehicle over a lot of the other bigger 3 row vehicles.
And you can get one for less than $20K before any incentives.
Wow, I am surprised you can even look at subcompacts if you are tall enough to test drive a Mazda5 from the 3rd row of seats. :P
I think they look kind of cool myself.
hmmm - looking for a car for the teenager...
DC has so-so bike paths, the one from Bethesda, MD to Georgetown was in good condition last time I checked. But the one in Rock Creek was poor, so you have to ride on the road, and share it with cars on weekdays.
BritishRover: that LR3 got trashed but the passenger compartment looks intact, so I think it did it's job well, i.e. protecting the passengers first.
The people in the Lexus that hit them at over 40 mph were in hospital for at least a week.
There are more pictures in the LR3 thread in the Land Rover section.
RE the Mazda 5 I think would make a great teenager car. You probably couldn't find a used one with a stick easily though. I bet you would have to settle for an automatic. I bet you could get a mid mileage 2006 Mazda 5 in the low teens.