Fuel Economy and Oil Dependency

1161719212279

Comments

  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    you have Acura-itis! I am not sure of the cure, but roaming the threads at Edmunds is probably inflaming it! ;-)

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • markcincinnatimarkcincinnati Member Posts: 5,343
    A diesel such as has been produced by Audi, BMW and Mercedes -- say in 6 or 8 cylinder guise, ought to be able to do the job if coupled to a 7 speed transmission or if slick shifting stick shifts were put in the diesel Escalades.

    Some of the GM cars still soldier on with 4 speed autos -- no one asked me, but that seems like a joke.

    Diesel would immediately improve performance, lower pollution (with the clean diesel now coming on line) and improve mileage by about 20% - 40%. If your gas SUV is getting 15mpg, going to 18mpg would be a good thing, no?

    If you manipulate the engine for even more torque, and add a ratio or three to the transmission, a smaller engine could be made to pretty much feel as potent as before but improve mileage by 30% -- taking you to 19.5mpg from 15mpg.

    Most folks would never know the difference, except the total cost to drive would decrease.

    It'll never get off the ground. :surprise:
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,017
    LOL on the Acura-itis. The bottom line is alot of americans recognize the accomplishments and the real value the acura brand brings to the tabel. It's a premium high-tech vehicle that is the "Cadillac" brand for the working middle class. It's still within reach for somebody making $40 or $50 thousand a year that wants a premium luxury car with all the "bells and whistels" but still is enviromentally friendly, gets good mpg, and offers above average performance. They also come with a good factory warranty and they hold their resale value.

    So yeah alot of folks recognize the Acura brand as a major player and choice. I don't it's just edmunds, that is promoting the brand but rather it's member/fan base. ;)

    Rocky

    P.S. "I'll take 2 and see ya in the morning" :blush:
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,017
    I agree diesels are the way to go if mechanical parts get cheaper. I think if more people had diesels the price of parts would go down. ;)

    Rocky
  • rockyleerockylee Member Posts: 14,017
    Highest Fuel Economy in the Most Popular Classes

    http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid=4018922

    Rocky
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    Lists like that always annoy for me one simple reason: the EPA size classes are SO screwy!

    Who thinks of Prius as a midsize car, or of Sonata as a full-size? The little Focus wagon is a midsize wagon? And on it goes.

    Also, the VW TDIs always win every category where they are entered, and we don't get them in California, making their win in like FOUR CATEGORIES totally irrelevant here.

    Personal peeves only, not particularly faulting the article or anything.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • boaz47boaz47 Member Posts: 2,747
    So true. A B2300 or a Ranger hardly seems like a standard truck either. And we can get diesels here in full sized trucks, 3/4 ton, from Ford, GM or Dodge. My F-250 Powerstroke can Tow a Tundra and get better mileage than a Tundra or Titan empty. But bang for the Buck would depend on what you were planning on buying anyway. To me the F-250 seemed to be a great deal because I wanted a truck at the time. Today that might not be the case. as far as getting an old Bug goes that doesn't work well because they are a bear to smog here. That was one of the other considerations that moved me to the 3/4 ton. Less smog restrictions and if I put a magnetic sign on it I might qualify for a tax break. (yes at times we can all be a bit self centered.) ;)
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    pre-'75s don't have to smog, which would include most of the old Bugs. Did I misunderstand your comment on Bugs?

    The Smart cars will be the new fuel economy bang-for-the-buck champs if they are ever really imported. Could be my next car! :-)

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Here you go:

    http://www.zapworld.com/cars/smartcar.asp

    Lotsa luck in that roller skate. $25,000??!! I don't think so....
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I think that Zap lost the bid to Roger Penske. The big dog gets the bone. If they don't bring in the diesel model fortwo it will be a giant LOSER. Who would buy a car that small for only 50 MPG. Give US the 72 MPG diesel or keep it in Europe. The dealer I talked to in Victoria BC said they did not even order any gassers. They have sold every car they got before it gets off the truck. They had six on the lot when I was there all sold. I would buy one just for the fun of it. Top of the line cabriolet was $19k Canadian.

    http://www.smartusa.com/
  • boaz47boaz47 Member Posts: 2,747
    You know I did see a few Smart cars in London in June. It is a strange sight to see a smart car at a light with a Ferrari right behind it. You think of all that fuel the little smart is saving and listen as the Ferrari burns enough fuel just reving his engine at the light to power three smarts for the day. But the Smart is "very" small. It would make a great city car for people that can stand to live or drive in the city. But unless I lived in Santa Monica driving one would not be a relaxing idea with all of the big vehicles hovering all around you.

    To be honest, after going to Africa I have a new found respect for diesels, even small ones. When you live some place where getting from point A to point B is more challenging than flying down some super smooth ribbon of concrete or asphalt diesel makes a lot of sense. After all that is one of the reasons I like the big diesel pickups. Powerstroke, Cummings, Duramax all have pretty good standings in my book.

    All of those Nissan and Toyota mini vans with non turbo diesels impressed me with their tuffness during the time I road in them. I realized that for the last few years I have been far to concerned with getting somewhere in a hurry when I need to slow down and smell the roses. Zero to sixty is nice for bragging rights but the day comes when we have to realize you can only challenge the road so many times before you lose and you only need to lose once.

    The subject is fuel economy and the most bang for your buck. With than in mind it is hard to beat a diesel even if you are considering a truck or small car. If you live in a small community like I do and are lucky enough to not have to go off of the mountain much maybe even an electric car like the old "Think" would work. The two closest "Towns" to my house are one mile and six miles respectively so getting back and forth from them could be accomplished with an electric car. But for now almost any of the small 4 banger cars will do. The Focus, Civic, Corolla sized cars and even the Camry and Accord sized cars get over 30 mpg and offer all the comfort and features most of us would want. Still, the 3/4/ton diesel pickup with a GVR of over 8500 pounds and room for five adults that still gets over 20 mpg is a lot of bang for the buck.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    All of those Nissan and Toyota mini vans with non turbo diesels impressed me with their tuffness

    Simplicity is the key. We have traded simplicity for complexity to attain a tiny improvement in emissions. In the case of hybrids it is SUPER complexity. I think it is going to bite us in the rear end over the long haul. These complex emissions systems will fail and have already failed. The price to repair is outrageous. American ingenuity will come to the rescue and bypass the crap and we will have worse emissions than if we had stayed with the simpler designs used in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The amount of improvement we have gained for the thousands extra in vehicle cost is plain stupid. According to the smog check guy when I took our 1990 Lexus LS400 in for a license check, told me our car ran cleaner than many cars 10 years newer. Some radicals will not be happy until a vehicle that costs $35k will be $25k in safety & emissions equipment.
  • boaz47boaz47 Member Posts: 2,747
    I can believe that. We tend to engineer for the weakest link. I can remember when the smog devices were first installed one my our cars and even back then we were told that a well tunes car without the devices would burn as clean. The problem is the drivers themselves. Many do not keep their cars in a state of tune so they get dirty. even today people driving manuals are the main cause for manuals not getting the same clean bill of health as a automatic. And why you might ask? Shift points, we tend to exceed shift points well beyond the proper range so they add even more smog control. It was the same with ABS and now traction control and anti skid control. People that just couldn't get the hang of pumping the break ever so slightly got us ABS and all the complication that brings.

    This wasn't meant to be a rant about added features that are forced on us. Even if the average clean air device does seem to decrease fuel mileage a bit. I agree on the idea of diesel and what smog laws have and will do to keep them out of our hands. Here in California the big problem will be the restriction on Particulents. Even modern european diesels don't meet our standards for that. Low sulphur fuel is cleaner but not as clean as our California grade low sulphur gas. So they will add particulant traps. A good solution except they are items that must be serviced and our smog legal vehicles have a smog system that are service free for something like 100,000 miles.

    we give lip service to fuel mileage but no one wants it bad enough to change their lifestyle. In 1989 I used to car pool with a guy that had a VW Rabbit diesel. The little car was slower off the line than a city bus but it got better than 40 MPG. Today, just shy of 20 years later, we are cheering hybrids that cost more than three VW rabbits did new and they are hard pressed to get 40 MPG in real world application. This is not a case of the free market it is a case of the tree huggers looking for the sky to fall. Survey after survey has indicated that the buying public is interested in diesel cars and trucks and even SUVs but CARB just won't hear of it. Yes I am as guilty as anyone by finding a way passed the rules and getting a 3/4 ton because it doesn't have to meet the same standards as my car. But I get a lot better fuel mileage than a 1/2 ton truck with a gas engine. The 1/2 ton GM gets 14-16 in town and 18/21 on the open road. But I have never seen one get that with any load on any trip my friends and i have been on. The Dodge and Ford 1/2 ton aren't any better and even Toyota and Honda are only in this ball park and Nissan is even a bit less. All are smaller lighter trucks and yet with a load or without I get better fuel mileage.

    Yes, I agree diesels are not the solution for everyone. Yes diesel still smells as you pump it, and the smell sticks with you. Yes diesels cost more when you buy them but they are proven and for most people they are still running long after their gas counter parts have died.

    That is what I think of when I think of bang for the buck.
  • 210delray210delray Member Posts: 4,721
    Aren't you guys shooting at the wrong target? I thought fuel injection, catalytic converters, unleaded gas, and more sophisticated electronics (not necessarily more complicated) makes emission control a whole lot easier and simpler than the "Rube Goldberg" add-on devices of decades ago that added complexity and reduced fuel economy markedly. My 4-cylinder Camrys don't even have EGR systems, because they run cleanly enough without them.

    Today with gas engines, you can have it all - power, low emissions, and good fuel economy, if you don't go overboard on power (or overall weight).

    As for diesels, I don't think there is a huge pent-up demand in the US -- they stink, smoke, and clatter (or at least that's what people still believe). Plus who wants to get the messy fuel on their hands when they fill up? Also, people with long memories remember all too well the GM diesel fiasco of the late 70s/early 80s. Plus that early Rabbit was a little tin can of a car that neither of you would personally drive, based on your past posts.

    Complexity -- well, there's plenty of that in areas that have nothing to do with safety or emissions. How about nav systems, DVD systems, voice recognition, seats that are power adjustable 14 ways from Sunday, and those danged "one button" controls like iDrive, COMAND, and whatever Audi's system is called?
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Aren't you guys shooting at the wrong target?

    If they are not more complex why are they so much more expensive. I replaced the Catalytic convertor in our Mazda 626 prior to getting a clean smog check. Cost installed $151. At least two Prius II owners have had catalytic convertors replaced out of warranty cost $1900-$2100. Is this more complex or is Toyota that much more greedy than other automakers?

    I agree that much of the complexity is doodads. How can you separate them when the NAV is integral with the operation of the car?

    On diesel you are comparing 1970s technology with 2006 technology. Look at the gas cars from that era. I tried to buy a Dasher Diesel wagon in 1978. It was a year waiting list. I ended up with a POC Honda Accord. I should have waited the year. Look at the diesel forum. It is as active as the hybrid forum. Those that have diesels and those that want diesel. I will not buy gas car after owning the Passat TDI. Diesel anything offers more "Bang for Your Buck".
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    80s and 90s emission controls back, if only because those vacuum controls created SUCH a mess of vacuum hoses all over the engine, and were guaranteed to begin failing after 5 or 6 years as all the hoses got good and cooked under the hood and absorbed some of the wonderful chemicals in our air. Result: cracked hoses, small leaks, and endless trouble tracking them all down.

    As for diesel, I am gradually coming to like it a little more, but I will not buy one until the NOx and particulate emissions are entirely comparable to gas cars. Which I believe are two issues they will eventually be able to solve, but haven't fully solved yet.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • 210delray210delray Member Posts: 4,721
    Uh, comparing a Mazda 626 to a Prius II isn't exactly an "apples to apples comparison." How about your Mazda 626 against a current model Mazda 6, or if it must be Toyota, why not an '07 Camry?

    Why did Prius owners have pay for a cat? Wouldn't it still have been under the emissions warranty?

    Speaking of exhaust systems, I haven't had to touch mine in any of my last 5 cars, including a 1990 Mercury Sable, 1997, 2004, and 2005 Toyota Camrys, and 1998 Nissan Frontier (although the "check engine light" just went on in the last one). We don't have smog checks, however, in central VA (still too rural).

    About diesel cars, I said that's how people still think of them -- 1970s technology. Europeans didn't have the awful GM diesel V8s, so no bad memories there!
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I will not buy one until the NOx and particulate emissions are entirely comparable to gas cars.

    Why do you consider a gas engine that puts out more CO, CO2 & HC cleaner than a diesel engine that puts out more NoX? I believe they have PM cleaned up as of the ULSD mandate. At least in CA.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Why did Prius owners have pay for a cat? Wouldn't it still have been under the emissions warranty?

    I remember one girl that was faced with a $2100 cat convertor bill had 91k miles. She said Toyota would not cover it. At the time I did look up the price of a Camry cat convertor and it was $235. Problem being no aftermarket parts for the Prius. At least at that time.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    the AT-PZEV emission warranty has been 10 years/150K miles for performance and defect (this isn't just true of Prius, it's true of all cars claiming AT-PZEV status). Of course, this is only in Californa, but here that girl's replacement cat would have been free.

    As for the CO/CO2 vs NOx debate, well you know neither is good. I am not really prioritizing one over the other, but there are some gas engines doing a pretty good job of both. NOx are the primary smog-forming emissions, and I have witnessed enough smog here in California to last a lifetime! In the LA and San Joaquin basins, they still have close to 100 days a year that exceed EPA standards for air quality because of smog, and of course the central valley exceeds the EPA standards almost all the time for particulate matter in the air.

    Bottom line: what I want is BOTH: zero smog-forming (PZEV) and particulate emissions with high fuel economy (my next car should make 50 mpg, as my current car makes 40 mpg). Pie in the sky? I sure hope not.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    central valley exceeds the EPA standards almost all the time for particulate matter in the air.

    I imagine a big share of that PM is caused by trucks running with little or no emissions devices. CA has screwed that up so bad it will probably devastate the trucking industry. CA trucks have particulate filters and CA diesel is cleaner. The kicker is they tacked on an additional 18 cents of state tax. So most of the truckers coming in and out of the state buy diesel in AZ or NV. They can haul in PU a load and get out on the dirty diesel they bought for 30-50 cents less per gallon. When your talking 3-6 MPG that makes a big difference to your bottom line. And I don't think they are worried about the air you and I breathe.

    Then according to CARB the ships coming in at San Pedro are burning diesel that is as much as 3000 PPM sulfur. They sit with engines running out in the harbor waiting their turn to unload all the crap we buy from the Pacific Rim. One ship's exhaust is equal to 12,000 car exhausts. That just gets blown in and sits up against the San Bernardino Mtns.

    So for us to worry about a pound more pollution per year between a diesel and PZEV car is ridiculous.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    I was most glad to see that they are now limiting the emissions from ships sitting in the harbor - they will be required to shut down while they idle in port.

    As for the difference in NOx emissions between diesel and gas with present leading-edge technology, I believe the difference annually is measured in tons, not pounds. And of course, gas engines have no particulate emissions.

    But as I said before, I am warming up to diesel. As soon as they conquer these problems, I will be right there ready to buy. I think they will do so in five years or less (maybe thinking slightly optimistically here). Unless someone beats them to market with a gas-powered minicar (non-hybrid) designed to actually save gas instead of shoot my butt to 60 mph in 5 seconds or less. Can you say, Smart car? ;-)

    The current Fortwo model with 90ish hp (I forget the exact number) pulls 53 mpg combined on the European cycle, and with that little weight, it is still respectable in acceleration (similar to 4-cylinder Camry). I think they could make a decent business case for selling that one in the U.S.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    The current Fortwo model with 90ish hp (I forget the exact number) pulls 53 mpg combined on the European cycle

    supposedly Penske has signed a deal to sell the Fortwo. I looked them over in Canada and would not mind having one. I would not consider the gasser at only 53 MPG. They only sell the diesel in Canada, or at least at the dealership I visited. They are selling as fast as they get them. The manager told me he has one customer that hit 90 MPG with his. Cool little cars and you can park in about the space of a Harley.
  • hot_georgiahot_georgia Member Posts: 51
    I believe hybrid is more bang for the buck, but you have to shop around and not fall into dealer traps.

    Take my '04 Honda Civic Hybrid for example. I drive 35,000 miles a year in a highway commute into/out of Atlanta from N. Ga in extremely hilly terrain. The long drive put me into an economy car.

    MSRP was $19,500 and the dealers in my area wanted around $23. NO SALE. I got onto the internet and found a place 3 states away which gave me a quote for $18,000. I brought that quote into a nearby dealer and ended up buying for around $18,500 which was around $1,000 more than a similarly loaded Civic EX.
    When I bought my hybrid there were 3 on the lot to choose from. I heard on the radio last week people follow new ones to the dealer and buy right off the truck.
    (Diesels too!)

    I've learned not to be trapped in the notion that a car only gets what it gets with MPG, and found out how much driving habits effect the wallet at the pump.
    EX VS HYBRID
    I learned that lesson in my Civic Hybrid and my last 3 tanks are calculated at 73,68 and 71MPG. I wouldn't have learned this valuable lesson in driving an EX.
    I admit becoming radical about automotive efficiency and not driving my car "normally", but there isn't a plain-ol EX on the planet anywhere getting tanks +70MPG, and certainly not an automatic transmission and not consistently.
    So at least in my own case (And many,many others) the EX's 20's to low-mid 30's MPG vs +70MPG shows the hybrid is more bang for the buck.
    With the driving lessons learned raised our Grand Caravan from 16-18 to around 22 with basic, simple, non-radical techniques. That's another big benefit.
    Hybrid vs diesel
    Diesel automobiles are nice fuel efficient cars. Big leaps and bounds have been made in their improvement but I believe its best application is in a larger vehicle. A few years from now we'll replace the Grand Caravan, hopefully with a new Honda diesel van.

    Diesel and hybrid MPG remain about the same for the average driver. There are websites which track and compete between the two average about equal.
    With that said hybrid capability in MPG is far greater than diesel autos. I don't know of any unmodified automatic TDI's for example which can reach 70MPG or more and do it consistently.
    Yes there are a few hybrid owners who get less than expected but diesel as well. Disgruntled hybrid owners always get the press, just as broken down VW's have. It doesn't reflect the average by any means.

    Diesel enthusiasts say hybrids are overly complicated. Toyota might be for the argument of 100% relying on hybrid drive to move.
    Honda's Civic Hybrid is entirely different, very close to its sister the EX but with electronics to assist its smaller more fuel efficient engine.
    I plan to drive my hybrid for well over 350,000 miles over the 10 years I'll own it.
    I have 71,000 miles on it and is time for a new set of tires and a 12V regular car battery and has no reason it won't go the distance. My dealer says my brakes are practically like new.

    Funny how diesel enthusiasts rip hybrids, and many hybrid drivers rip diesel. Back and forth how hybrids are overly complicated, diesels smoke. Batteries cost $5,000 every 3 years and most TDI's break down. Diesels won't start in the winter and hybrids aren't highway runners. Never ends.

    Bah! Wouldn't it be nice if we could just promote efficient autos in general?

    I look forward to my clean burning, fuel efficient diesel van of the future.

    I couldn't get anything like the Fortwo. If not for my family of 5, and the micro-car only has 3 star crash rating. When vehicles that small come to mind, more bang for the buck with a Honda Insight hybrid, at least it is capable of over 110MPG.
  • zodiac2004zodiac2004 Member Posts: 458
    I would not consider the gasser at only 53 MPG. They only sell the diesel in Canada, or at least at the dealership I visited.

    Yes, we only get the CDI here.

    I too wouldn't mind having one - except they are priced about as much as a Civic/Corolla.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    How do they do in the snow? They were very popular in Victoria, BC. I would have taken a test drive. They were all sold at the dealership there. I think the parking and lower speeds on Vancouver Island would make it a practical choice for commuting and errands. I don't think I would head across Canada in one.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    spending Civic/Corolla money for a ForTwo as long as it retains most of the features the European models get (gee-whiz stereo, glass roof with sunshade, nice interior materials, cruise, HIDs, auto climate, etc etc). A car that well-equipped for $16-18K and pulling high 50s fuel economy (as I am sure I would achieve) puts a twinkle in my eye! :-)

    The big problem with the gas-sippers here (hybrids excluded) is that their manufacturers treat them as the bottom of the barrel. Strippo cars with crappy hard plastic interiors.

    I hope we get at least one gas choice in the States, though.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I cannot say I have done a TCO on my GMC Sierra PU Truck. I know it is cheaper to own than the Passat TDI. The difference in insurance almost pays for all the gas I used in the truck last year. The PU is now a little over a year old and has 3700 miles on it. It costs about $450 less per year in insurance than the VW Passat did. I don't have a plan for how long I will keep it. Probably until a 1/2 ton diesel PU comes along. I am confident that the resale will be better than any car you can buy including all Honda Toyota cars.

    2005 Passat TDI TCO
    Miles driven = 8376
    Cost new = $25,689 cash out the door
    Alaska license = $35
    Diesel bought = $851.42
    Insurance = $1206
    Oil change = $51
    Total cost to own for 13 months = $27,832.42
    Sold cash $29,000
    Profit = $1,167.58

    Or a total profit per mile (PPM) of 13.9 cents.
    I could have made more. I am not a greedy man. If I break even after a couple years on the truck that will be OK. Buying and selling cars can be profitable. Look at all the fancy showrooms full of cars and trucks. You have to buy in the right place and sell high where they bring a premium. PT Barnum set the stage for the automotive industry. With his famous saying "There's a Sucker Born Every Minute".
  • zodiac2004zodiac2004 Member Posts: 458
    How do they do in the snow? They were very popular in Victoria, BC

    Without the threat of snow, I can imagine it would be a better year-round car in BC than in Toronto.

    I personally don't know how they do in snow, but physics tells me blustery winds and icy road conditions, coupled with a very light car with flat side-panels - do not make for awe-inspiring roadholding.

    And on the interstate highways - forget it.
  • zodiac2004zodiac2004 Member Posts: 458
    Gary, not to nitpick - but you left out one more cost.

    How did the car get from Alaska to So Cal where you sold it?
    Don't tell me you drove it.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Don't tell me you drove it

    Let me put it this way. It was never further North than Armstrong VW in Portland Oregon. I also only used BP/ARCO ULSD after the first free tank of diesel. It was licensed where I am a legal resident and have voted since 1970. Funny thing is, the first of dozens of prospective buyers paid my price. And he was from AZ. They are legal to buy there. He just never found a Passat TDI Wagon in AZ. I delivered it to Yuma, AZ for a small fee.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    Oh man, that's the ticket! Register it in Alaska where you can save all the fees! So THAT'S why I see those cars with Alaskan plates from time to time! It's one thing to see one on a big SUV or an RV or something - you think "OK maybe they drove it down", but it's quite another on a 10-year-old Geo Metro which could never make the trip.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    There really is nothing the state of CA can do if you are not working here. There are thousands of Snow Birds that come to CA from all over the country and from Canada. As long as they just spend money and do not work, it is a plus for the state. Oregon plates used to be real common when you did not need an Oregon address to license a car there. There are many unscrupulous Alaskans living in CA. They apply and get the permanent fund the state pays out each year to each resident. As long as you spend half the year in Alaska you qualify. There are thousands of people that spend part of the year in CA and part in Alaska. At one time I had homes in AK, CA, AZ, Hawaii & Minnesota. You take your pick from the one that offers the least offensive taxes. I sold the home in Lake Havasu, too hot. I can tell you that Minnesota is far and away the most oppresive state. Even worse than CA. At least CA has Prop 13 to protect the retired from having their homes stolen by over taxation. I may settle on living most of the year in Hawaii. Best weather year round. Energy is the biggest problem. We are putting solar on our home there and that will cut down on the $500 a month electric bills. VW TDIs are very common there. Biodiesel is readily available on Maui and Oahu.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    in electric bills? Why on Earth is that? Sure puts the $200/mo I spend on gas for the car in perspective.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Electric in Hawaii is horrible. It is mostly generated from diesel hauled in by ship. Our electric bill does not even include air conditioning. We don't have or need AC. It is rented and I think she uses the dryer a lot. The saddest part is they could have very cheap electric using geo thermal generation. It is taboo to mess with Pele. They are using wind generators on parts of the Big Island. I am hoping the solar will cut my bill way down. If you have city water it is expensive because they use electric to pump it. Gas has always been higher there than CA. Not a big deal unless you commute from one side of the Island to the other.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    Yeah, I have friends in Hawaii who always remind me they have the most expensive gas in the nation when I start grousing about California prices. But of course, what do they care what the price is? They drive maybe 3000 miles a year, so what's the diff? It could be $5/gallon and it wouldn't affect them much.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Yes but their cars rust into oblivion and the food's no good. See, feel better now? :P
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    Oh, I beg to differ, the food is FABULOUS! :-)

    R&T ran a little blurb in its technical section this month, which may be fluff or may actually mean something, talking about how the EPA is closer to certifying urea injection for diesels to meet the new emissions standards, which would be good news for the 45 states that don't follow CARB.

    I was shocked and stunned the other day to read that more than 40% of all car sales nationwide occur in the five CARB states (CA, NY, MA, VT, one other I forget)?? Wow. So diesel still has its work cut out for it, even if it gets EPA approval.

    I look forward to production plug-in hybrid models. That might be an alternative to a Smart car for me. TALK ABOUT bang for your fuel economy buck! :-)
    (Of course, I would have to give up my desire for a manual transmission if I were to go the plug-in hybrid route. Not sure I could do that)

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    Okay I retract the food criticism but raise you with having to listen to Hawaiian music 24/7. :cry:

    There's a snag with plug-in hybrids though. If you constantly charge and discharge a battery, you shorten its life considerably. So whereas a Prius' batteries don't vary much in their level of charge (fairly constant range), any hybrid that allows the batteries to run from low charge to high charge is going to eat up batteries.

    I suspect this will negate any gain in operating costs.

    You don't get something for nothing in the world of physics I guess.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    http://insidebayarea.com/timesstar/ci_4030345

    Problem is, Detroit "brass" thinks the US buyer does not WANT IT.

    Technical fixes are available now, and in many cases they are inexpensive.

    A landmark 2002 study by the National Academy of Sciences and recent analyses by the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Transportation found 31 easily available technologies for cutting fuel consumption, from easier rolling tires to sleeker, stronger yet lighter bodies to revolutionary new engines.

    Most offer 1 percent to 6 percent better fuel economy for less than $200, for example:

    -Putting more slope on the rear and lowering vehicles that won't see heavy off-road use. For zero cost, this cuts drag behind and under a vehicle for several percent of extra fuel savings.

    -Using low-friction lubricants (average $10) and laser-polished cylinders and heads.

    -Turbocharging or forcing air into the engine. By boosting power, a less expensive four-cylinder engine can substitute for a six-cylinder and deliver up to 15percent better fuel economy for the same price.

    -Shutting down unneeded cylinders at cruising speeds. Costs $180-200 for 5 percent to 20 percent added fuel economy, or at least 20 more miles for a tank of gas in a sport utility vehicle.

    In 2003, transportation experts at the Union of Concerned Scientists redesigned the Ford Explorer using a handful of such technologies and boosted fuel economy 31 percent, to almost 29 miles per gallon, for an added cost of $600. Tinkering more, they squeezed out 36.3 miles per gallon for $2,315.


    Would America pay $2300 more for an SUV the size of an Explorer which got 36.3 MPG?

    I'm willing to bet my house they WOULD.

    LISTEN UP DETROIT !!!!
  • jefferygjefferyg Member Posts: 418
    I've thought many times before that a 40 mpg SUV, minivan, or truck would be really nice. And then just this evening I have a conversation with my friend who's work sometimes takes him to Europe. When there, they often get around in diesel minivans which get anywhere from 35-45 MPG! He said it takes a long time to get to highway speed, but for that kind of mileage, who's worried about drag racing?

    At home my friend drives an F250 with the Powerstroke diesel. The gross weight of his truck is close to 10,000 lbs., but he's told me he still gets around 21 mpg on the highway.

    I recently bought a new F150 SuperCrew (I definitely didn't buy it for efficiency). It weighs 3000 lbs less than my friend's 250 and with the 4.6 liter V-8, I don't get any better mileage than he does. I bought the truck because it works for my family, and I plan on driving it for a good while, but if Ford were to introduce a smaller, lighter diesel engine that would get the F150 to 30 mpg or better on the highway I'd have to give it a look.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I bet a Ford Ranger 4 cylinder 2.2L turbo diesel crew cab 2WD could get 30 mpg easy, if they would build one.
  • boaz47boaz47 Member Posts: 2,747
    More than likely it could. But getting people to keep their foot out of the turbo is the problem. Yes I love the turbo on the F-250 but when you hear it spool up you know you are sucking fuel. A few non turbo diesels would get it just as easily even if they are a slow or slower than a Hybrid.
  • jefferygjefferyg Member Posts: 418
    I bet a Ford Ranger 4 cylinder 2.2L turbo diesel crew cab 2WD could get 30 mpg easy, if they would build one.

    Of course it would. Someone posted on another board about a trip they took in Alaska in a diesel powered Ranger Crew Cab 4x4. I believe it was built in Brazil. Anyway, it got 30+ mpg.

    But I'm not interested in what has already been proven time and time again. I want to see a FULL-SIZED pickup that delivers 30 mpg or better, and I don't care if it burns gas, diesel, cow chips, whatever.

    I love my truck. It can comfortably haul my family, it carries what I need, it rides and drives better than any truck I've ever owned, insurance is reasonable, I could go on and on. The only complaint I have is that the fuel mileage is not that great - o.k. it's actually awful :sick: . And so far, the EPA estimates on the window sticker have been pretty accurate. I'm getting 14-15 in town and 18-19 on the highway. The best I've gotten was 21.1 on the interstate. In real dollars, if the truck averaged 30 mpg I'd save a minimum of $1200 per year which would be more than enough to pay for my tag and insurance each year.

    The sad reality is, however, that by the time such a vehicle hits our shores, I'll probably have paid off my truck or be close enough to paying it off that I won't be able to save enough on fuel to justify making the payments. :mad:
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I think an SUV has more potential than a full size pickup, since you obviously use your truck as a truck, whereas many SUVs could be lower, lighter and more streamlined. And they don't need HP like you might.
  • albert6albert6 Member Posts: 52
    Batteries vary.

    NiCd batteries get torn up on a constant charge state. If allowed to fully discharge the metal is completely dissolved and uniformly distributed and then replates uniformly when recharged. If cycled there develop places where the metal becomes thin and then plates elsewhere. If there is enough buildup it can bridge between the plates and short them out. So NiCds, at least, require occasional full discharge (but no more or the plates start to go.)

    This factor is what gives NiCds the unwarranted repututation of memory - it's just the materials in the cell are not evenly distributed due to short discharge-recharge cycles. Also, it's expensive to make a good electrochemical cell and so most manufacturers of cheap goods use cheap batteries, which die easily.

    Li-Ion chemistries don't seem so prone to this, but will fail after about 2 years no matter what the usage.
  • reddroverrreddroverr Member Posts: 509
    If this company can pull this off, it seems to me a more practical car for the rest of us might be quite feasible. It has a significantly longer range on a charge than previous electrics. Even on trips I could live with a 200 mile drive and then a lunch stop while the car recharges some and off again...or simply rent or use a second car when needed for the odd longer jaunt.

    I would assume the cost of batteries over time could be offset somewhat by the simplicity of the system. That is...no starter, no alternator, simplified transmission (one gear at 65 in this model).

    Downside is 240 volts is enough to fry someone. Could be potentially dangerous in accidents and at other times.

    "It goes from zero to 60 miles an hour in four seconds, “wicked fast,” said the company’s chairman, Martin Eberhard. Because it is an electric, the driver does not have to shift into second gear until the car hits 65, he said."

    "In contrast to the EV-1, the Roadster is supposed to go about 250 miles on a single charge. It uses lithium-ion batteries, the kind most commonly found in laptops, and carries about three times the energy the EV-1 did, although the battery pack weighs only about 900 pounds; the original EV-1 battery pack weighed more than 1,100 pounds."

    "The car comes with a kit that connects to a 240-volt circuit and charges the batteries from dead to fully charged in three and a half hours. It can also be charged on a normal 110-volt household outlet, but that takes longer. "

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/19/business/19electric.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Downside is 240 volts is enough to fry someone. Could be potentially dangerous in accidents and at other times.

    The Prius and other Toyota hybrids are about 600 volts. Supposedly they are rendered safe in an accident? Fire departments have special training to handle hybrid crashes.
  • reddroverrreddroverr Member Posts: 509
    thanks, ive heard a little about rescue departments being leary of hybrids. If it is safe, then no worries.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Info about the current EPA test:

    Adjusting Estimates

    In the early 1980s, an EPA study found that drivers were typically achieving lower fuel economy than predicted by EPA laboratory tests. As a result, EPA required the laboratory-derived city and highway MPG estimates posted on the labels of new vehicles to be adjusted downward by 10% for city estimates and by 22% for highway estimates to better reflect the MPG real-world drivers could expect from 1985 forward.


    Fuel Economy Test Schedule Characteristics
    City - Low speeds in stop-and-go urban traffic
    Simulated Distance 11 miles
    Time 31 minutes
    Average Speed 20 mph
    Top Speed 56 mph
    Stops 23
    Idling 18 % of the time
    Engine Temp at Startup Cold
    Lab Temperature 68 - 86 degrees F
    Vehicle Air conditioning Off

    Highway - Free-flow traffic at highway speeds
    Simulated Distance 10 miles
    Time 12.5 minutes
    Average Speed 48 mph
    Top Speed 60 mph
    Stops None
    Idling None
    Engine Temp at Startup Warm
    Lab Temperature 68 - 86 degrees F
    Vehicle Air conditioning Off

    So you can see, people, these tests are NOT reflective of "real world in 2006" driving.

    And the 23 stops and 18% time idling is why the hybrids get such high City numbers.

    It will be VERY INTERESTING to see what changes they make for the 2008 test revisions.
This discussion has been closed.

Your Privacy

By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our Visitor Agreement.