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.
Comments
The current-gen Prius I had got me 45-46 mpg over several fills and more than 1000 miles of my typical driving.
That's a savings of 11% in gas, a number I do not dismiss. But for now I will take the Echo. If I wanted NAV and keyless start or some of the other doodads the Prius has, I would ante up for the Prius.
I wonder if anyone here who normally is at least nominally involved in the electoral process has written any letters to their representatives, or voted for bills that supported public transit, etc?
The talk earlier about the trains got me thinking. Public transit, particularly rail (but where I live it is buses too), always gets the short end of the stick when it comes time for budget allocations and investment, so it gradually gets worse and worse, so less people ride it, in a cycle of perpetual self-reinforcement.
I would think one response to rising gas prices might be to maybe get a little more involved in transit's cause, at least to the tune of riding it once in a while and voting for it occasionally when funding or improvements are put out to the public for a vote...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I am not sure why you would think they get short changed. In San Diego our Trolley system drips red ink to the tune of millions of dollars per year. We did live within 3 miles of the end of the system. I never saw more than a half dozen riders in a 3 car trolley capable of carrying a couple hundred riders.
Mass transit for the most part is a huge drain on the communities that have it. There are many reasons why people do not use mass transit. For the most commuters it is slow and inconvenient. As people become affluent they opt for their own personal transportation. I have used the trolley system a few times. It was always because parking was very expensive or impacted downtown. When you have to get in your car and drive 3 miles to the trolley station, then leave your car in a lot that is known for a high theft rate, it takes the practicality away. Plus it costs $6 roundtrip downtown for each of us.
I just do not see the push for more mass transit outside of crowded urban areas. Then I hate going into a city bigger than 50k people. I keep moving further out as I am encroached upon by folks wanting to be jammed together. It just is not healthy living so close together. Physically or mentally.
RE: Prius MPG --- I beg to differ in this case---it's not really fair to call my info "anecdotal" because it is subject to measurement on repeated occasions. These numbers are from owner's logbooks and from auto magazine long-term testing. That is a cut above anecdotal. ""Anecdotal" is Uncle Fred bragging about his mileage over a beer. These are not hypermiler people. These are people who just get in their Prius and step on the gas and go where they used to go in their ICE cars.
RE: GW, urban heat effect: The urban heat island effect is real but small; and it has been studied and corrected for. Analyses by Nasa for example use only rural stations to calculate trends. Recently, work has shown that if you analyse long-term global temperature rise for windy days and calm days separately, there is no difference. If the urban heat island effect were large, you would expect to see a bigger trend for calm days when more of the heat stays in the city. Furthermore, the pattern of warming globally doesn't resemble the pattern of urbanisation, with the greatest warming seen in the Arctic and northern high latitudes.
Well, yes, this has been the traditional model. But if we begin to talk about gas over $4/gallon, then gas over $5/gallon (I think spikes over that price are probably 5 to 8 years out at most, with prices consistently over that level in a decade), we reach a point where maybe the number of people with sufficient affluence to commute in single-occupant cars will begin to go down rather than up.
Since that timeframe is fairly short in terms of infrastructure developments like the expansion of public transit, it might pay to do a little today to encourage it.
Or not. I was just wondering if anyone had responded to the gas price ramp-up in that fashion.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
As painful as it is to bring up, I think (just my opinion) that there is a deep-seated prejudice against public transportation in America, as if each bus or trolley should have a sign on it that says "Losers enter here".
Giving up the private and often luxurious coccoon of the private car, and jostling with the rest of humanity, is not going to be easy for some people, and I suspect they will endure financial strain to avoid it.
Naturally no sane person in NY city would drive to work, but in other parts of the country many people will drive 'til they drop and that's that.
The price on the sign at the station shows $6.63/gal for 'regular' unleaded.
This was in 2009.
No, I don't see rationing occurring unless there is some sort of embargo or war. The U.S. will simply do as other countries do, and even we do somewhat - let the markets decide who gets gas and how much.
Prices will rise, and if you can afford the gas you can buy it and as much as you can afford. There are people now who can't afford a car and gasoline. I suggest to anyone who wants to keep their lifestyle to work harder or smarter.
That's the other side of the coin, which hardly anyone touches on here.
In our area the small group of folk continually are trying to get OPM (other people's money, tax money) to build a rail system between, drumbeat, Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland. Now if anyone is going to commute between those three cities they probably are going to live close to one where they work. The number of people going between them on business probably aren't going to one central area to be worth building a billion dollar rail system to get them there. It would be like other government programs, we could just buy them a car to drive there and come out far cheaper than building the rail system. I suspect they've tried to get Federal Tax Money (OPM) as well as Ohio taxpayers' money--I believe it was on the ballot a few years back.
That Federal Tax money will be better spent subsidizing rail systems in areas where the jobs setup and the people needing transportation are in clusters.
People locally have also tried to get a rail system subsidized by Federal, State, Local monies to run between a poorly-sited Wright Brothers Museum in an area of town where I wouldn't go without my gun and the Convention Center downtown, and the Air Force Air and Space Museum at Wright Patterson Air Force Base. Again, the number of users for a specialized rail system would be more cheaply handled by paying full time drivers and buying buses to just run the route empty except for the out-of-town visitors who need the ride.
These two examples aren't going to save energy; they will just waste money better spent on things that will save energy by carrying people.
We currently have a bus system that is very expensive, subsidized by a sales tax, and wastes money like a sieve. They had a director who retired and reemployed herself so she could collect her pay and her retirement both. She also had many benefits. They finally got rid of her. Did I mention the system didn't get better with her in charge.
We now have lots of empty buses running around most of the day. Much of the county has had reduction in service but we still pay the 1.5% sales tax I believe is the amount. And shifty is right about the stereotype of who rides. However there are a lot of kids who ride to local community and state colleges. But it's not easy because of the limited routes.
There needs to be some real planning to make public transportation realistic in places that are not large metropolitan areas. The green folks have come up with their ideas and protested things that didn't make them feel good; but they haven't improved the system for our area. E.g., they insisted on keeping the electric trolley type buses and adding diesel buses for service beyond the city.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Yes my favoriteis: my friend used to tell me about the "Toenailcutter" who used to ride the bus from Boston to the suburbs.
Plus public-transport will never do door-to-door. I can't see myself willing walking a few blocks to a bus-stop, in below zero weather, on snow-covered sidewalks, waiting a few minutes, carrying bags, and then walking a few blocks (or more?) at my destination, and then repeating the whole thing over on the way back. I'll take a 2nd or even 3rd job to keep the car and gas.
The bus system had a lady in charge who took under $200K in pay and great benefits. The bus service deteriorated. Because of poor control on behavior at the downtown bus stop transfer center by the inept city mayor and council and police and the RTA cops, they decided to go to subhubs for transfers. They came up with several small hubs around the urban area rather than a main transfer point.
So the ride to work at NCR (oooops, national corporation headquarters) became a long wait at a subhub and a long trip to the headquarters, both ways. I don't remember if he still has to transfer at the central hub or go to another peripheral hub.
He now drives one of his 5 cars crosstown to get there. He can't afford the time.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
There was a time where I actually commuted by bus from my place in the suburbs to my office in downtown Denver (about a 30 mile drive). There was a park and ride lot about 5 minutes from where I lived. Would catch the bus from there. Downtown, I'd hop off the bus and take the free shuttle that runs up and down one street in downtown Denver (no auto traffic allowed), which dropped me off two blocks from the office. Reverse the process in the evening.
IIRC, I could get discount passes that brought the one way trip down to $2.25 (would normally be $3 without the discount).
The only downside to it was that, with all the stops, the one way commute regularly took 15-20 minutes longer than it would take me to drive. It was nice in the winter not having to worry about traffic.
When light rail was expanded in Denver, the bus that would normally take me downtown was re-routed to go to the light rail station, where you would presumably transfer to the light rail for the rest of the trip. Lots of complains about how a 60-70 minute commute turned into 90 minutes or more.
I'll still use the light rail if going to downtown (I now work in a different part of town that makes using public transportation impractical); avoiding the hassles of parking is a nice thing.
NY has a system that costs less and reaches farther.
Current trackage runs from downtown to both south and southeast suburbs. The proposal suggests usage of existing railway right of way and use commuter trains (rather than electric powered light rail) to reach west, northwest and north of Denver. Supposed to go to the airport as well but not sure of that.
I believe that is correct. The folks in the 7 county metro area passed a ballot initiative to fund the light rail.
The initial line was one that ran pretty much north-south, with park and ride lots at each station.
A year (or two?) ago, an expansion was completed that brought light rail to the I-25 corridor to the southeast. What's interesting is that there is some good development going on around those stations - housing, shopping, all within walking distance to the station.
Good urban infill, if you ask me.
The only issue I really have with light rail as a commuter alternative is that all the trains are "local" - that is, they stop at each station. No "express" schedule at all.
On a related note, the city of Colorado Springs received a grant to begin commuter bus server from Co Springs to downtown Denver, with relatively limited stops (including one in the town I live in, Castle Rock). I tried it when it first started up but, like the bus service that I used some years ago, the point to point elapsed time was about 15-20 minutes longer than a straight drive.
Beacuse your locale has a poorly managed under-utilized tourist attraction marketing itself as public transportation doesn't mean other cities don't prosper from it.
Mass transit for the most part is a huge drain on the communities that have it.
Only to those that don't use it. I have been very happy with BART the DC area Metro, and San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Seattle bus systems. Most have provisions to take bicycles making commuting, or even recreational cycling much easier.
When you have to get in your car and drive 3 miles to the trolley station, then leave your car in a lot that is known for a high theft rate, it takes the practicality away. Plus it costs $6 roundtrip downtown for each of us.
See above about hte poorly managed under-utilized...
Why would anyone ever want to go to Columbus? :P
Riding the subway in NY is considered to be sensible and efficient--the stigma of public transportation is just not there, because the majority is doing what you are doing---riding the subway and bus.
Even the Brooklyn Bridge has become a major thoroughfare for bicycle and pedestrian traffic.
Is that mostly due to parking constraints? If so, it would hardly seem like a matter of "the City" punishing cars as much as a planning issue (and even if it was an issue, it still is a valid conscious decision to build housing instead of parking lots). It seems like its more a matter of real estate is at a premium and there is no place to park. That isn't "the City" at least from a management standpoint, that is "the city" from a societal standpoint.
Riding the subway in NY is considered to be sensible and efficient--the stigma of public transportation is just not there, because the majority is doing what you are doing---riding the subway and bus.
I think college towns are similar in that respect, riding bicycles/taking the bus is just how one gets around. $185/quarter for a hunting permit for a parking space when the bus is free and my bike is right there?
You are the second person to make such claims, and I'll ask you the same question: Have you ever driven a Prius? I have for over 65,000 miles. The Prius is a very good sedan for a small family with superb fuel economy. It's not a BMW, but it was never meant to be. The Prius's 0-60 time is between 9 and 10 seconds in most test drives I've read. If you consider that underpowered, you have a distorted view of what adequate power is.
And if you're on an undivided 2-lane highway and want to pass the log-truck in front of you that is going 40mph? Is that 9-10 sec with a charged battery? And performance is much more than 0-60mph. Check the Prius's braking distance; it's one of the worst new cars you can buy. What's it's slalom time, which is an indication of how maneuverable it is?
If you consider that underpowered, you have a distorted view of what adequate power is.
Power is relative, but a decent car these days is under 7 sec.
I'd imagine that the Prius's slalom time is pretty bad, considering it uses skinny, relatively high aspect-ratio tires to help it with its fuel economy.
That makes for a nice sporty ride for sure. I think the flat road acceleration of the Prius is probably adequate. In our drive from San Diego (sealevel) to home (2000 ft elev.) There are several freeway on ramps that are rather steep. It is all my Ranger V6 can do to get up to the 70 MPH speed limit on Interstate 8. It is a stretch of Interstate with a lot of traffic all day long. So you need the power to merge. Our Lexus and Sequoia do fine. I would think the Prius not the right vehicle for that type of driving. It was more designed for an urban commuter. I know they are not much good in a cross wind, which are common most of the year. In Fact in the last two months Interstate 8 was closed to semis and motorhomes twice, due to high winds.
So getting good mileage, no matter what gas prices do, is not the only criteria for buying a vehicle.
It's views lke this that have lead to an auto fleet with pathetically low fuel economy.
I would call a car "decent" if it had a 0-60 under 10 seconds, and braking from 60 under 135 feet. Slaloms all differ of course.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The real estate is so valuable that no one wants to give up the land to build a superhighway, and no one wants to provide the necessary parking for large numbers of vehicles. What parking there is becomes very expensive. Limited road space makes driving very unpleasant - hence the widespread use of cabs and limos for those who can afford not to take the subway.
(As I recall, even in New York City those who have LOTS of money still prefer private transportation to the subways or buses. This is why cabs and limos are so popular within the city. There is still plenty of automobile use, it's just that the users pay someone else to handle the aggravation of driving and shoulder the expense of maintaining the vehicle)
This approach only works if the downtown is filled with enough places of employment, stores, restaurants and entertainment venues to retain residents and attract tourists on a regular basis, thus making them competitive with suburban areas that offer many of the same amenities over a wider area, and thus more accessible by private vehicle.
This may work for New York City (and perhaps Washington, D.C., Chicago and San Francisco), but the brutal truth is that most urban areas cannot afford to completely alienate drivers, who will simply work, shop and eat in the suburbs, thus depriving the city proper of any of the revenues associated from those activities.
The cost to live in a big city amazes me. We had friends in the late 1960s that paid as much for a spot to park as their apartment. Being from CA it was hard for us to imagine paying $250 per month for a parking place when our house rent was only $60 per month. It included space for dozens of cars. They left their car with friends two hours out of the city.
Your point was brought home seeing my sister in Phoenix 2 weeks ago. She is in the process of buying a home 25 miles from the Casino she works in. She is now in Chandler where the same home is double the price she is paying. She claims Casa Grande where she bought her brand new home has all the stores she shops at with less traffic. The interest on the higher priced home close by was $700 more per month. She can make her payment on the Tiburon and buy a lot of gas for $700 per month. That IS the reason the suburbs have blossomed all over the West for sure.
It's a deadening experience for an enthusiastic driver but if you can get your thrills elsewhere and if you aren't in a big hurry, it's really quite all right as a car.
The Scion xA and the Fit are much more nimble and of course you can get them with 5-speed manual trans, and you can bolt on handling accessories for not much money.
The MINI Cooper is a ferocious handler and in supercharged or turbo form is as fast as you'll ever need to go on public roads.
So really, there's an 'economy' car for everyone (and every wallet) these days, from $14,000 to $26,000.
Well relative to the years before 1975, the current mpg numbers aren't bad. You have a lot more choices for a 30mpg vehicle then you did back then; and todays are much larger and comfortable and safer.
But you're right inferring that people don't make mpg a priority. a) A small percentage of people willingly make high-mpg a priority. Then b) you have the group that make high-mpg cars their choice because of economics of the generally lower sticker, and cost of fueling it. However as soon as either gas is cheap or they make more money, this group will go back to what they WANT which would be more power or size, and c) people who have money/wealth and these issues don't affect them. These people buy the vehicle they like, and drive as they like. They most likely have a large and/or powerful vehicle.
People want size and power because it is generally better providing more capabilities, unless the economics force them to have less. Darwinism applies to humans and driving also.
Cooperation only make sense if everyone "deserves" gas, which may not be true, unless access to a regular supply of gasoline is now an entitlement.
Well I guess we DO exhale methane in a way....let's not go there!
The grim aspect of Nature is that it doesn't care. Whether we humans survive as a life form or not, Nature could care less. It does what it does, keeps on rollin'.
You can look out from the main busy east-west street off of I-10 and as you drive through town you can see the framing for new houses going up all over. Plus, a mall and tons and tons of stores. It's growing like the Jolly Green Giant.
For whatever reason a couple of months ago we stopped at Casa Grande around 10:30 on a Saturday night on the way home from the Grand Canyon and there was no food available for us! I mean fast food, of course, but all the sit-down restaurants were closed. Even Wendy's, etc., fast food was closed. We didn't feel like driving miles and miles west on the busy street through Casa Grande looking for a restaurant so after about 3 or 4 hungry miles we just turned around and headed back east towards I-10. I believe it was an AM/PM we finally hit up for nachos and hot dogs...and my son got the last helping of nachos, too. :sick:
I chose a large iced brownie to go with my hot dog and mustard and we were set to go again. But, man, I thought we'd find McDonald's, Burger King, Whataburger, Wendy's, etc. Nuttin' goin' at 10:30 Saturday night, surprised us for a growing city like Casa Grande. I think that problem will be fixed before too long.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Yeah, but 30 years is a long time in automotive evolution. In that time, I would have expected and hoped for much more progress than we made. Sigh.
Darwinism doesn't apply to driving. If it did, oh my what a cutthroat world it would be out there on our roads. Yikes.
I wouldn't want more size in my car just because I could. The best cars for my purposes are the small ones. I like some power, but I prefer better handling in a lighter-weight package. This, of course, is just my opinion, but the point I am trying to make is when you say "everyone", well, it isn't. ;-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Think in terms of those who are successful have $ and are driving. Those that aren't successful don't have $ for the car and/or gas.
Also realize that $ buys more and better safety.
but the point I am trying to make is when you say "everyone", well, it isn't.
I state in my posts many times "the majority of people", but yes I get lazy and shorten it to "everyone", hoping that people understand. When I'm speaking of people liking power and larger vehicles, I'm simply stating the trend we have seen of each version of models becoming larger and more powerful (the majority,
I work with a guy who makes about $15/hr, and he just turned in his leased Ford F-150. What did he replace it with? A gas Silverado 2500HD. So maybe gas prices aren't that onerous.
I think money makes you less safe actually, because it can (or may not) increase one's illusion of safety, as in "This here car can survive any kind of crash".
Alpha males don't really do very well in Nature come to find out. :P Cooperation is one's best shot at success. :P
Yes, I know that driving a rally-race-inspired '08 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS, with its extra front cross-member owing to the new Mitsu 4 cyl design and strong for the twisties chassis build, is not roughing it at all. But to be driving a car I love the look of and the handling/steering, and to have a great Warranty and reasonable price to boot, why would I buy an Escalade or a MKZ and roll boring and waste gas? To me, my Lancer's 32 mpg highway and 21 mpg city are more than adequate. Even if ghastly rises above $4.00/gal...I will keep the Lancer GTS, gentlemen.
Compact or smaller is better in my book.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Your under 7 sec rule is just ridiculous. For a limited segment of the population maybe. But consider the millions who opt for Corolla's Civics, Aveos, Focus', 4c Camrys, 4c Malibus, etc etc etc. This isn't a drag race to the supermarket. Who cares if you get there 1 minute before someone else to collect the freshest oranges.
Huh???????????
The standard tires are the same ones on the Corolla and last gen Civic. Goodyear Integritys. You must be thinking of the first Gen Prius which they stopped producing in 2003.
0-60 in 9.7 seconds, which is the 2nd slowest car they've test in 2006, the slowest being the Honda Hybrid
Braking 60-0 was 137 feet, which is greater than most the other cars, but better than a few, like the Subaru Impreza (138ft) and the Lexus 460 (143 feet--the worst recorded).
Braking 80-0 was the highest braking distance of any car tested, at 256 feet.
Gas mileage was 41 mpg
Slalom in mph was 61.6, which looks to be about the third lowest speed (higher # is better)
Skidpad, measured in Gs, was 0.72, the lowest of all the cars tested in 2006-2007.
Soooooo, all in all, tops of all cars in Gas Mileage, and at the bottom or near bottom in all other categories.
Still, these numbers are relative to all other new-ish cars, and are still in a reasonable bell curve, that is, they are not good numbers, but they aren't radically bad.
Well, I think we should split the word "fast" into 2 :
cruising speed
acceleration
Fast cruising speed : Going slower will only yield results if you mean any speed higher than a mpg sweetspot that is, depending on cars, between 45 and 75 mph.
The loophole in this is that many areas are clogged with congestion with average speeds in the teens or lower. Increasing SL enforcement / reducing SL will do NOTHING to improve mileage in those increasingly numerous occurences.
There are the urban areas with many Traffic Lights (TL). The reason of low MPG is rooted in the many stop and gos forced by TL. Lowering /Enforcing SL will do very little or may even be counter productive.
Fast acceleration :
There is no law that forbid anyone to floor the pedal at the green light. You are right to say that in most cases, this doesn't improve the average speed, as you will catch up at the next TL. Lowering /Enforcing SL will just do nothing about it.
> Wasted Fuel, More pollution from the wasted fuel.
Right, but SL only address a fraction of the overall saving potential and it depends from one's driving pattern.
>Too many ruined brake pads from all the hard stops. Worn out rubber tires from
wasted rubber.
These are more to do with imho aggressive stoplight driving than sustaining high speed on a freeway.
>Higher insurance rates for cars. Higher insurance rates for accident victims.
I don't know the insurance system in the US. In France, there is a "Bonus-Malus" system that makes driver with -responsible- accident history pay up to 4X more than adriver with clean history. Good drivers should not pay for bad ones.
>More lawsuits, leading to large damage awards and wasted court time.
Not sure about the US legal system. can not comment
>Parents losing kids to car accidents which did not need to happen. Road rage deaths.
while I agree that aggressive driving will lead to higher casualties, I dissociate this from driving at high speed, expecially on the highway. Not going into the debate around SL and safety again, I would just say that tailgating, a common occurence in the US, is a major part of aggressive driving. Although responsible for so many deaths, this is surprisingly ignored by the police.
Don't know situation in US, but Road rage has been a growing issue in UK. It has more cause imho from the frustration caused by increasing congestion and emasculating SL policies than by just going quick (which is simply less and less possible).
Why would I get fined on a 28MPG car going 85+ on a limited access highway while doing 15 mpg on a V8 truck at 65mph would leave me just OK? If you want to drive slower, this is your full right, but please do not force me to go your pace.
I personally support higher gasoline taxes. between 3,XX in the US and 8USD+ per Gallon in Europe, there is definitely room for an increase. Regarded as a precious commodity, Expensive Gas will lead people to find their suitable way to save gas. We will certainly find a combination of reduced trips, fuel efficient cars, car sharing, reduced speed, biking, public transport use... you name it. When it comes to their own purse, trust me, people can get very clever.
We need a shock however. Not a painless gradual increase but something (like the congestion charge in London) that will make people realize that there is something wrong. I like the idea of a "Manhattan project" in terms of fuel saving. This will need money anyway, and the fuel tax increase will be a welcome source.