Discussion:
2012 Ford Focus Gets 40 MPG Highway, Pressuring Hybrids
(too old to reply)
john
2010-09-30 00:26:34 UTC
Permalink
Ford expects that its 2012 Ford Focus, which will be shown at the
Paris Motor Show, will get 40 miles per gallon on the highway, an 18%
improvement over the current model.

That would make the Focus compact car the most fuel-efficient car in
its class and provide Ford with a marketing tool that fits in with the
company’s multiyear push to become a fuel economy leader.

“A 40 m.p.g. Focus is going to really put the pressure on hybrids,”
Bell said.

Read more: 2012 Ford Focus can boast fuel efficiency in its debut |
freep.com | Detroit Free Press
http://www.freep.com/article/20100929/BUSINESS01/100929046/1210/Business01/2012-Ford-Focus-can-boast-fuel-efficiency-in-its-debut#ixzz10y52Slmo
n***@wt.net
2010-09-30 00:57:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by john
Ford expects that its 2012 Ford Focus, which will be shown at the
Paris Motor Show, will get 40 miles per gallon on the highway, an 18%
improvement over the current model.
That would make the Focus compact car the most fuel-efficient car in
its class and provide Ford with a marketing tool that fits in with the
company’s multiyear push to become a fuel economy leader.
“A 40 m.p.g. Focus is going to really put the pressure on hybrids,”
Bell said.
Good grief... My 05 Corolla gets better than 40 mpg, and it's
not even a hybrid.. :/
That's why I bought it over the U.S. made cars built at that
time.. None of the equal size domestics could match the gas
mileage of the Corolla. At 65 mph, which is the night limit
on the interstate I drive, I get 43+ mpg.
At 70 mph, I get about 41 mpg. With a loaded down car and
the A/C on to boot..
If they think that Focus is going to be equal to a Prius as
far as gas mileage, I have some oceanfront property in
west Texas I'd like to show to prospective buyers..
I don't see it, being as it's barely in the league of my lowly
Corolla, much less the hybrid Prius. Next..
Cathy F.
2010-10-01 02:16:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by john
Ford expects that its 2012 Ford Focus, which will be shown at the
Paris Motor Show, will get 40 miles per gallon on the highway, an 18%
improvement over the current model.
That would make the Focus compact car the most fuel-efficient car in
its class and provide Ford with a marketing tool that fits in with the
company’s multiyear push to become a fuel economy leader.
“A 40 m.p.g. Focus is going to really put the pressure on hybrids,”
Bell said.
Good grief... My 05 Corolla gets better than 40 mpg, and it's
not even a hybrid.. :/
That's why I bought it over the U.S. made cars built at that
time.. None of the equal size domestics could match the gas
mileage of the Corolla. At 65 mph, which is the night limit
on the interstate I drive, I get 43+ mpg.
At 70 mph, I get about 41 mpg. With a loaded down car and
the A/C on to boot..
If they think that Focus is going to be equal to a Prius as
far as gas mileage, I have some oceanfront property in
west Texas I'd like to show to prospective buyers..
I don't see it, being as it's barely in the league of my lowly
Corolla, much less the hybrid Prius. Next..

I'm all for Ford - or anyone else - finally getting their cars' mileage
where it should/could be. As to the Prius' MPG...

I keep seeing 44 mpg listed as the expected deal for a Prius. Huh. Mine (a
2010, bought Oct. '09) usually averages 50 mpg around town & just out of
town. On longer trips it gets 51-53 mpg. And, for the last 2 weeks, for
some reason it's been getting 51-56 combined. :-) Maybe the temp's optimum
now for extra-good gas mileage - not sure why. And no, I don't drive under
the speed limit or anything; I just... drive. Plus, the day I got an avg.
of 56 mpg on an out-of-town trip, I was using the "Power" mode sometimes
'cause of some hilly terrain.
Cathy F.
2010-10-01 02:18:41 UTC
Permalink
Re-posting, since quote marks didn't 'take' on previous reply....
Post by n***@wt.net
Post by john
Ford expects that its 2012 Ford Focus, which will be shown at the
Paris Motor Show, will get 40 miles per gallon on the highway, an 18%
improvement over the current model.
That would make the Focus compact car the most fuel-efficient car in
its class and provide Ford with a marketing tool that fits in with the
company's multiyear push to become a fuel economy leader.
"A 40 m.p.g. Focus is going to really put the pressure on hybrids,"
Bell said.
Good grief... My 05 Corolla gets better than 40 mpg, and it's
not even a hybrid.. :/
That's why I bought it over the U.S. made cars built at that
time.. None of the equal size domestics could match the gas
mileage of the Corolla. At 65 mph, which is the night limit
on the interstate I drive, I get 43+ mpg.
At 70 mph, I get about 41 mpg. With a loaded down car and
the A/C on to boot..
If they think that Focus is going to be equal to a Prius as
far as gas mileage, I have some oceanfront property in
west Texas I'd like to show to prospective buyers..
I don't see it, being as it's barely in the league of my lowly
Corolla, much less the hybrid Prius. Next..
===============
I'm all for Ford - or anyone else - finally getting their cars' mileage
where it should/could be. As to the Prius' MPG...
I keep seeing 44 mpg listed as the expected deal for a Prius. Huh. Mine (a
2010, bought Oct. '09) usually averages 50 mpg around town & just out of
town. On longer trips it gets 51-53 mpg. And, for the last 2 weeks, for
some reason it's been getting 51-56 combined. :-) Maybe the temp's
optimum now for extra-good gas mileage - not sure why. And no, I don't
drive under the speed limit or anything; I just... drive. Plus, the day I
got an avg. of 56 mpg on an out-of-town trip, I was using the "Power" mode
sometimes 'cause of some hilly terrain.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle
2010-10-02 20:12:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by n***@wt.net
Post by john
Ford expects that its 2012 Ford Focus, which will be shown at the
Paris Motor Show, will get 40 miles per gallon on the highway, an 18%
improvement over the current model.
That would make the Focus compact car the most fuel-efficient car in
its class and provide Ford with a marketing tool that fits in with the
company’s multiyear push to become a fuel economy leader.
“A 40 m.p.g. Focus is going to really put the pressure on hybrids,”
Bell said.
Good grief... My 05 Corolla gets better than 40 mpg, and it's
not even a hybrid..  :/
That's why I bought it over the U.S. made cars built at that
time.. None of the equal size domestics could match the gas
mileage of the Corolla.  At 65 mph, which is the night limit
on the interstate I drive,  I get 43+ mpg.
At 70 mph, I get about 41 mpg. With a loaded down car and
the A/C on to boot..
If they think that Focus is going to be equal to a Prius as
far as gas mileage, I have some oceanfront property in
west Texas I'd like to show to prospective buyers..
I don't see it, being as it's barely in the league of my lowly
Corolla, much less the hybrid Prius.    Next..
The Toyota owners are dying of anger and envy at Focus AND Fiesta,
which is faster than a Lamborghini according to some recent tests in
the slalom.

But, of course, Toyota drivers are depressed people --church people
for the most part-- who don't care a driving experience or fun of any
kind.

That's my unbiased input with the Wisdom of the Jungle.


-----------------------------------------------------------------

"Free Wisdom of the Jungle"

http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
Neo
2010-10-03 13:19:15 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 2, 4:12 pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of
Post by His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle
Post by n***@wt.net
Post by john
Ford expects that its 2012 Ford Focus, which will be shown at the
Paris Motor Show, will get 40 miles per gallon on the highway, an 18%
improvement over the current model.
That would make the Focus compact car the most fuel-efficient car in
its class and provide Ford with a marketing tool that fits in with the
company’s multiyear push to become a fuel economy leader.
“A 40 m.p.g. Focus is going to really put the pressure on hybrids,”
Bell said.
Good grief... My 05 Corolla gets better than 40 mpg, and it's
not even a hybrid..  :/
That's why I bought it over the U.S. made cars built at that
time.. None of the equal size domestics could match the gas
mileage of the Corolla.  At 65 mph, which is the night limit
on the interstate I drive,  I get 43+ mpg.
At 70 mph, I get about 41 mpg. With a loaded down car and
the A/C on to boot..
If they think that Focus is going to be equal to a Prius as
far as gas mileage, I have some oceanfront property in
west Texas I'd like to show to prospective buyers..
I don't see it, being as it's barely in the league of my lowly
Corolla, much less the hybrid Prius.    Next..
The Toyota owners are dying of anger and envy at Focus AND Fiesta,
which is faster than a Lamborghini according to some recent tests in
the slalom.
But, of course, Toyota drivers are depressed people --church people
for the most part-- who don't care a driving experience or fun of any
kind.
Anger and envy at a Focus/Fiesta?
Not a chance. 9_9

The local traffic congestion is bad in
my area so more often than not you don't
have any way to go very fast. Also if
there's a accident ( like a tour bus
crash), your car ends up just sitting
in traffic for hours. Furthermore,
if you go too fast automated speed
cameras will slap you with a speeding
tickets in the mail. Yeah, your car
might be faster than a Lamborghini in a slalom
but when you are stuck in bumper to bumper
traffic it's not going to matter. Rather
you'll be saying what does driving experience
and fun have to do with being stuck in a
traffic jam for two hours? Sadly - Nothing,
Nothing at all.
Post by His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle
That's my unbiased input with the Wisdom of the Jungle.
LOL.
Drums say jeep out of gas call AAA. :-)
His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle
2010-10-03 13:50:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neo
On Oct 2, 4:12 pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of
Post by His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle
Post by n***@wt.net
Post by john
Ford expects that its 2012 Ford Focus, which will be shown at the
Paris Motor Show, will get 40 miles per gallon on the highway, an 18%
improvement over the current model.
That would make the Focus compact car the most fuel-efficient car in
its class and provide Ford with a marketing tool that fits in with the
company’s multiyear push to become a fuel economy leader.
“A 40 m.p.g. Focus is going to really put the pressure on hybrids,”
Bell said.
Good grief... My 05 Corolla gets better than 40 mpg, and it's
not even a hybrid..  :/
That's why I bought it over the U.S. made cars built at that
time.. None of the equal size domestics could match the gas
mileage of the Corolla.  At 65 mph, which is the night limit
on the interstate I drive,  I get 43+ mpg.
At 70 mph, I get about 41 mpg. With a loaded down car and
the A/C on to boot..
If they think that Focus is going to be equal to a Prius as
far as gas mileage, I have some oceanfront property in
west Texas I'd like to show to prospective buyers..
I don't see it, being as it's barely in the league of my lowly
Corolla, much less the hybrid Prius.    Next..
The Toyota owners are dying of anger and envy at Focus AND Fiesta,
which is faster than a Lamborghini according to some recent tests in
the slalom.
But, of course, Toyota drivers are depressed people --church people
for the most part-- who don't care a driving experience or fun of any
kind.
Anger and envy at a Focus/Fiesta?
Not a chance. 9_9
The local traffic congestion is bad in
my area so more often than not you don't
have any way to go very fast. Also if
there's a accident ( like a tour bus
crash), your car ends up just sitting
in  traffic for hours. Furthermore,
if you go too fast automated speed
cameras will slap you with a speeding
tickets in the mail. Yeah, your car
might be faster than a Lamborghini in a slalom
but when you are stuck in bumper to bumper
traffic it's not going to matter. Rather
you'll be saying what does driving experience
and fun have to do with being stuck in a
traffic jam for two hours?  Sadly - Nothing,
Nothing at all.
Yeah, you kind of make sense. Traffic is depressing no matter what you
drive. But a small, peppy car sometimes let's have fun. If you drive
an automatic car, it's a sure sign of permanent depression.

I think Europeans can still have some fun denied to the Americans.
Post by Neo
Post by His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle
That's my unbiased input with the Wisdom of the Jungle.
LOL.
Drums say jeep out of gas call AAA. :-)
The drums also say it's time to give a break to the SUVs on the road.
They belong in the jungle.
Neo
2010-10-05 01:33:40 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 3, 9:50 am, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of
Post by His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle
Post by Neo
On Oct 2, 4:12 pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of
Post by His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle
Post by n***@wt.net
Post by john
Ford expects that its 2012 Ford Focus, which will be shown at the
Paris Motor Show, will get 40 miles per gallon on the highway, an 18%
improvement over the current model.
That would make the Focus compact car the most fuel-efficient car in
its class and provide Ford with a marketing tool that fits in with the
company’s multiyear push to become a fuel economy leader.
“A 40 m.p.g. Focus is going to really put the pressure on hybrids,”
Bell said.
Good grief... My 05 Corolla gets better than 40 mpg, and it's
not even a hybrid..  :/
That's why I bought it over the U.S. made cars built at that
time.. None of the equal size domestics could match the gas
mileage of the Corolla.  At 65 mph, which is the night limit
on the interstate I drive,  I get 43+ mpg.
At 70 mph, I get about 41 mpg. With a loaded down car and
the A/C on to boot..
If they think that Focus is going to be equal to a Prius as
far as gas mileage, I have some oceanfront property in
west Texas I'd like to show to prospective buyers..
I don't see it, being as it's barely in the league of my lowly
Corolla, much less the hybrid Prius.    Next..
The Toyota owners are dying of anger and envy at Focus AND Fiesta,
which is faster than a Lamborghini according to some recent tests in
the slalom.
But, of course, Toyota drivers are depressed people --church people
for the most part-- who don't care a driving experience or fun of any
kind.
Anger and envy at a Focus/Fiesta?
Not a chance. 9_9
The local traffic congestion is bad in
my area so more often than not you don't
have any way to go very fast. Also if
there's a accident ( like a tour bus
crash), your car ends up just sitting
in  traffic for hours. Furthermore,
if you go too fast automated speed
cameras will slap you with a speeding
tickets in the mail. Yeah, your car
might be faster than a Lamborghini in a slalom
but when you are stuck in bumper to bumper
traffic it's not going to matter. Rather
you'll be saying what does driving experience
and fun have to do with being stuck in a
traffic jam for two hours?  Sadly - Nothing,
Nothing at all.
Yeah, you kind of make sense. Traffic is depressing no matter what you
drive. But a small, peppy car sometimes let's have fun. If you drive
an automatic car, it's a sure sign of permanent depression.
I think Europeans can still have some fun denied to the Americans.
It's call the Autobahn.
Post by His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle
Post by Neo
Post by His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle
That's my unbiased input with the Wisdom of the Jungle.
LOL.
Drums say jeep out of gas call AAA. :-)
The drums also say it's time to give a break to the SUVs on the road.
They belong in the jungle.
SUV,SUV,
SUV of the Jungle,
King of all he can see...
Watch out for that tree!"
econo_cars
2010-10-29 16:43:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by john
Ford expects that its 2012 Ford Focus, which will be shown at the
Paris Motor Show, will get 40 miles per gallon on the highway, an 18%
improvement over the current model.
That would make the Focus compact car the most fuel-efficient car in
its class and provide Ford with a marketing tool that fits in with the
company’s multiyear push to become a fuel economy leader.
“A 40 m.p.g. Focus is going to really put the pressure on hybrids,”
Bell said.
Good grief... My 05 Corolla gets better than 40 mpg, and it's
not even a hybrid.. :/
As much as I love my Corolla, and loved my 2 Camrys, and love my new 2
Yaris' (sedan and 5 door liftback, still have Corolla), I have to say not
quite to your statement:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2005_Toyota_Corolla.shtml

hwy is close to 40mpg, but city mpg is no where near in standard or
automatic, both are good for emissions minding. If you have the manual
6-speed mpg for city and highway get worse, and emissions is incrediably
poor!

2010 models actually perform slightly less for highway, emissions is good on
all, and the difference of mpg combined between and automatic and manual
engines minimal, which is great since more people buy automatics today than
was the case traditionally. Actually many people argue that since Automatic
transmissions are now the norm in North America, and Manual is almost a
special request, why do we continue to pay higher pricing since the argument
in the past was that automatics cost more because they are special request,
manuals are the norm.

Econo-Cars
Charles Grozny
2010-10-29 17:39:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by econo_cars
Post by john
Ford expects that its 2012 Ford Focus, which will be shown at the
Paris Motor Show, will get 40 miles per gallon on the highway, an 18%
improvement over the current model.
That would make the Focus compact car the most fuel-efficient car in
its class and provide Ford with a marketing tool that fits in with the
company's multiyear push to become a fuel economy leader.
"A 40 m.p.g. Focus is going to really put the pressure on hybrids,"
Bell said.
Good grief... My 05 Corolla gets better than 40 mpg, and it's
not even a hybrid.. :/
As much as I love my Corolla, and loved my 2 Camrys, and love my new 2
Yaris' (sedan and 5 door liftback, still have Corolla), I have to say not
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2005_Toyota_Corolla.shtml
hwy is close to 40mpg, but city mpg is no where near in standard or
automatic, both are good for emissions minding. If you have the manual
6-speed mpg for city and highway get worse, and emissions is incrediably
poor!
2010 models actually perform slightly less for highway, emissions is good on
all, and the difference of mpg combined between and automatic and manual
engines minimal, which is great since more people buy automatics today than
was the case traditionally. Actually many people argue that since Automatic
transmissions are now the norm in North America, and Manual is almost a
special request, why do we continue to pay higher pricing since the argument
in the past was that automatics cost more because they are special request,
manuals are the norm.
Econo-Cars
One thing that kinda gets me is that in the US, smaller cars like the Mini
do not get better mileage than a car such as the Corolla. They didn't when
I was actually in the new car market, in both 1979 and 1995.

The other thing is in the used market (where I generally buy my cars from,
don't usually buy new) one doesn't have as much of a choice. Most of the
little tiny cars don't show up in the used market. Usually the safest bet
is a good Corolla. Less worry and the gas mileage is usually pretty
reliable.

Charles Grozny
econo_cars
2010-10-31 15:35:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Charles Grozny
One thing that kinda gets me is that in the US, smaller cars like the Mini
do not get better mileage than a car such as the Corolla. They didn't
when I was actually in the new car market, in both 1979 and 1995.
Considering the price tags I definitely agree that buying any Mini model
over a Corolla or even a Yaris is just another case of more money than
brain. For me to buy a car as small as any Mini model I would expect the
best in class for EVERY popular ranking catagory, and that just isn't the
case in the Mini line of cars. The Mini models are expensive. I think people
are paying a lot for nostalgia, similar to the VW buggy.
Post by Charles Grozny
The other thing is in the used market (where I generally buy my cars from,
don't usually buy new)
You're very smart. The new car market is, financially, a stupid choice for
most people, especially those who are financing. .There are ample great used
cars out there for anyone willing to invest the time and effort into
locating them. The best thing is save years before you need a new car, for
your new car, and start looking long before the 'have to have' stage.
Meaning start looking for good used before your current car is on its last
legs. That means you can wait for the perfect used car.
Post by Charles Grozny
one doesn't have as much of a choice. Most of the little tiny cars don't
show up in the used market. Usually the safest bet is a good Corolla.
Less worry and the gas mileage is usually pretty reliable.
I did notice there are more of some cars than others. There seems to be a
ton of used Nissan Versas out there (mostly with very high mileage), and
lots of PT Cruisers, Sebrings, Cobalts with surprisingly low mileage, and
low pricing. There are few quality sub-compacts like the Honda Fit or Toyota
Yaris, or even the Toyota Echo (as ugly as it was). People do drive the
quality small cars for a lot long. I know several people who still drive a
Toyota Tercels who have no intentions of getting rid of them sooner than
they have to.

I own a Corolla, and 2 Yaris', previously I owned 2 Camrys. I am super
surprised with the Yaris'. Sure they are no Camry, but the Toyota quality is
still there, and for the low price tag (especially if you can find a good,
low mileage used) they are a tremendous value. More so than the Corolla in
my experience, though if you like a little more power (let's keep it in
perspective as the Corolla is far from a power car too) then Corolla is the
better value, as long in the tooth as it is. .

Econo-cars
Charles Grozny
2010-10-31 19:59:23 UTC
Permalink
One of the surprising things is that in the Corolla AE10x model range
(1993-95) the 1.6 with the 3 speed auto does not get as good a mileage as
the 1.8 with the 3-speed auto + overdrive. And the 1.8 has more power, too.
I've owned both.

Charles Grozny
Bill
2010-09-30 02:41:55 UTC
Permalink
"john" wrote in message
Post by john
Ford expects that its 2012 Ford Focus, which will be shown at the
Paris Motor Show, will get 40 miles per gallon on the highway,
an 18%improvement over the current model.
About time!

The 90's era Ford Aspire got 38 mpg... And you would think there would be
mileage improvements in newer vehicles - Not!

Actually later year models of non-hybrid cars (all manufacturers) got worse
rated mileage than 38 mpg.

Anyway it is about time they started doing better than the 90's 38 mpg for
non-hybrids.

40 mpg gets *my* attention!
jim beam
2010-09-30 03:13:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
"john" wrote in message
Post by john
Ford expects that its 2012 Ford Focus, which will be shown at the
Paris Motor Show, will get 40 miles per gallon on the highway,
an 18%improvement over the current model.
About time!
The 90's era Ford Aspire got 38 mpg... And you would think there would be
mileage improvements in newer vehicles - Not!
Actually later year models of non-hybrid cars (all manufacturers) got worse
rated mileage than 38 mpg.
Anyway it is about time they started doing better than the 90's 38 mpg for
non-hybrids.
40 mpg gets *my* attention!
40 is chicken feed.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/17/autos/honda_civic_hf/index.htm
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
Bill
2010-09-30 04:27:32 UTC
Permalink
"jim beam" wrote in message
Post by jim beam
Post by Bill
"john" wrote in message
Post by john
Ford expects that its 2012 Ford Focus, which will be shown at the
Paris Motor Show, will get 40 miles per gallon on the highway,
an 18%improvement over the current model.
About time!
The 90's era Ford Aspire got 38 mpg... And you would think there would be
mileage improvements in newer vehicles - Not!
Actually later year models of non-hybrid cars (all manufacturers) got worse
rated mileage than 38 mpg.
Anyway it is about time they started doing better than the 90's 38 mpg for
non-hybrids.
40 mpg gets *my* attention!
40 is chicken feed.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/17/autos/honda_civic_hf/index.htm
I see! I have been looking for newer cars to have better gas mileage... I
should have been looking at OLDER 1980's cars!

Thanks!
Brent
2010-09-30 14:24:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
I see! I have been looking for newer cars to have better gas mileage... I
should have been looking at OLDER 1980's cars!
Less weight to pull around. As time goes on more and more weight is
mandated for various things like tire pressure monitors, safety devices
and so forth plus all the market demands for gizmos and creature
comforts. Strip that away by a couple decades and even with an old
technology fuel sipping engine the mpg can be rather high.
HR PuffanStuffanGlaze
2010-10-01 21:07:26 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:24:17 +0000 (UTC), Brent
Post by Brent
Post by Bill
I see! I have been looking for newer cars to have better gas mileage... I
should have been looking at OLDER 1980's cars!
Less weight to pull around. As time goes on more and more weight is
mandated for various things like tire pressure monitors, safety devices
and so forth plus all the market demands for gizmos and creature
comforts. Strip that away by a couple decades and even with an old
technology fuel sipping engine the mpg can be rather high.
Well they had to make even smaller cars heavier, because there for a
while every fuckwit and his brother were buying large SUVs, making
driving an absolute death wish for anyone driving with an impact
tolerance in the same league as that old CRX. Thankfully the whole
repugneckan gasguzzler didn't workout too well for bushie and his
minions and things are swinging a little bit in the other way. Still
too many idiot soccer moms in suburbans and such. I bet you anything
the douchebag that started this thread drives a ford expedition.
E. Meyer
2010-10-01 21:59:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by HR PuffanStuffanGlaze
On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:24:17 +0000 (UTC), Brent
Post by Brent
Post by Bill
I see! I have been looking for newer cars to have better gas mileage... I
should have been looking at OLDER 1980's cars!
Less weight to pull around. As time goes on more and more weight is
mandated for various things like tire pressure monitors, safety devices
and so forth plus all the market demands for gizmos and creature
comforts. Strip that away by a couple decades and even with an old
technology fuel sipping engine the mpg can be rather high.
Well they had to make even smaller cars heavier, because there for a
while every fuckwit and his brother were buying large SUVs, making
driving an absolute death wish for anyone driving with an impact
tolerance in the same league as that old CRX. Thankfully the whole
repugneckan gasguzzler didn't workout too well for bushie and his
minions and things are swinging a little bit in the other way. Still
too many idiot soccer moms in suburbans and such. I bet you anything
the douchebag that started this thread drives a ford expedition.
"repugneckan gasguzzler"?? Give me a break!
HR PuffanStuffanGlaze
2010-10-02 00:23:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by E. Meyer
"repugneckan gasguzzler"?? Give me a break!
Be careful what you wish form, being broken is overrated.
Ron Peterson
2010-10-31 15:34:57 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 1, 4:07 pm, HR PuffanStuffanGlaze
Post by HR PuffanStuffanGlaze
Well they had to make even smaller cars heavier, because there for a
while every fuckwit and his brother were buying large SUVs, making
driving an absolute death wish for anyone driving with an impact
tolerance in the same league as that old CRX.  Thankfully the whole
repugneckan gasguzzler didn't workout too well for bushie and his
minions and things are swinging a little bit in the other way.  Still
too many idiot soccer moms in suburbans and such.  I bet you anything
the douchebag that started this thread drives a ford expedition.
Small cars don't have to be heavier. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Insight
mentions that the Honda Insight made extensive use of lightweight
materials and was stronger than a heavier steel body equivalent.

It's a matter of cost. Light weight materials cost more. It only pays
for high end automobiles like the Jaguar XJ.

--
Ron
Nate Nagel
2010-10-31 16:08:35 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 1, 4:07 pm, HR PuffanStuffanGlaze
Post by HR PuffanStuffanGlaze
Well they had to make even smaller cars heavier, because there for a
while every fuckwit and his brother were buying large SUVs, making
driving an absolute death wish for anyone driving with an impact
tolerance in the same league as that old CRX. Thankfully the whole
repugneckan gasguzzler didn't workout too well for bushie and his
minions and things are swinging a little bit in the other way. Still
too many idiot soccer moms in suburbans and such. I bet you anything
the douchebag that started this thread drives a ford expedition.
Small cars don't have to be heavier. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Insight
mentions that the Honda Insight made extensive use of lightweight
materials and was stronger than a heavier steel body equivalent.
It's a matter of cost. Light weight materials cost more. It only pays
for high end automobiles like the Jaguar XJ.
--
Ron
yeah, it's possible to make a lightweight car with decent if not great
crash resistance. At least anecdotally the Porsche 944 is pretty good
in crashes, although it is still somewhat heavy for its size. But if
you want a really light car that still meets applicable safety standards
you're at least looking at extensive use of aluminum if not more exotic
materials.

nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
jim beam
2010-10-31 16:36:23 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 1, 4:07�pm, HR PuffanStuffanGlaze
Post by HR PuffanStuffanGlaze
Well they had to make even smaller cars heavier, because there for a
while every fuckwit and his brother were buying large SUVs, making
driving an absolute death wish for anyone driving with an impact
tolerance in the same league as that old CRX. �Thankfully the whole
repugneckan gasguzzler didn't workout too well for bushie and his
minions and things are swinging a little bit in the other way. �Still
too many idiot soccer moms in suburbans and such. �I bet you anything
the douchebag that started this thread drives a ford expedition.
Small cars don't have to be heavier. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Insight
mentions that the Honda Insight made extensive use of lightweight
materials and was stronger than a heavier steel body equivalent.
It's a matter of cost. Light weight materials cost more. It only pays
for high end automobiles like the Jaguar XJ.
--
Ron
look, the unspoken political/economic agenda for u.s. laws on "crash
safety" is to increase the weight of vehicles so that gas consumption
does not improve. with increasingly efficient engines, significantly so
in many cases, gas consumption has remained the same. a honda fit, with
a highly efficient stratified charge 1.5l fly-by-wire engine gets
roughly the same or even worse average gas mileage than my 1989 1.5l
throttle body injected barely-computerized fly-by-steam civic. the fit
weighs ~2500lbs, my civic ~2100lbs.

think about it - there is no room on the side of a vehicle to make
crumple zones like you have front and rear. and only a small proportion
of crashes involve side impact. yet side impact crash rules keep being
updated, are crazy rigorous, and add significantly to the weight of the
vehicle. why? the fact is that a vehicle occupant gets injured/killed
by the rate at which they impact the interior of their vehicle. since
there is no crumple zone in which to decelerate, and no seatbelt
restraint in that direction, the ability to mitigate against side
impacts is pretty much zero. so why sacrifice hundreds of pounds per
vehicle and billions of gallons of gasoline lugging all that unnecessary
weight around? especially when that weight actually makes you more
likely to crash because heavier vehicles are harder to maneuver and
slower to stop.

bottom line, if driver crash survival was the true agenda, we'd all be
wearing 6-point harnesses, helmets, and have 100mph tubular crash cages
inside cars, and all with a vehicle that can weigh in at less than
2000lbs. but that'll never happen because our system allows the oilco's
more access to the people that make the rules than anybody else. and as
long as that situation continues to exist, despite significant
improvements in technology and engine efficiency, cars will still
continue to get sucky gas mileage. [we don't drive more efficient
diesels for exactly the same reason.]
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
Elmo P. Shagnasty
2010-09-30 10:52:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
The 90's era Ford Aspire got 38 mpg... And you would think there would be
mileage improvements in newer vehicles - Not!
Oh, there are mileage improvements. By far.

But they're masked by the weight increases that resulted from more
safety equipment.

What YOU'RE saying is that you want today's engines in yesterdays's
chassis, without any modern safety items. And without any features that
people are asking for more and more, all of which up the weight.
Scott Dorsey
2010-09-30 14:15:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
What YOU'RE saying is that you want today's engines in yesterdays's
chassis, without any modern safety items. And without any features that
people are asking for more and more, all of which up the weight.
Me too! That is _exactly_ what I want!
And Ariel is selling it!
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
jim beam
2010-09-30 15:21:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
Post by Bill
The 90's era Ford Aspire got 38 mpg... And you would think there would be
mileage improvements in newer vehicles - Not!
Oh, there are mileage improvements. By far.
But they're masked by the weight increases that resulted from more
safety equipment.
What YOU'RE saying is that you want today's engines in yesterdays's
chassis
like this?
http://cms.skunk2.com/id/549/Featured-Elite-Danny-Violantes-K-Powered-Civic/

i'm not so wild about the lavender theme, but this kind of motor in an
older lightweight body will give you great gas mileage if driven normally.
Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
, without any modern safety items. And without any features that
people are asking for more and more, all of which up the weight.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
econo_cars
2010-10-29 16:30:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill
The 90's era Ford Aspire got 38 mpg... And you would think there would be
mileage improvements in newer vehicles - Not!
This particular model is one of the few that actually did get great fuel
economy, and has surprisingly low emissions (even in today's standards:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/1997_Ford_Aspire.shtml

It was Korean built, not North American, and had a short life, 1994-1997.
America wasn't going to buy a small economy car (in today's auto terms this
car was a sub-compact), and the political climate of the day (buy American)
certainly would have prevented millions from even considering this
sub-compact over others made in the USA. It is just too bad Ford gave up on
this model so soon.

Econo-cars
Bruce Richmond
2010-10-30 00:51:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by econo_cars
Post by Bill
The 90's era Ford Aspire got 38 mpg... And you would think there would be
mileage improvements in newer vehicles - Not!
This particular model is one of the few that actually did get great fuel
economy, and has surprisingly low emissions (even in today's standards:http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/1997_Ford_Aspire.shtml
It was Korean built, not North American, and had a short life, 1994-1997.
America wasn't going to buy a small economy car (in today's auto terms this
car was a sub-compact), and the political climate of the day (buy American)
certainly would have prevented millions from even considering this
sub-compact over others made in the USA. It is just too bad Ford gave up on
this model so soon.
Econo-cars
Had a 1980 Dodge Colt Hatchback with a 1.6L twin stick (high/lo
range). Took it on a 3500 mile trip a month after buying it new and
it averaged a bit over 40 mpg for the trip. Day to day it got 38 to
40 mpg.

In the 90s I bought a Geo Metro. Heard that they got about 50 mpg
with a five speed, but my wife wanted an automatic. It averaged about
35 mpg and was a little s--t box.

Currently driving a 2001 prius with 135K on it. Not as quick or as
much fun as the Colt, but it averages 56 mpg in the summer and 50 in
the winter. It's been a good car. Wish Toyota would make a smaller
version of it, maybe a two seater the size of a Miata, with a smaller
engine for even better mpg. 80 mpg should be within reach.
econo_cars
2010-10-31 14:52:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bruce Richmond
Had a 1980 Dodge Colt Hatchback with a 1.6L twin stick (high/lo
range). Took it on a 3500 mile trip a month after buying it new and
it averaged a bit over 40 mpg for the trip. Day to day it got 38 to
40 mpg.
The EPA database of tests starts in 1984. At that time the only Dodge Colt
that came anywhere near 40mpg (hwy only) was the 4 speed 1.5L engines,
manual trannie, which got 31mpgs city and 37mpg highway. The 5 speed, 1.5L
engines tested lower, and the 1.6L even lower again. Again though this was
1984 models, and Dodge may have gotten worse in 4 years. My granddad said
during WWII era there were small vehicles in europe that got 70mpg but they
have 1 stroke engines or some such, and speed limits were much lower, plus
most did city driving only with them.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/1985_Dodge_Colt.shtml
Post by Bruce Richmond
In the 90s I bought a Geo Metro. Heard that they got about 50 mpg
with a five speed, but my wife wanted an automatic. It averaged about
35 mpg and was a little s--t box.
ROFL, you're not comparing a car now. Yes it got high milege:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/1994_Geo_Metro.shtml
it was also a 3 speed trannie, 3cyl, 1.0L engine offing 55 horsepower. I
somehow doubt a car with 55 horsepower would last very long on American
highways. That's probably why the lifespan of this car was only 4 model
years in America.
Post by Bruce Richmond
Currently driving a 2001 prius with 135K on it. Not as quick or as
much fun as the Colt, but it averages 56 mpg in the summer and 50 in
the winter. It's been a good car. Wish Toyota would make a smaller
version of it, maybe a two seater the size of a Miata, with a smaller
engine for even better mpg. 80 mpg should be within reach.
The original Prius (available only in Japan officially, and via 3rd party
private imports in UK, NZ and AUS and eventually made its way into other
markets as used vehicles, was the NHW10 (1997-2001). You probably would have
liked its smaller size:
Loading Image...

It looks similar to the Toyota Yaris Sedan, though with styling to fit the
time period.

The Europeans and Asians have always been more concerned with the practical
in cars, though look is important too, whereas Americans are more concerned
with how we look in a car and 'status'. Too bad, but the good news is
smaller cars are finally gaining steam in America, thus importing European
and Asian only models should become standard practice in the years to come.
We are at an exciting turning point in the Continental auto industry right
now, and all pointers seem too indicate North America will benefit greatly,
as too will the globe as a whole. I drive the Yaris' with pride, and get a
huge boost in ego when some old world a-hole pulls up next to me in a big
gas guzzling truck, looking down at me while revving his engine, and
grinning like a pig in the sty. Years ago, in the same situation, he would
have made me feel the lesser, and the loser, but today I certainly feel the
wiser, and the winner.

Econo-car
Bruce Richmond
2010-11-01 00:56:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by econo_cars
Post by Bruce Richmond
Had a 1980 Dodge Colt Hatchback with a 1.6L twin stick (high/lo
range).  Took it on a 3500 mile trip a month after buying it new and
it averaged a bit over 40 mpg for the trip.  Day to day it got 38 to
40 mpg.
The EPA database of tests starts in 1984. At that time the only Dodge Colt
that came anywhere near 40mpg (hwy only) was the 4 speed 1.5L engines,
manual trannie, which got 31mpgs city and 37mpg highway. The 5 speed, 1.5L
engines tested lower, and the 1.6L even lower again. Again though this was
1984 models, and Dodge may have gotten worse in 4 years. My granddad said
during WWII era there were small vehicles in europe that got 70mpg but they
have 1 stroke engines or some such, and speed limits were much lower, plus
most did city driving only with them.http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/1985_Dodge_Colt.shtml
As you noted, the 1.5L 4 speed got better mileage than the 5 speed,
which is not what most people would expect. The trans I had in my
1980 isn't even listed. The "twin stick" was a 4 speed with hi/lo
range selected by a second stick. High range was a fairly tall
overdrive, allowing for much lower revs during highway driving. The
40 mpg I mentioned was actual mpg achived on the trip, not some
statistic from the EPA. My brother-inlaw had a 1.5L 4 speed and my
car did get better mpg due to its taller gearing. Later models did
get fewer mpg. They got heavier due to new safety regs, and required
more controls to meet EPA requirements.
Post by econo_cars
Post by Bruce Richmond
In the 90s I bought a Geo Metro.  Heard that they got about 50 mpg
with a five speed, but my wife wanted an automatic.  It averaged about
35 mpg and was a little s--t box.
ROFL, you're not comparing a car now. Yes it got high milege:http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/1994_Geo_Metro.shtml
it was also a 3 speed trannie, 3cyl, 1.0L engine offing 55 horsepower. I
somehow doubt a car with 55 horsepower would last very long on American
highways. That's probably why the lifespan of this car was only 4 model
years in America.
Mine suffered a heart attack when a head broke off a valve and went
through the top of a piston at about 80K miles. I gave the car to my
son who got a new piston and replaced the head with one from a salvage
yard. He then had sense enough to sell it and buy something better.
Post by econo_cars
Post by Bruce Richmond
Currently driving a 2001 prius with 135K on it.  Not as quick or as
much fun as the Colt, but it averages 56 mpg in the summer and 50 in
the winter.  It's been a good car.  Wish Toyota would make a smaller
version of it, maybe a two seater the size of a Miata, with a smaller
engine for even better mpg.  80 mpg should be within reach.
The original Prius (available only in Japan officially, and via 3rd party
private imports in UK, NZ and AUS and eventually made its way into other
markets as used vehicles, was the NHW10 (1997-2001). You probably would have
liked its smaller size:http://www.mkstrading.co.jp/cms/admin/images/upload/full/News20091215...
It looks similar to the Toyota Yaris Sedan, though with styling to fit the
time period.
It looks a lot like my 2001 Prius

Loading Image...

Loading Image...

When I got mine used I responded to a dealer's add with no picture.
When I got to his lot I thought it must have sold because I didn't see
anything that looked like a Prius ;)
Post by econo_cars
The Europeans and Asians have always been more concerned with the practical
in cars, though look is important too, whereas Americans are more concerned
with how we look in a car and 'status'. Too bad, but the good news is
smaller cars are finally gaining steam in America, thus importing European
and Asian only models should become standard practice in the years to come.
We are at an exciting turning point in the Continental auto industry right
now, and all pointers seem too indicate North America will benefit greatly,
as too will the globe as a whole. I drive the Yaris' with pride, and get a
huge boost in ego when some old world a-hole pulls up next to me in a big
gas guzzling truck, looking down at me while revving his engine, and
grinning like a pig in the sty. Years ago, in the same situation, he would
have made me feel the lesser, and the loser, but today I certainly feel the
wiser, and the winner.
Econo-car
I would be more concerned that one might not see me and run me over.
Used to worry about that when driving my Fiero. My head was sometimes
lower than their headlights.
chuckcar
2010-09-30 04:56:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by john
Ford expects that its 2012 Ford Focus, which will be shown at the
Paris Motor Show, will get 40 miles per gallon on the highway, an 18%
improvement over the current model.
That would make the Focus compact car the most fuel-efficient car in
its class and provide Ford with a marketing tool that fits in with the
company’s multiyear push to become a fuel economy leader.
“A 40 m.p.g. Focus is going to really put the pressure on hybrids,”
Bell said.
Read more: 2012 Ford Focus can boast fuel efficiency in its debut |
freep.com | Detroit Free Press
http://www.freep.com/article/20100929/BUSINESS01/100929046/1210/Busines
s01/2012-Ford-Focus-can-boast-fuel-efficiency-in-its-debut#ixzz10y52Slm
o
*Maybe* for US owned car companies and only such cars. Hardly earth
shaking milage. 70Mpg is quite doable now with diesels.
--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
Mark
2010-09-30 12:50:10 UTC
Permalink
That's hardly amazing, my 87 Camry would do well over 40.
Post by john
Ford expects that its 2012 Ford Focus, which will be shown at the
Paris Motor Show, will get 40 miles per gallon on the highway, an 18%
improvement over the current model.
That would make the Focus compact car the most fuel-efficient car in
its class and provide Ford with a marketing tool that fits in with the
company’s multiyear push to become a fuel economy leader.
“A 40 m.p.g. Focus is going to really put the pressure on hybrids,”
Bell said.
Read more: 2012 Ford Focus can boast fuel efficiency in its debut |
freep.com | Detroit Free Presshttp://www.freep.com/article/20100929/BUSINESS01/100929046/1210/Busin...
chuckcar
2010-10-01 00:08:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark
That's hardly amazing, my 87 Camry would do well over 40.
I can even beat that: My physics teacher in HS had a diesel civic that
did 50 Mpg (Imperial) and that was pre-1980.
--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
hls
2010-09-30 13:55:02 UTC
Permalink
"john" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:e810fb5e-8aa7-4ba3-8984-***@k17g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Ford expects that its 2012 Ford Focus, which will be shown at the
Paris Motor Show, will get 40 miles per gallon on the highway,

*******
Kudos to Ford. They seem to have been working while others snored.
econo_cars
2010-10-26 15:07:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by john
Ford expects that its 2012 Ford Focus, which will be shown at the
Paris Motor Show, will get 40 miles per gallon on the highway,
*******
Kudos to Ford. They seem to have been working while others snored.
I agree on giving Kudos, but don't agree on them having worked while others
snored. All auto manufacturers have been working for many years on making
fuel efficient, low emissions models all over Europe and Asia. Americans,
the stupid greedy, show off, power hungry pigs that we are, are only now
waking up (somewhat) to the need to conserve...err only because fewer can
afford the gas costs, and we can't FINANCE gas purchases each time at the
pumps. Because are sensibilities are finally emerging demand for fuel
efficient (I still think the average American couldn't care less about
emissions, it is still about what's in it for the individual) models. That's
why most manufacturers, our good old, tired North American brands too, are
now bringing over their European models (Ford Focus 2010 is just that) which
have been more efficient for many years. That's good because North American
made compacts have sucked in almost every way imaginable, even in
appearance, another reason why they didn't sell well to our egotistical
population. Never mind if the car makes good value sense, do I look good in
it. Duh.

Econo_cars
sctvguy1
2010-10-26 17:58:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by econo_cars
I agree on giving Kudos, but don't agree on them having worked while
others snored. All auto manufacturers have been working for many years on
making fuel efficient, low emissions models all over Europe and Asia.
Americans, the stupid greedy, show off, power hungry pigs that we are, are
only now waking up (somewhat) to the need to conserve...err only because
fewer can afford the gas costs, and we can't FINANCE gas purchases each
time at the pumps. Because are sensibilities are finally emerging demand
for fuel efficient (I still think the average American couldn't care less
about emissions, it is still about what's in it for the individual)
models. That's why most manufacturers, our good old, tired North American
brands too, are now bringing over their European models (Ford Focus 2010
is just that) which have been more efficient for many years. That's good
because North American made compacts have sucked in almost every way
imaginable, even in appearance, another reason why they didn't sell well
to our egotistical population. Never mind if the car makes good value
sense, do I look good in it. Duh.
Econo_cars
The first K car, the Dodge Aries got 41mpg. My 91 Chrysler New Yorker gets
30+ on the highway. You're just a troll.
Roger Blake
2010-10-29 02:52:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by econo_cars
I agree on giving Kudos, but don't agree on them having worked while others
snored. All auto manufacturers have been working for many years on making
fuel efficient, low emissions models all over Europe and Asia. Americans,
the stupid greedy, show off, power hungry pigs that we are, are only now
waking up (somewhat) to the need to conserve...
There is no need to conserve, we are not anywhere near running out of
energy resources. The "we'll run out of oil in 20 years" mantra has
been spouted for the last 50 years or more.

Forty MPG? Big f***ing deal. I have a 1981 edition of Popular Science
that tests 10 40mpg cars that were available nearly 30 years ago. The
same issue features numerous articles on solar energy, energy saving
devices, etc.

I've seen this movie before and I'm not buying it this time.
--
Roger Blake
(Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled due to spam.)
"0bama snoozed while oil oozed."
dr_jeff
2010-10-29 10:44:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Blake
Post by econo_cars
I agree on giving Kudos, but don't agree on them having worked while others
snored. All auto manufacturers have been working for many years on making
fuel efficient, low emissions models all over Europe and Asia. Americans,
the stupid greedy, show off, power hungry pigs that we are, are only now
waking up (somewhat) to the need to conserve...
There is no need to conserve, we are not anywhere near running out of
energy resources.
2/3 of our oil comes from outside the US. We might not be running out of
energy resources, but the energy we're using is increasing our trade
deficit.

We are running out of oil that is easy to get. And, we can't easily
convert electricity, nuclear, coal or natural gas to power a lot of
vehicles.
Post by Roger Blake
The "we'll run out of oil in 20 years" mantra has
been spouted for the last 50 years or more.
US oil production peaked years ago. And the reason why oil prices spiked
a few years ago is that demand was approaching the supply limits.
Post by Roger Blake
Forty MPG? Big f***ing deal. I have a 1981 edition of Popular Science
that tests 10 40mpg cars that were available nearly 30 years ago. The
same issue features numerous articles on solar energy, energy saving
devices, etc.
I've seen this movie before and I'm not buying it this time.
Sadly, we don't have unlimited resources (energy or otherwise) on this
planet.

We have many reasons to conserve energy, including limited supplies,
global warming and a limited infrastructure.

Jeff
econo_cars
2010-10-29 15:04:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by dr_jeff
We have many reasons to conserve energy, including limited supplies,
global warming and a limited infrastructure.
Jeff
We could really help the global problem by figuring out a way to get logical
hearing devices wired into the muted minds that continue to ignore the signs
(signs so simple as increased hurricanes, tornados, snowstorms, ice storms),
and perhaps calling it global freezing instead of the greenhouse (actually a
positive term, which doesn't help) or global warming (certainly sounds great
those Northern living Canadians since they moved from igloos into shanties
[tongue in cheek of course).

Well stated Jeff, unfortunately only those of us who already know you're
right will listen. The rest need to continue to deny so they can justify
driving gas guzzling vehicles, and leave the tv and lights on all night. I
mean if there isn't a problem why shouldn't they just keep consuming? They
have the money, and their helping the economy by spending it so freely.

Econo-cars
sctvguy1
2010-09-30 16:55:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by john
Ford expects that its 2012 Ford Focus, which will be shown at the
Paris Motor Show, will get 40 miles per gallon on the highway, an 18%
improvement over the current model.
That would make the Focus compact car the most fuel-efficient car in
its class and provide Ford with a marketing tool that fits in with the
company’s multiyear push to become a fuel economy leader.
“A 40 m.p.g. Focus is going to really put the pressure on hybrids,”
Bell said.
Read more: 2012 Ford Focus can boast fuel efficiency in its debut |
freep.com | Detroit Free Press
http://www.freep.com/article/20100929/BUSINESS01/100929046/1210/Business01/2012-
Ford-Focus-can-boast-fuel-efficiency-in-its-debut#ixzz10y52Slmo
The first Dodge Aries was rated at 41mpg with manual shift.
Ron Peterson
2010-10-01 03:35:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by john
“A 40 m.p.g. Focus is going to really put the pressure on hybrids,”
Bell said.
Direct fuel injection is improving the mpg of a number of vehicles.
Hybrid technology can improve that.

--
Ron
jim beam
2010-10-01 03:48:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron Peterson
�A 40 m.p.g. Focus is going to really put the pressure on hybrids,�
Bell said.
Direct fuel injection is improving the mpg of a number of vehicles.
indeed. but diesel is a better solution.
Post by Ron Peterson
Hybrid technology can improve that.
--
Ron
c.v.t. and lighter weight vehicles can get there much cheaper than
hybrids. and without the toxic battery chemicals needing to be produced.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
Leftie
2010-10-01 05:01:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim beam
Post by Ron Peterson
�A 40 m.p.g. Focus is going to really put the pressure on hybrids,�
Bell said.
Direct fuel injection is improving the mpg of a number of vehicles.
indeed. but diesel is a better solution.
Post by Ron Peterson
Hybrid technology can improve that.
--
Ron
c.v.t. and lighter weight vehicles can get there much cheaper than
hybrids. and without the toxic battery chemicals needing to be produced.
NiMH batteries aren't especially toxic. They aren't really suitable
for EVs (although you could use them for tiny ones) but they work just
fine in the Prius hybrids.
dr_jeff
2010-10-01 10:11:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron Peterson
�A 40 m.p.g. Focus is going to really put the pressure on hybrids,�
Bell said.
Direct fuel injection is improving the mpg of a number of vehicles.
indeed. but diesel is a better solution.
Post by Ron Peterson
Hybrid technology can improve that.
--
Ron
c.v.t. and lighter weight vehicles can get there much cheaper than
hybrids. and without the toxic battery chemicals needing to be produced.
NiMH batteries aren't especially toxic. They aren't really suitable for
EVs (although you could use them for tiny ones) but they work just fine
in the Prius hybrids.
Except that there is a major environmental cost of getting the metals
out of the ground. I haven't seen a proper accounting of the
environmental cost, however.
dr_jeff
2010-10-01 10:09:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ron Peterson
�A 40 m.p.g. Focus is going to really put the pressure on hybrids,�
Bell said.
Direct fuel injection is improving the mpg of a number of vehicles.
indeed. but diesel is a better solution.
Post by Ron Peterson
Hybrid technology can improve that.
--
Ron
c.v.t. and lighter weight vehicles can get there much cheaper than
hybrids. and without the toxic battery chemicals needing to be produced.
Hybrid vehicles usually use CVTs.

Hydrids improve on the mileage of vehicals, at an environmental cost.

Of course, a much better way is to walk or ride your bike. That doesn't
work for long distances or nasty weather.

Jeff
Roger Blake
2010-10-01 11:33:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim beam
indeed. but diesel is a better solution.
I don't see any particular need for massive mpg improvements. I get
about 14-15 mpg on a good day and that's plenty good enough for me.
(But hey, if you want to drive some pregnant roller skate with
1/2 an engine that's your business, just don't force it on me.)
--
Roger Blake
(Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled due to spam.)
"0bama snoozed while oil oozed."
dr_jeff
2010-10-01 11:55:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Blake
Post by jim beam
indeed. but diesel is a better solution.
I don't see any particular need for massive mpg improvements. I get
about 14-15 mpg on a good day and that's plenty good enough for me.
(But hey, if you want to drive some pregnant roller skate with
1/2 an engine that's your business, just don't force it on me.)
Oil is mostly imported, so better mileage is good for the economy.

Oil is a limited natural resource, so the more wisely we use energy,
including oil, the longer it will last.

And then there is global warming.

Jeff
E. Meyer
2010-10-01 12:32:56 UTC
Permalink
On 10/1/10 6:55 AM, in article
Post by dr_jeff
Post by Roger Blake
Post by jim beam
indeed. but diesel is a better solution.
I don't see any particular need for massive mpg improvements. I get
about 14-15 mpg on a good day and that's plenty good enough for me.
(But hey, if you want to drive some pregnant roller skate with
1/2 an engine that's your business, just don't force it on me.)
Oil is mostly imported, so better mileage is good for the economy.
Oil is a limited natural resource, so the more wisely we use energy,
including oil, the longer it will last.
And then there is global warming.
Jeff
Gee, Jeff, I'm surprised you didn't find a way to get "gas guzzler" and
"green" into that somehow.
Roger Blake
2010-10-01 19:57:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by dr_jeff
Oil is mostly imported, so better mileage is good for the economy.
That is a political decision, we have massive energy resources in
this country which could be exploited instead.
Post by dr_jeff
Oil is a limited natural resource, so the more wisely we use energy,
including oil, the longer it will last.
You can make the same lame argument about steel and aluminum. For a good
laugh read the late 1960s book "The Limits to Growth" and see where eminent
scientists and enivronmentalists thought we would be today. Many are the
same hucksters pushing the anti-human "Green" agenda today, just older
and no wiser. (One of the advantages of being an old fart is that I already
went though this enviro-crap 40 years ago. I'm not buying it this time.)

Oil is a massive natural resource, we are practially swimming in the
stuff and will not run out any time soon. We're talking centuries here.
Post by dr_jeff
And then there is global warming.
Does anyone still believe in that scam? I am not willing to make a single
change in my lifestyle to accomodate the Warmist religion, not even changing
the type of light bulbs that I use let alone the type of vehicle that
I drive.
--
Roger Blake
(Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled due to spam.)
"0bama snoozed while oil oozed."
Al Falfa
2010-10-01 20:36:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Blake
That is a political decision, we have massive energy resources in
this country which could be exploited instead.
The last one with oil wins.
Post by Roger Blake
Oil is a massive natural resource, we are practially swimming in the
stuff and will not run out any time soon. We're talking centuries here.
It's not a matter of running out of oil in the near future, instead it's a
matter of demand exceeding production. This is known and "peak oil" and in
the United States we reached that point 40 years ago. Presently, our 300
million people consume about 25% of the total energy production. China and
India, with their rapidly improving standard of living, will eventually
achieve a standard of living closer to ours. As an "old fart" you must be
pretty good at arithmetic so do the math yourself. The economies of China
and India are not what they were when you last did the math some 40 years
ago.
Post by Roger Blake
Post by dr_jeff
And then there is global warming.
Does anyone still believe in that scam?
Yes, 97% of the worlds climate scientists do.

I am not willing to make a single
Post by Roger Blake
change in my lifestyle to accomodate the Warmist religion, not even changing
the type of light bulbs that I use let alone the type of vehicle that
I drive.
What I wrote earlier about doing the math... well maybe you don't do math.
Post by Roger Blake
--
Roger Blake
(Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled due to spam.)
"0bama snoozed while oil oozed."
Roger Blake
2010-10-02 02:23:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Al Falfa
The last one with oil wins.
Once again, you are talking of events that would take place centuries
from now. You cannot predict "who wins" or what it will take for them
to "win." It is quite likely by that time we will either be producing
oil by other means or will no longer need it.
Post by Al Falfa
It's not a matter of running out of oil in the near future, instead it's a
matter of demand exceeding production. This is known and "peak oil" and in
So you increase production. Problem solved.
Post by Al Falfa
Yes, 97% of the worlds climate scientists do.
I remember when they were warning us of the imminent ice age.

Religious faith by True Believers is such a wondrous thing. Of course the
notion of human-caused "global warming" has about as much in common with
physical reality as the teachings of the Church of Scientology.

Of course your religion is your own business. It is only when you try
to forcibly impose your values on others that there is a problem.
Post by Al Falfa
What I wrote earlier about doing the math... well maybe you don't do math.
Well maybe you are extremely young and stoopid. Don't worry, you may
outgrow it in time.
--
Roger Blake
(Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled due to spam.)
"0bama snoozed while oil oozed."
dr_jeff
2010-10-02 11:18:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Blake
Post by Al Falfa
The last one with oil wins.
Once again, you are talking of events that would take place centuries
from now. You cannot predict "who wins" or what it will take for them
to "win." It is quite likely by that time we will either be producing
oil by other means or will no longer need it.
Lack of oil was something that brought Naxi Germany's end a little
faster. For example, they ran out of fuel in the Battle of the Bulge.
The key isn't oil, but energy.
Post by Roger Blake
Post by Al Falfa
It's not a matter of running out of oil in the near future, instead it's a
matter of demand exceeding production. This is known and "peak oil" and in
So you increase production. Problem solved.
You make it sound so easy. There are only so many oil fields that can be
drilled, and all the easy ones have been drilled. If producing more oil
is so easy, how come the US went from a net oil exporter in the 70s and
80s to the world's biggest importer now?
Post by Roger Blake
Post by Al Falfa
Yes, 97% of the worlds climate scientists do.
I remember when they were warning us of the imminent ice age.
That was never a theory that had much evidence to support it. Climate
change has tons of evidence, including several different computer
models, basic science of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and plenty of
evidence that the earth *is* getting warmer. Even if there were not
global warming, the acidification of the oceans from the CO2 in the
atmosphere is a major problem for wildlife in the sea. Never before has
the pH of the sea decreased so rapidly from the carbonic acid that forms
when CO2 dissolves in the ocean.
Post by Roger Blake
Religious faith by True Believers is such a wondrous thing. Of course the
notion of human-caused "global warming" has about as much in common with
physical reality as the teachings of the Church of Scientology.
Wrong. It is not faith. It is evidence. You can read the evidence at
www.ipcc.ch. The beliefs that we can just continue to increase
production of oil or that we can change the concentration of the CO2 in
the atmosphere so fast without negative consequences is like religious
belief.
Post by Roger Blake
Of course your religion is your own business. It is only when you try
to forcibly impose your values on others that there is a problem.
Sorry, but I like life on earth the way it could be. Not the way it will
be if we continue to abuse the planet.
Post by Roger Blake
Post by Al Falfa
What I wrote earlier about doing the math... well maybe you don't do math.
Well maybe you are extremely young and stoopid. Don't worry, you may
outgrow it in time.
Obviously, you haven't.
Elmo P. Shagnasty
2010-10-02 14:55:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by dr_jeff
Climate
change has tons of evidence, including several different computer
models, basic science of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and plenty of
evidence that the earth *is* getting warmer.
Current climate change religion is based largely on measurements taken
within the last hundred years. The rest of it is speculation based on
glacier leave-behinds and the like.

The earth has been around a long, long time; the religionists refuse to
acknowledge in any way that they just don't have enough data. What IS
the "status quo"? Is it what we had in the 1950s, and now things are
different, therefore it's bad? Yeah, they say.

Really? 50 to 100 years of data, and you consider that enough to make
definitive declarations about how the earth's climate cycle works over
the course of millions of years?

In 1976, of course, Newsweek reported that scientists were telling us
about global cooling and that the next ice age was right around the
corner.

Religionists all.
dr_jeff
2010-10-02 15:25:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
Post by dr_jeff
Climate
change has tons of evidence, including several different computer
models, basic science of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and plenty of
evidence that the earth *is* getting warmer.
Current climate change religion is based largely on measurements taken
within the last hundred years. The rest of it is speculation based on
glacier leave-behinds and the like.
First, it is science, not religion. The difference is that the science
changes with the evidence. Religion doesn't.

While the evidence is mostly measurements within the last 100 years,
there is much evidence from before 100 years ago, in various types of
records, like tree rings, carbon isotope ratios and ice cores.
Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
The earth has been around a long, long time; the religionists refuse to
acknowledge in any way that they just don't have enough data. What IS
the "status quo"? Is it what we had in the 1950s, and now things are
different, therefore it's bad? Yeah, they say.
Really? The CO2 concentration went up greatly since then. So has the
acidity in the oceans. The human population has also gone up greatly. We
are destroying our forests, estuaries and other areas where wild life grows.
Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
Really? 50 to 100 years of data, and you consider that enough to make
definitive declarations about how the earth's climate cycle works over
the course of millions of years?
Even based on that those data, data relating to thousands of years
before that and basic science, such as the chemistry and physics of CO2
and other gases, I am not. However, we are taking a course of action,
whether it is to waste gas, not improve our environment or be much more
proactive, reduce energy use and improve our environment. Based on all
the available data, the best course of action is to limit greenhouse gas
emmissions and work to improve our environment.
Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
In 1976, of course, Newsweek reported that scientists were telling us
about global cooling and that the next ice age was right around the
corner.
And, that theory was revised based on new evidence. Just as climate
change theory is improved and revised based on new evidence. And the
best evidence tells us that if we don't change our ways, climate change
will get far worse.
Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
Religionists all.
That's best argument you can use? You're dismissing scientific evidence
without trying to understand it. Yet, you're calling others
"religionists." This is the action of a clueless person.

Jeff
Elmo P. Shagnasty
2010-10-02 21:37:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by dr_jeff
Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
In 1976, of course, Newsweek reported that scientists were telling us
about global cooling and that the next ice age was right around the
corner.
And, that theory was revised based on new evidence.
And how long did THAT take?

Let's see what the religionists say 30 years from now.
His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle
2010-10-02 21:42:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
Post by dr_jeff
Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
In 1976, of course, Newsweek reported that scientists were telling us
about global cooling and that the next ice age was right around the
corner.
And, that theory was revised based on new evidence.
And how long did THAT take?
Let's see what the religionists say 30 years from now.
I've found out it's all a plot created by the Jews, etc...
Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
On Sat, 2 Oct 2010 06:38:06 -0700 (PDT), "His Highness the
TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle"
Post by dr_jeff
Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
On 10/1/2010 8:51 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of
On 9/30/2010 12:30 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey& the Spirits of
While the Dutch are happily riding bikes, here people is talking BS
about whether or not you need separate facilities. It's simple: the
Dutch way or give the whole fucking lane to the cyclist. TAKE THE LANE
and end of story. No more, finito, ciao, hasta la vista!
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH...
-------------------------------------------------------------
THE WISE TIBETAN MONKEY SAYS
"No bull, just sacrifice the Sacred Cows"
http://webspawner.com/users/BIKEFORPEACE
Have you seen the kind of taxation the Dutch have? Just for fuel the tax
rate is $3.50 USD per U.S. gallon of petrol *plus* a 20% VAT on top of
that. I doubt all these people are cyclists by choice.
Exactly, that's exactly why we need to stop protecting the driver and
start punishing him for bad behavior. But don't worry, it won't happen
in America. ;)
Depends what you think constitutes "bad behavior." I hold more contempt
for the cyclist holding up traffic in morning rush hour than I do for
the guy driving 85+ MPH on a highway where the speed limit is 65 MPH.
We have an incredible problem with traffic congestion in Holland.
There is little evidence that our high taxation on petrol and diesel
has done anything to reduce car use: the people who cycle here are not
using that form of transport for financial reasons otherwise the high
taxation would have reduced car use.
In the case of short journeys (upto 12 km) the bike is probablythe
fastest form of rush hour transport - certainly in the Randstad
(Utrecht, Den Haag, Amsterdam and Rotterdam). Couple this with the
good facilities for cyclists and a non-antagonistic attitude from
drivers (they all cycle too) and one sees why bike use is strong.
We have a proposl to change the car tax issue. There would be no road
tax (VED) and the purchase tax on cars would be vastly reduced. In its
place would come a system of kilometre pricing: each car would be
fitted with a receiverand this would be tracked by sattelite. If you
chose to use your car during the rush hour on one of the busier
sections of road you pay more
Thank you. At least you got a choice. You have the freedom to pollute
or not, to be fat or not, to be moral or not, to be stupid or not.
Pity is that Holland will be the first one flooded when the cooking of
the planet gets to the boiling point. :(
Yes: I often train through the lowest point of the whole country: 7
metres below sea level. If the planet reaches boiling point the sea
will begin (or end) in Utrecht.
Perhaps global warming and its causes should be taken seriously.
Well see, they say Global Warming is a conspiracy put together by the
Liberals, the Communists, the Jews, the Union of Concerned Scientists,
the Third World, the Atheists and the Holy Seed to deviate America
from progress and SUVs.

We really need to find out who's behind Global Warming. ;)

Not that they care to do anything, but at least they know the truth...

"Protect God's creation: Vatican issues new green message for world's
Catholics"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/27/catholicism.religion


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
dr_jeff
2010-10-01 20:52:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Blake
Post by dr_jeff
Oil is mostly imported, so better mileage is good for the economy.
That is a political decision, we have massive energy resources in
this country which could be exploited instead.
How can they be exploited for transportation?
Post by Roger Blake
Post by dr_jeff
Oil is a limited natural resource, so the more wisely we use energy,
including oil, the longer it will last.
You can make the same lame argument about steel and aluminum. For a good
laugh read the late 1960s book "The Limits to Growth" and see where eminent
scientists and enivronmentalists thought we would be today. Many are the
same hucksters pushing the anti-human "Green" agenda today, just older
and no wiser. (One of the advantages of being an old fart is that I already
went though this enviro-crap 40 years ago. I'm not buying it this time.)
Oil is a massive natural resource, we are practially swimming in the
stuff and will not run out any time soon. We're talking centuries here.
1) It's still limited.

2) It's rate of use if going up, not down.

3) The only place where we were practically swimming in it was in the
gulf after the oil spill.
Post by Roger Blake
Post by dr_jeff
And then there is global warming.
Does anyone still believe in that scam? I am not willing to make a single
change in my lifestyle to accomodate the Warmist religion, not even changing
the type of light bulbs that I use let alone the type of vehicle that
I drive.
You're sad.

Jeff
chuckcar
2010-10-02 12:14:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Blake
Post by dr_jeff
Oil is mostly imported, so better mileage is good for the economy.
That is a political decision, we have massive energy resources in
this country which could be exploited instead.
Post by dr_jeff
Oil is a limited natural resource, so the more wisely we use energy,
including oil, the longer it will last.
You can make the same lame argument about steel and aluminum. For a
good laugh read the late 1960s book "The Limits to Growth" and see
where eminent scientists and enivronmentalists thought we would be
today. Many are the same hucksters pushing the anti-human "Green"
agenda today, just older and no wiser. (One of the advantages of being
an old fart is that I already went though this enviro-crap 40 years
ago. I'm not buying it this time.)
Really? back then there were lakes that were completely dead from acid
rain, birds virtually wiped out from DDT and various industrial poisons
and rivers it wasn't even safe to swim in. The situation has improved as
a direct result of those liars as you call them.
Post by Roger Blake
Oil is a massive natural resource, we are practially swimming in the
stuff and will not run out any time soon. We're talking centuries here.
How can you possibly know that? we haven't even been using it more than
a little over one. And on an exponential growth as well.
Post by Roger Blake
Post by dr_jeff
And then there is global warming.
Does anyone still believe in that scam? I am not willing to make a
single change in my lifestyle to accomodate the Warmist religion, not
even changing the type of light bulbs that I use let alone the type of
vehicle that I drive.
You won't have the choice when the don't sell the ones you want of the
above. You can't even buy normal incadescent bulbs here anymore.
--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
Scott Dorsey
2010-10-02 13:55:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Blake
You can make the same lame argument about steel and aluminum. For a
good laugh read the late 1960s book "The Limits to Growth" and see
where eminent scientists and enivronmentalists thought we would be
today. Many are the same hucksters pushing the anti-human "Green"
agenda today, just older and no wiser. (One of the advantages of being
an old fart is that I already went though this enviro-crap 40 years
ago. I'm not buying it this time.)
When I was a kid, there were no emission limits on the steel mills in
Pittsburgh. The streetlights came on at noon because the sky was so
dark.

The good part of it was that there were amazing sunsets, and my grandmother's
roses never got any fungus or rust because of the sheer amount of sulfur in
the air.

The bad part of it is that she, and all of her friends, died of emphysema.
The rain and air there had so much sulfuric acid in it that their tombstones \
are almost unreadable today.

Emission limits on cars? If you're an old fart, you probably remember
what LA was like back then. These days there are even more people in LA
and the air is a whole lot less toxic. It's not _good_, but people aren't
literally dying of fumes during traffic jams any more.

So, the "enviro-crap" you went through forty years ago has, in the end,
really improved your quality of life and mine. I don't see that as being
a bad thing.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
hls
2010-10-01 13:21:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger Blake
Post by jim beam
indeed. but diesel is a better solution.
I don't see any particular need for massive mpg improvements. I get
about 14-15 mpg on a good day and that's plenty good enough for me.
(But hey, if you want to drive some pregnant roller skate with
1/2 an engine that's your business, just don't force it on me.)
Would you feel the same way if the price of fuel rose to $8-10 per gallon?
Most of us would be a lot more driven to find a highly economical
vehicle if, or when, this happens.
Roger Blake
2010-10-01 19:59:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by hls
Would you feel the same way if the price of fuel rose to $8-10 per gallon?
Yes.
Post by hls
Most of us would be a lot more driven to find a highly economical
vehicle if, or when, this happens.
That is your choice of course. I'll still be driving what I like, regardless.
--
Roger Blake
(Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled due to spam.)
"0bama snoozed while oil oozed."
Neo
2010-10-02 14:03:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by john
Ford expects that its 2012 Ford Focus, which will be shown at the
Paris Motor Show, will get 40 miles per gallon on the highway, an 18%
improvement over the current model.
That would make the Focus compact car the most fuel-efficient car in
its class and provide Ford with a marketing tool that fits in with the
company’s multiyear push to become a fuel economy leader.
“A 40 m.p.g. Focus is going to really put the pressure on hybrids,”
Bell said.
Read more: 2012 Ford Focus can boast fuel efficiency in its debut |
freep.com | Detroit Free Presshttp://www.freep.com/article/20100929/BUSINESS01/100929046/1210/Busin...
The Focus 40 mpg highway is not even close to the
Prius 48 mpg highway. In addition, with respect to
Fuel Efficiency for a conventional mass production gasoline
type car the 2012 Focus MPG estimates are not even close
the top fuel efficiency ratings of past mass production
gasoline type cars. For example, the 1987 Honda CRX HF
had an EPA rating of 57 mpg (The 1991 Honda CRX HF
got 51 mpg). [1]

Personally, I have achieved 55 mpg on a rental 1997
Gen2 Prius on mainly superhighway driving and about
58 mpg on a 2010 Gen3 Prius using the same route,
in the similar weather condition. In mixed driving,
I am getting a combined average of 60 mpg. I am not
likely to replace the Prius atleast for the next six to twelve
years, but when I do I will be looking for a car that
gets about 120 mpg. After reading all the research
on FE, my guess is that 120 mpg vehicles will likely
have two wheels up front (used for steering and stablity)
and one drive wheel in the rear.





[1]
http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/17/autos/honda_civic_hf/index.htm
http://hi-mpg.org/gas-mileage.php?vehicle=honda_crx_hf88
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_CR-X
dr_jeff
2010-10-02 14:32:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neo
Post by john
Ford expects that its 2012 Ford Focus, which will be shown at the
Paris Motor Show, will get 40 miles per gallon on the highway, an 18%
improvement over the current model.
That would make the Focus compact car the most fuel-efficient car in
its class and provide Ford with a marketing tool that fits in with the
company’s multiyear push to become a fuel economy leader.
“A 40 m.p.g. Focus is going to really put the pressure on hybrids,”
Bell said.
Read more: 2012 Ford Focus can boast fuel efficiency in its debut |
freep.com | Detroit Free Presshttp://www.freep.com/article/20100929/BUSINESS01/100929046/1210/Busin...
The Focus 40 mpg highway is not even close to the
Prius 48 mpg highway. In addition, with respect to
Fuel Efficiency for a conventional mass production gasoline
type car the 2012 Focus MPG estimates are not even close
the top fuel efficiency ratings of past mass production
gasoline type cars. For example, the 1987 Honda CRX HF
had an EPA rating of 57 mpg (The 1991 Honda CRX HF
got 51 mpg). [1]
I would also like to point out that the standards recently changed to
reflect more real-road driving. Under the old standards, the rating
would likely have been higher.

Jeff
Post by Neo
Personally, I have achieved 55 mpg on a rental 1997
Gen2 Prius on mainly superhighway driving and about
58 mpg on a 2010 Gen3 Prius using the same route,
in the similar weather condition. In mixed driving,
I am getting a combined average of 60 mpg. I am not
likely to replace the Prius atleast for the next six to twelve
years, but when I do I will be looking for a car that
gets about 120 mpg. After reading all the research
on FE, my guess is that 120 mpg vehicles will likely
have two wheels up front (used for steering and stablity)
and one drive wheel in the rear.
[1]
http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/17/autos/honda_civic_hf/index.htm
http://hi-mpg.org/gas-mileage.php?vehicle=honda_crx_hf88
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_CR-X
Elmo P. Shagnasty
2010-10-02 14:50:31 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by Neo
Personally, I have achieved 55 mpg on a rental 1997
Gen2 Prius
1997?

I got 53 highway mpg on my 2007 Prius on the OEM tires, in the heat of
summer with the AC on.
Neo
2010-10-03 12:43:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
In article
Post by Neo
Personally, I have achieved 55 mpg on a rental 1997
Gen2 Prius
1997?
I got 53 highway mpg on my 2007 Prius on the OEM tires, in the heat of
summer with the AC on.
my bad. Good catch.

I meant 2006 not 1997.
I had rented a 2006 Gen 2 Prius from Enterprise and
later I purchased a 2010 Gen 3 Prius. The extended
highway route that I tested both cars on was over
550 miles in each direction from Washington DC to
Detroit/Grand Rapids, Michigan ( MD 270/Rt 70/PA
turnpike, OH turnpike) during May (with the AC off)
going between 55 to 70 mph using OEM tires. If
I had the AC on the MPG would have dropped by about
2 MPG.
Shadow
2010-10-04 05:58:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by john
Ford expects that its 2012 Ford Focus, which will be shown at the
Paris Motor Show, will get 40 miles per gallon on the highway, an 18%
improvement over the current model.
That would make the Focus compact car the most fuel-efficient car in
its class and provide Ford with a marketing tool that fits in with the
company’s multiyear push to become a fuel economy leader.
“A 40 m.p.g. Focus is going to really put the pressure on hybrids,”
Bell said.
Read more: 2012 Ford Focus can boast fuel efficiency in its debut |
freep.com | Detroit Free Press
http://www.freep.com/article/20100929/BUSINESS01/100929046/1210/Business01/2012-Ford-Focus-can-boast-fuel-efficiency-in-its-debut#ixzz10y52Slmo
Wonderful, but whats it get in the city? That's where hybrids shine.
Wayne
2010-10-04 14:46:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Shadow
Post by john
Ford expects that its 2012 Ford Focus, which will be shown at the
Paris Motor Show, will get 40 miles per gallon on the highway, an 18%
improvement over the current model.
That would make the Focus compact car the most fuel-efficient car in
its class and provide Ford with a marketing tool that fits in with the
company’s multiyear push to become a fuel economy leader.
“A 40 m.p.g. Focus is going to really put the pressure on hybrids,”
Bell said.
Read more: 2012 Ford Focus can boast fuel efficiency in its debut |
freep.com | Detroit Free Press
http://www.freep.com/article/20100929/BUSINESS01/100929046/1210/Business01/2012-Ford-Focus-can-boast-fuel-efficiency-in-its-debut#ixzz10y52Slmo
Wonderful, but whats it get in the city? That's where hybrids shine.
-
And what is the price....how much gasoline could you buy with the
difference....
SMS
2010-10-04 19:17:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by john
Ford expects that its 2012 Ford Focus, which will be shown at the
Paris Motor Show, will get 40 miles per gallon on the highway, an 18%
improvement over the current model.
That would make the Focus compact car the most fuel-efficient car in
its class and provide Ford with a marketing tool that fits in with the
company’s multiyear push to become a fuel economy leader.
“A 40 m.p.g. Focus is going to really put the pressure on hybrids,”
Bell said.
Read more: 2012 Ford Focus can boast fuel efficiency in its debut |
freep.com | Detroit Free Press
http://www.freep.com/article/20100929/BUSINESS01/100929046/1210/Business01/2012-Ford-Focus-can-boast-fuel-efficiency-in-its-debut#ixzz10y52Slmo
In real word tests the VW TDI gets better mileage than a hybrid, and in
Europe there's a 62 MPG model.
C. E. White
2010-10-04 19:48:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by SMS
Post by john
Ford expects that its 2012 Ford Focus, which will be shown at the
Paris Motor Show, will get 40 miles per gallon on the highway, an 18%
improvement over the current model.
That would make the Focus compact car the most fuel-efficient car in
its class and provide Ford with a marketing tool that fits in with the
company’s multiyear push to become a fuel economy leader.
“A 40 m.p.g. Focus is going to really put the pressure on hybrids,”
Bell said.
Read more: 2012 Ford Focus can boast fuel efficiency in its debut |
freep.com | Detroit Free Press
http://www.freep.com/article/20100929/BUSINESS01/100929046/1210/Business01/2012-Ford-Focus-can-boast-fuel-efficiency-in-its-debut#ixzz10y52Slmo
In real word tests the VW TDI gets better mileage than a hybrid, and in
Europe there's a 62 MPG model.
Is that US, or Imperial gallons? I suspect it is Imperial gallons since that
is what is used in must European advertising claims. Using US gallons, I
suspect the mileage would be something like 50 mpg.

Ed
Nate Nagel
2010-10-05 00:48:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by C. E. White
Post by SMS
Post by john
Ford expects that its 2012 Ford Focus, which will be shown at the
Paris Motor Show, will get 40 miles per gallon on the highway, an 18%
improvement over the current model.
That would make the Focus compact car the most fuel-efficient car in
its class and provide Ford with a marketing tool that fits in with the
company’s multiyear push to become a fuel economy leader.
“A 40 m.p.g. Focus is going to really put the pressure on hybrids,”
Bell said.
Read more: 2012 Ford Focus can boast fuel efficiency in its debut |
freep.com | Detroit Free Press
http://www.freep.com/article/20100929/BUSINESS01/100929046/1210/Business01/2012-Ford-Focus-can-boast-fuel-efficiency-in-its-debut#ixzz10y52Slmo
In real word tests the VW TDI gets better mileage than a hybrid, and in
Europe there's a 62 MPG model.
Is that US, or Imperial gallons? I suspect it is Imperial gallons since that
is what is used in must European advertising claims. Using US gallons, I
suspect the mileage would be something like 50 mpg.
Ed
That's still pretty damn good, and a TDI is way less complex than a hybrid.

nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Elmo P. Shagnasty
2010-10-04 20:15:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by SMS
In real word tests the VW TDI gets better mileage than a hybrid
hehehehe And in the real world, any Toyota lasts way longer for lots
less money than any VW.
econo_cars
2010-10-29 15:58:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
Post by SMS
In real word tests the VW TDI gets better mileage than a hybrid
hehehehe And in the real world, any Toyota lasts way longer for lots
less money than any VW.
In fairness, some VW models last a long time with proper maintenance, and
some Toyota models do not especially if the servicing isn't done on
schedule. Also VW suffered problems due to the poor quality of diesel sold
in America. The European models are treated to a much cleaner diesel fuel.
This may be a key factor in why top companies like Toyota and Honda have not
brought their European diesel models here.

Econo-cars.
Elmo P. Shagnasty
2010-10-30 11:46:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by econo_cars
In fairness, some VW models last a long time with proper maintenance
<snort> Now, define "proper".

"Proper" for a VW is way, way, way, WAY different than "proper" for a
Toyota.

If you like twiddling and fiddling with your car every weekend, just
like the Germans do, and if you consider that "regular and proper
maintenance," then yes.

But German cars require way, way, WAY more regular attention than any
sane person would consider to be "proper".
econo_cars
2010-10-31 14:07:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
Post by econo_cars
In fairness, some VW models last a long time with proper maintenance
<snort> Now, define "proper".
As recommended by manufactuer
Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
"Proper" for a VW is way, way, way, WAY different than "proper" for a
Toyota.
People who buy a VW know this before buying, other than the idiots with more
money than brand who buy without even thinking about likely after purchase
costs.
Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
If you like twiddling and fiddling with your car every weekend, just
like the Germans do, and if you consider that "regular and proper
maintenance," then yes.
Lots of people buy VWs, and I doubt that lots of people know how or care to
tweek and fiddle every weekend. Of the VW owners I know many are diehards
just like many Toyota owners. Personally I love our (family) Toyota
vehicles, but if something better, that offers more value for my family, is
on the market when we're in need of a new car, I'll buy that one, Toyota or
not.
Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
But German cars require way, way, WAY more regular attention than any
sane person would consider to be "proper".
I think the poor quality of diesel in North America may have more to do with
this than the workmanship does. However, last I read is that VW North
America has come a long way in tweaking to compensate for dirty diesels.
We'd have more manufacturers bring over their European diesel models if we'd
invest in producing cleaner diesel fuel. 70mpg is nothing special for diesel
vehicles in Europe..

Econo-cars
Nate Nagel
2010-10-31 14:39:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by econo_cars
Post by econo_cars
In fairness, some VW models last a long time with proper maintenance
<snort> Now, define "proper".
As recommended by manufactuer
"Proper" for a VW is way, way, way, WAY different than "proper" for a
Toyota.
People who buy a VW know this before buying, other than the idiots with more
money than brand who buy without even thinking about likely after purchase
costs.
If you like twiddling and fiddling with your car every weekend, just
like the Germans do, and if you consider that "regular and proper
maintenance," then yes.
Lots of people buy VWs, and I doubt that lots of people know how or care to
tweek and fiddle every weekend. Of the VW owners I know many are diehards
just like many Toyota owners. Personally I love our (family) Toyota
vehicles, but if something better, that offers more value for my family, is
on the market when we're in need of a new car, I'll buy that one, Toyota or
not.
But German cars require way, way, WAY more regular attention than any
sane person would consider to be "proper".
I think the poor quality of diesel in North America may have more to do with
this than the workmanship does. However, last I read is that VW North
America has come a long way in tweaking to compensate for dirty diesels.
We'd have more manufacturers bring over their European diesel models if we'd
invest in producing cleaner diesel fuel. 70mpg is nothing special for diesel
vehicles in Europe..
Econo-cars
German cars tend to have more rigorous regular maintenance schedules
than other cars, which also helps them last longer than other cars.
It's just a difference in philosophy, who's right, who knows.

If you had a Honda and followed a maintenance schedule for an older BMW
it would likely last just as long. but most people with Hondas don't
keep them much beyond 10 years or so.

nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
jim beam
2010-10-31 16:10:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nate Nagel
Post by econo_cars
Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
Post by econo_cars
In fairness, some VW models last a long time with proper maintenance
<snort> Now, define "proper".
As recommended by manufactuer
Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
"Proper" for a VW is way, way, way, WAY different than "proper" for a
Toyota.
People who buy a VW know this before buying, other than the idiots with more
money than brand who buy without even thinking about likely after purchase
costs.
Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
If you like twiddling and fiddling with your car every weekend, just
like the Germans do, and if you consider that "regular and proper
maintenance," then yes.
Lots of people buy VWs, and I doubt that lots of people know how or care to
tweek and fiddle every weekend. Of the VW owners I know many are diehards
just like many Toyota owners. Personally I love our (family) Toyota
vehicles, but if something better, that offers more value for my family, is
on the market when we're in need of a new car, I'll buy that one, Toyota or
not.
Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
But German cars require way, way, WAY more regular attention than any
sane person would consider to be "proper".
I think the poor quality of diesel in North America may have more to do with
this than the workmanship does. However, last I read is that VW North
America has come a long way in tweaking to compensate for dirty diesels.
We'd have more manufacturers bring over their European diesel models if we'd
invest in producing cleaner diesel fuel. 70mpg is nothing special for diesel
vehicles in Europe..
Econo-cars
German cars tend to have more rigorous regular maintenance schedules
than other cars, which also helps them last longer than other cars.
they last longer than domestics, but they don't last longer than
japanese. not by a long stretch. and the japanese do it with minimal
maintenance.
Post by Nate Nagel
It's
just a difference in philosophy, who's right, who knows.
If you had a Honda and followed a maintenance schedule for an older BMW
it would likely last just as long. but most people with Hondas don't
keep them much beyond 10 years or so.
nate
nate dude, you're /way/ off base there. go to a junkyard. uncrashed
honda/toyota inhabitants are typically 15-20 years old. and even then,
they're there because their owners were sick of them, not because they
stopped working.

for german cars on the road, there are a few pre-dating the early 80's
[owned by fanatics who have spent fortunes], a whole load inside 10
years, but a honking great gap in the middle. it's because the early
80's were when the germans started getting into life limitation -
designed-in fatigue, etc. seriously, look for german vehicles in the 10
to 25 year old range - there's hardly any. you'll see japanese in that
range as a matter of course.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
Nate Nagel
2010-10-31 16:25:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by jim beam
Post by Nate Nagel
Post by econo_cars
Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
Post by econo_cars
In fairness, some VW models last a long time with proper maintenance
<snort> Now, define "proper".
As recommended by manufactuer
Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
"Proper" for a VW is way, way, way, WAY different than "proper" for a
Toyota.
People who buy a VW know this before buying, other than the idiots with more
money than brand who buy without even thinking about likely after purchase
costs.
Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
If you like twiddling and fiddling with your car every weekend, just
like the Germans do, and if you consider that "regular and proper
maintenance," then yes.
Lots of people buy VWs, and I doubt that lots of people know how or care to
tweek and fiddle every weekend. Of the VW owners I know many are diehards
just like many Toyota owners. Personally I love our (family) Toyota
vehicles, but if something better, that offers more value for my family, is
on the market when we're in need of a new car, I'll buy that one, Toyota or
not.
Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
But German cars require way, way, WAY more regular attention than any
sane person would consider to be "proper".
I think the poor quality of diesel in North America may have more to do with
this than the workmanship does. However, last I read is that VW North
America has come a long way in tweaking to compensate for dirty diesels.
We'd have more manufacturers bring over their European diesel models if we'd
invest in producing cleaner diesel fuel. 70mpg is nothing special for diesel
vehicles in Europe..
Econo-cars
German cars tend to have more rigorous regular maintenance schedules
than other cars, which also helps them last longer than other cars.
they last longer than domestics, but they don't last longer than
japanese. not by a long stretch. and the japanese do it with minimal
maintenance.
Post by Nate Nagel
It's
just a difference in philosophy, who's right, who knows.
If you had a Honda and followed a maintenance schedule for an older BMW
it would likely last just as long. but most people with Hondas don't
keep them much beyond 10 years or so.
nate
nate dude, you're /way/ off base there. go to a junkyard. uncrashed
honda/toyota inhabitants are typically 15-20 years old. and even then,
they're there because their owners were sick of them, not because they
stopped working.
for german cars on the road, there are a few pre-dating the early 80's
[owned by fanatics who have spent fortunes], a whole load inside 10
years, but a honking great gap in the middle. it's because the early
80's were when the germans started getting into life limitation -
designed-in fatigue, etc. seriously, look for german vehicles in the 10
to 25 year old range - there's hardly any. you'll see japanese in that
range as a matter of course.
I don't see >10 year old cars of any kind on anything resembling a
regular basis - but it seems that those I do see are German. Or maybe I
just notice them more because most of them are interesting and are the
kind of cars that I (admitted German car enthusiast) wouldn't mind driving.

But really, at least around here, "most people don't keep cars older
than 10 years" would be a true statement, without any qualifier of type.

nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
jim beam
2010-10-31 16:46:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nate Nagel
Post by jim beam
Post by Nate Nagel
Post by econo_cars
Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
Post by econo_cars
In fairness, some VW models last a long time with proper maintenance
<snort> Now, define "proper".
As recommended by manufactuer
Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
"Proper" for a VW is way, way, way, WAY different than "proper" for a
Toyota.
People who buy a VW know this before buying, other than the idiots with more
money than brand who buy without even thinking about likely after purchase
costs.
Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
If you like twiddling and fiddling with your car every weekend, just
like the Germans do, and if you consider that "regular and proper
maintenance," then yes.
Lots of people buy VWs, and I doubt that lots of people know how or care to
tweek and fiddle every weekend. Of the VW owners I know many are diehards
just like many Toyota owners. Personally I love our (family) Toyota
vehicles, but if something better, that offers more value for my family, is
on the market when we're in need of a new car, I'll buy that one, Toyota or
not.
Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
But German cars require way, way, WAY more regular attention than any
sane person would consider to be "proper".
I think the poor quality of diesel in North America may have more to do with
this than the workmanship does. However, last I read is that VW North
America has come a long way in tweaking to compensate for dirty diesels.
We'd have more manufacturers bring over their European diesel models if we'd
invest in producing cleaner diesel fuel. 70mpg is nothing special for diesel
vehicles in Europe..
Econo-cars
German cars tend to have more rigorous regular maintenance schedules
than other cars, which also helps them last longer than other cars.
they last longer than domestics, but they don't last longer than
japanese. not by a long stretch. and the japanese do it with minimal
maintenance.
Post by Nate Nagel
It's
just a difference in philosophy, who's right, who knows.
If you had a Honda and followed a maintenance schedule for an older BMW
it would likely last just as long. but most people with Hondas don't
keep them much beyond 10 years or so.
nate
nate dude, you're /way/ off base there. go to a junkyard. uncrashed
honda/toyota inhabitants are typically 15-20 years old. and even then,
they're there because their owners were sick of them, not because they
stopped working.
for german cars on the road, there are a few pre-dating the early 80's
[owned by fanatics who have spent fortunes], a whole load inside 10
years, but a honking great gap in the middle. it's because the early
80's were when the germans started getting into life limitation -
designed-in fatigue, etc. seriously, look for german vehicles in the 10
to 25 year old range - there's hardly any. you'll see japanese in that
range as a matter of course.
I don't see >10 year old cars of any kind on anything resembling a
regular basis - but it seems that those I do see are German. Or maybe I
just notice them more because most of them are interesting and are the
kind of cars that I (admitted German car enthusiast) wouldn't mind driving.
But really, at least around here, "most people don't keep cars older
than 10 years" would be a true statement, without any qualifier of type.
nate
where do you live? here in northern california, the new cars are german
or japanese. and the old cars are japanese. no german, unless an /old/
enthusiast vehicle and the owner's dumped many kilodollars into it's
upkeep. and there's precious few of those.

you may also want to check this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States#Age_of_vehicles_in_operation

if the mean is 9.4 years, there /has/ to be a bell curve each side of
that number - it's not a cut-off.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
Nate Nagel
2010-10-31 17:14:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nate Nagel
Post by jim beam
Post by Nate Nagel
Post by econo_cars
Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
Post by econo_cars
In fairness, some VW models last a long time with proper maintenance
<snort> Now, define "proper".
As recommended by manufactuer
Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
"Proper" for a VW is way, way, way, WAY different than "proper" for a
Toyota.
People who buy a VW know this before buying, other than the idiots with more
money than brand who buy without even thinking about likely after purchase
costs.
Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
If you like twiddling and fiddling with your car every weekend, just
like the Germans do, and if you consider that "regular and proper
maintenance," then yes.
Lots of people buy VWs, and I doubt that lots of people know how or care to
tweek and fiddle every weekend. Of the VW owners I know many are diehards
just like many Toyota owners. Personally I love our (family) Toyota
vehicles, but if something better, that offers more value for my family, is
on the market when we're in need of a new car, I'll buy that one, Toyota or
not.
Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
But German cars require way, way, WAY more regular attention than any
sane person would consider to be "proper".
I think the poor quality of diesel in North America may have more to do with
this than the workmanship does. However, last I read is that VW North
America has come a long way in tweaking to compensate for dirty diesels.
We'd have more manufacturers bring over their European diesel models if we'd
invest in producing cleaner diesel fuel. 70mpg is nothing special for diesel
vehicles in Europe..
Econo-cars
German cars tend to have more rigorous regular maintenance schedules
than other cars, which also helps them last longer than other cars.
they last longer than domestics, but they don't last longer than
japanese. not by a long stretch. and the japanese do it with minimal
maintenance.
Post by Nate Nagel
It's
just a difference in philosophy, who's right, who knows.
If you had a Honda and followed a maintenance schedule for an older BMW
it would likely last just as long. but most people with Hondas don't
keep them much beyond 10 years or so.
nate
nate dude, you're /way/ off base there. go to a junkyard. uncrashed
honda/toyota inhabitants are typically 15-20 years old. and even then,
they're there because their owners were sick of them, not because they
stopped working.
for german cars on the road, there are a few pre-dating the early 80's
[owned by fanatics who have spent fortunes], a whole load inside 10
years, but a honking great gap in the middle. it's because the early
80's were when the germans started getting into life limitation -
designed-in fatigue, etc. seriously, look for german vehicles in the 10
to 25 year old range - there's hardly any. you'll see japanese in that
range as a matter of course.
I don't see >10 year old cars of any kind on anything resembling a
regular basis - but it seems that those I do see are German. Or maybe I
just notice them more because most of them are interesting and are the
kind of cars that I (admitted German car enthusiast) wouldn't mind driving.
But really, at least around here, "most people don't keep cars older
than 10 years" would be a true statement, without any qualifier of type.
nate
where do you live? here in northern california, the new cars are german
or japanese. and the old cars are japanese. no german, unless an /old/
enthusiast vehicle and the owner's dumped many kilodollars into it's
upkeep. and there's precious few of those.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States#Age_of_vehicles_in_operation
if the mean is 9.4 years, there /has/ to be a bell curve each side of
that number - it's not a cut-off.
I live just outside of DC... drivers are poorly skilled, and also very
status-conscious.

nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
jim beam
2010-10-31 17:33:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nate Nagel
Post by Nate Nagel
Post by jim beam
Post by Nate Nagel
Post by econo_cars
Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
Post by econo_cars
In fairness, some VW models last a long time with proper maintenance
<snort> Now, define "proper".
As recommended by manufactuer
Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
"Proper" for a VW is way, way, way, WAY different than "proper" for a
Toyota.
People who buy a VW know this before buying, other than the idiots with more
money than brand who buy without even thinking about likely after purchase
costs.
Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
If you like twiddling and fiddling with your car every weekend, just
like the Germans do, and if you consider that "regular and proper
maintenance," then yes.
Lots of people buy VWs, and I doubt that lots of people know how or care to
tweek and fiddle every weekend. Of the VW owners I know many are diehards
just like many Toyota owners. Personally I love our (family) Toyota
vehicles, but if something better, that offers more value for my family, is
on the market when we're in need of a new car, I'll buy that one, Toyota or
not.
Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
But German cars require way, way, WAY more regular attention than any
sane person would consider to be "proper".
I think the poor quality of diesel in North America may have more to do with
this than the workmanship does. However, last I read is that VW North
America has come a long way in tweaking to compensate for dirty diesels.
We'd have more manufacturers bring over their European diesel models if we'd
invest in producing cleaner diesel fuel. 70mpg is nothing special for diesel
vehicles in Europe..
Econo-cars
German cars tend to have more rigorous regular maintenance schedules
than other cars, which also helps them last longer than other cars.
they last longer than domestics, but they don't last longer than
japanese. not by a long stretch. and the japanese do it with minimal
maintenance.
Post by Nate Nagel
It's
just a difference in philosophy, who's right, who knows.
If you had a Honda and followed a maintenance schedule for an older BMW
it would likely last just as long. but most people with Hondas don't
keep them much beyond 10 years or so.
nate
nate dude, you're /way/ off base there. go to a junkyard. uncrashed
honda/toyota inhabitants are typically 15-20 years old. and even then,
they're there because their owners were sick of them, not because they
stopped working.
for german cars on the road, there are a few pre-dating the early 80's
[owned by fanatics who have spent fortunes], a whole load inside 10
years, but a honking great gap in the middle. it's because the early
80's were when the germans started getting into life limitation -
designed-in fatigue, etc. seriously, look for german vehicles in the 10
to 25 year old range - there's hardly any. you'll see japanese in that
range as a matter of course.
I don't see >10 year old cars of any kind on anything resembling a
regular basis - but it seems that those I do see are German. Or maybe I
just notice them more because most of them are interesting and are the
kind of cars that I (admitted German car enthusiast) wouldn't mind driving.
But really, at least around here, "most people don't keep cars older
than 10 years" would be a true statement, without any qualifier of type.
nate
where do you live? here in northern california, the new cars are german
or japanese. and the old cars are japanese. no german, unless an /old/
enthusiast vehicle and the owner's dumped many kilodollars into it's
upkeep. and there's precious few of those.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States#Age_of_vehicles_in_operation
if the mean is 9.4 years, there /has/ to be a bell curve each side of
that number - it's not a cut-off.
I live just outside of DC... drivers are poorly skilled,
so? do people only crash old cars, never new ones?
Post by Nate Nagel
and also very
status-conscious.
ok, if you want to fine-grain this, the average age of vehicles parked
at 950 mason st, san francisco is probably under 3 years. but that
isn't representative of anything other than that address being an
expensive hotel. if you look at the average age of vehicles parked at
330 sutter st, all that tells you is that people besides expensive hotel
occupants shop in union sq. and average vehicle age there is probably
over 10 years because it's a cheaper parking venue - the peeps that
don't want to slum it with the proles won't park there.
Post by Nate Nagel
nate
gotta look at averages dude. a small sample of what appears to be your
expensive neighborhood is not representative of a greater metropolitan
area and the large number of older vehicles being driven by the worker bees.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
econo_cars
2010-10-31 18:13:45 UTC
Permalink
"Nate Nagel"
German cars tend to have more rigorous regular maintenance schedules than
other cars, which also helps them last longer than other cars. It's just a
difference in philosophy, who's right, who knows.
If you had a Honda and followed a maintenance schedule for an older BMW it
would likely last just as long. but most people with Hondas don't keep
them much beyond 10 years or so.
nate
You may or may not have noticed that Toyota, not that long ago, changed the
mileage/time of recommended service schedule. It now requires less servicing
per year than traditionally. A part of this decision was to be more
competitive with Honda in the claims of low cost of maintenance. What it
says to me is when times were good Toyota had no problem convincing us that
we needed to spend money more often, but that the cars never really needed
that much maintenance. After all, for example, some of the engines are the
same used in models that claimed to need more servicing per year years ago,
but now all of a sudden that same engine requires less serving to maintain,
hmmm

I've never owned a German made car , but I've never heard bad things about
them either by those who have and do. Any problems I've read about had more
to do with problems caused by poor quality diesel in North America, which I
believe VW rectified fairly quickly by making tweaks so the engine wouldn't
gum up (may also explain why more servicing is recommended?). Many of the
earlier Golfs are still on the road, just like there are still Toyota
Tercell owners going strong. Other than old Ford trucks, the only old Ford I
see frequently is 96/97 Ford Taurus. Seems like you just can't kill those
Vulcan 3.0L V6 engines.

Econo-cars
dr_jeff
2010-10-31 18:50:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by econo_cars
"Nate Nagel"
German cars tend to have more rigorous regular maintenance schedules than
other cars, which also helps them last longer than other cars. It's just a
difference in philosophy, who's right, who knows.
If you had a Honda and followed a maintenance schedule for an older BMW it
would likely last just as long. but most people with Hondas don't keep
them much beyond 10 years or so.
nate
You may or may not have noticed that Toyota, not that long ago, changed the
mileage/time of recommended service schedule. It now requires less servicing
per year than traditionally. A part of this decision was to be more
competitive with Honda in the claims of low cost of maintenance. What it
says to me is when times were good Toyota had no problem convincing us that
we needed to spend money more often, but that the cars never really needed
that much maintenance. After all, for example, some of the engines are the
same used in models that claimed to need more servicing per year years ago,
but now all of a sudden that same engine requires less serving to maintain,
hmmm
I've never owned a German made car , but I've never heard bad things about
them either by those who have and do. Any problems I've read about had more
to do with problems caused by poor quality diesel in North America, which I
believe VW rectified fairly quickly by making tweaks so the engine wouldn't
gum up (may also explain why more servicing is recommended?). Many of the
earlier Golfs are still on the road, just like there are still Toyota
Tercell owners going strong. Other than old Ford trucks, the only old Ford I
see frequently is 96/97 Ford Taurus. Seems like you just can't kill those
Vulcan 3.0L V6 engines.
Econo-cars
I am not sure that it is just marketing. The service intervals of most
car makers went up. As the quality of oil went up over time (API - the
people who make the standards for motor oil has increased the standards
several times since the 80s), there is less wear and tear. In addition,
the quality of the metals in the engines improved with improved
metallurgy, and the machining of the parts improved, as well. Also, as
the emissions improved and the tolerances improved, less unburned
gasoline gets in the oil. In addition, oil analysis can tell the car
makers how long oil is really lasting and holding up at the different
intervals.

All of these things lead to oil that lasts longer.

And, as the car makers have experience with longer service intervals,
they see no evidence that more frequent oil changes help the engines
last longer, or at least longer than the car will last.

In the old days (cars made before around the 80s) had engines that
lasted roughly around 100,000 mi. In the years before the 60s, it was a
lot less. The rest of the cars were wearing out by then. As the all
around quality of both the engines and cars improved, car engines last
longer. My dad a lot of money in the 60s, 70s and 80s rebuilding cars
and selling car parts. He was a partner in a company that sold engine
parts and rebuilt engines. They also made a lot of money selling exhaust
system parts, shocks, spark plugs and other ignition parts. They also
sold carbs. They started selling less and less of these other parts
around the mid '80s, as cars went to longer lasting ignitions, and the
exhaust systems and shocks lasted longer. After around the mid 80s, the
number of engines that need rebuilding continued to decrease, despite
the fact that engines are lasting longer than ever.

In fairness, the business also changed as more auto parts chains,
particularly NAPA and Autozone, grew in popularity. However, the local
jobber warehouse owned several stores, most of which were closed, closed
one of its warehouses. Most independent auto stores closed, and a few
engine rebuilders closed. (My dad's business closed after he sold it to
a former employee - a family member of the other partner made poor
business decisions, then got sick and could no longer keep the business
running. He had bladder cancer, but if I were to choose a body part to
describe him, it would involve a body opening just behind and below the
bladder.) In addition, many local shops closed, as well. The entire
aftermarket auto repair industry closed, as a result of increased
complexity with new ignition and fuel systems and computers, longer
lasting engines and other parts, and more auto chains like Midas, Monro,
NAPA and Autozone.

Jeff
econo_cars
2010-10-31 23:52:29 UTC
Permalink
"dr_jeff" wrote >
I am not sure that it is just marketing. The service intervals of most car
makers went up. As the quality of oil went up over time (API - the people
who make the standards for motor oil has increased the standards several
times since the 80s), there is less wear and tear. In addition, the
quality of the metals in the engines improved with improved metallurgy,
and the machining of the parts improved, as well. Also, as the emissions
improved and the tolerances improved, less unburned gasoline gets in the
oil. In addition, oil analysis can tell the car makers how long oil is
really lasting and holding up at the different intervals.
All of these things lead to oil that lasts longer.
I agree completely that over many years cars have required less service for
maintenance because of everything you talk about. No question there. What I
was referring to is the change in scheduling between Toyotas with the exact
same engines now have a long recommended service period. My attention was
drawn to this when seeing that the 2009 Yaris' manual says every 5000kms,
while the 2010 Yaris manual says 8000kms. Oils recommended are exactly the
same, they are exactly the same car. When I contact Toyota they assured me
in writing that I would be able to use the 2010 schedule on the 2009 with no
ill effects to the car or the Toyota warranty coverage.

The Echo is the same engine and trannie as the Yaris, the redesign was
mainly things that don't affect maintenance, like body design and the adding
of some luxury items to make the Yaris less bare bones than the Echo was. If
I had an Echo I would ask Toyota if I could follow, without ill effect, the
schedule for the 2010 Yaris, I bet the answer would be yes.

Econo-cars.
dr_jeff
2010-11-01 00:08:49 UTC
Permalink
"dr_jeff" wrote>
I am not sure that it is just marketing. The service intervals of most car
makers went up. As the quality of oil went up over time (API - the people
who make the standards for motor oil has increased the standards several
times since the 80s), there is less wear and tear. In addition, the
quality of the metals in the engines improved with improved metallurgy,
and the machining of the parts improved, as well. Also, as the emissions
improved and the tolerances improved, less unburned gasoline gets in the
oil. In addition, oil analysis can tell the car makers how long oil is
really lasting and holding up at the different intervals.
All of these things lead to oil that lasts longer.
I agree completely that over many years cars have required less service for
maintenance because of everything you talk about. No question there. What I
was referring to is the change in scheduling between Toyotas with the exact
same engines now have a long recommended service period. My attention was
drawn to this when seeing that the 2009 Yaris' manual says every 5000kms,
while the 2010 Yaris manual says 8000kms. Oils recommended are exactly the
same, they are exactly the same car. When I contact Toyota they assured me
in writing that I would be able to use the 2010 schedule on the 2009 with no
ill effects to the car or the Toyota warranty coverage.
The Echo is the same engine and trannie as the Yaris, the redesign was
mainly things that don't affect maintenance, like body design and the adding
of some luxury items to make the Yaris less bare bones than the Echo was. If
I had an Echo I would ask Toyota if I could follow, without ill effect, the
schedule for the 2010 Yaris, I bet the answer would be yes.
Econo-cars.
The only difference might be that the engine in one of the cars tends to
run at higher RPMs or puts out more power. That might cause more wear
and tear on the engine. Chances are that the differences in the way the
engines are used are not significant.

Anyway, I suspect it is marketing catching up with the new technical
realities with the engines, oils, etc., as they have improved over the
years. As well as the wish of the dealers to have short oil change
intervals (read chance to sell more services).

Jeff
Elmo P. Shagnasty
2010-10-31 21:03:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by econo_cars
You may or may not have noticed that Toyota, not that long ago, changed the
mileage/time of recommended service schedule. It now requires less servicing
per year than traditionally. A part of this decision was to be more
competitive with Honda in the claims of low cost of maintenance. What it
says to me is when times were good Toyota had no problem convincing us that
we needed to spend money more often, but that the cars never really needed
that much maintenance.
You pull that conclusion out of thin air.
Post by econo_cars
After all, for example, some of the engines are the
same used in models that claimed to need more servicing per year years ago,
but now all of a sudden that same engine requires less serving to maintain,
hmmm
You're still pulling that conclusion out of thin air.

The maintenance recommendations are as much marketing driven as
engineering driven, if not more.

Here's my take on it: back when times were good, Toyota told you the
truth on maintenance. But now that people are not as apt to spend money
like they used to, they use the maintenance requirements as a comparison
against other cars. To be competitive, Toyota claims that their cars
now require no more maintenance than the equivalent Honda, for example.

It's a sales point. It's all marketing bullshit.

So what happens when the car is sold and it turns out that yeah, the
owner really should have done more preventative maintenance to avoid,
oh, sludge, etc? Well, we'll deal with that if/when it comes up. But
right now, we need to make SALES, to MOVE UNITS, so tell 'em anything.
Tell 'em it doesn't need any maintenance AT ALL. Whatever. Just move
the unit. We'll deal with any consequences IF they come up. Let's not
create a situation that doesn't exist.

I work day in and day out with salesmen who are out for the red meat.
This is how they work it. Requirements? Those have nothing to do with
my job, which is GET THE SIGNATURE ON THE BOTTOM LINE.

If you think Toyota or ANY manufacturer is worried about what *may*
happen down the road, you're naive.
Post by econo_cars
I've never owned a German made car , but I've never heard bad things about
them either by those who have and do.
So you knew one guy for six months.

Go ahead, ask any VW owner about his coil packs. That's just for one.
Ask about his wheel bearings. That's for two.

Just ask.

Now ask any Prius owner about problems.
econo_cars
2010-10-31 23:41:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
Post by econo_cars
You may or may not have noticed that Toyota, not that long ago, changed the
mileage/time of recommended service schedule. It now requires less servicing
per year than traditionally. A part of this decision was to be more
competitive with Honda in the claims of low cost of maintenance. What it
says to me is when times were good Toyota had no problem convincing us that
we needed to spend money more often, but that the cars never really needed
that much maintenance.
You pull that conclusion out of thin air.
I pull that out of the Toyota Service manuals, and was directly from Toyota
that my 2009 could follow the my 2010 Yaris service schedule without fear of
damage or in any way jeopardizing the manufacturer's warranty.
Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
Post by econo_cars
After all, for example, some of the engines are the
same used in models that claimed to need more servicing per year years ago,
but now all of a sudden that same engine requires less serving to maintain,
hmmm
You're still pulling that conclusion out of thin air.
2009 Toyota Yaris Service Manual, oil change every 5000kms.
2010 Toyota Yaris Service Manual, oil change every 8000kms

All other service intervals have changed by the same difference in kms.:

Both cars have identical engines, recommend identical oils and other fluids.

The Toyota Echo uses the EXACT same engine, recommends the exact same oils
and fluids, and used the same service recommendations as the 2009 Toyota
Yaris. I don't own an Echo, but I'm pretty certain if I did I would be told
to ignore the old service requirements and follow the new adjusted Toyota
schedules.
Post by Elmo P. Shagnasty
The maintenance recommendations are as much marketing driven as
engineering driven, if not more.
The 0il Toyota recommends didn't change at all from 2009 and 2010, nor did
the engines, but the service schedule changed by 3000kms. I'd agree that
cars from let's say the 80's would require much more maintenance than 2010
models would because of better engineering, different materials used for
engine blocks and other factors like better oils, but my reference clearly
said Toyota "not so long ago", which in this case means last year. Toyota is
just making their schedule more inline with Honda's and did require more
maintenance than was actually required right up until recently. I love my
Toyotas, but Toyota isn't innocent in the maximizing profits over fairness
to customers department, which is no different than the majority of vehicle
manufacturers out there.

Econo-cars
Neo
2010-11-01 02:31:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by econo_cars
"Nate Nagel"
German cars tend to have more rigorous regular maintenance schedules than
other cars, which also helps them last longer than other cars. It's just a
difference in philosophy, who's right, who knows.
If you had a Honda and followed a maintenance schedule for an older BMW it
would likely last just as long.  but most people with Hondas don't keep
them much beyond 10 years or so.
nate
You may or may not have noticed that Toyota, not that long ago, changed the
mileage/time of recommended service schedule. It now requires less servicing
per year than traditionally.
Toyota is switching over to 0w-20 synthetic oil which
has a service interval of 10,000 miles or 12 months
(previously the service interval was 5,000 miles or 6 months)
The official reason for the switch was to increase fuel
effiicency, improve reliability(life of the motor), and to
decrease emissions. It also lowers the maintenance
cost of the two year dealership maintenance programs
that Toyota has been giving away for the last year
or so (following the public relations problems here in
the USA).
Bruce Richmond
2010-11-01 03:06:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neo
Post by econo_cars
"Nate Nagel"
German cars tend to have more rigorous regular maintenance schedules than
other cars, which also helps them last longer than other cars. It's just a
difference in philosophy, who's right, who knows.
If you had a Honda and followed a maintenance schedule for an older BMW it
would likely last just as long.  but most people with Hondas don't keep
them much beyond 10 years or so.
nate
You may or may not have noticed that Toyota, not that long ago, changed the
mileage/time of recommended service schedule. It now requires less servicing
per year than traditionally.
Toyota is switching over to 0w-20 synthetic oil which
has a service interval of 10,000 miles or 12 months
(previously the service interval was 5,000 miles or 6 months)
The official reason for the switch was to increase fuel
effiicency, improve reliability(life of the motor), and to
decrease emissions.  It also lowers the maintenance
cost of the two year dealership maintenance programs
that Toyota has been giving away for the last year
or so (following the public relations problems here in
the USA).- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Any idea if 0w-20 would be ok for a 2001 Prius? I have been running
0w-30 but think 0w-20 might be better for the winter.

Neo
2010-10-05 01:26:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by SMS
Post by john
Ford expects that its 2012 Ford Focus, which will be shown at the
Paris Motor Show, will get 40 miles per gallon on the highway, an 18%
improvement over the current model.
That would make the Focus compact car the most fuel-efficient car in
its class and provide Ford with a marketing tool that fits in with the
company’s multiyear push to become a fuel economy leader.
“A 40 m.p.g. Focus is going to really put the pressure on hybrids,”
Bell said.
Read more: 2012 Ford Focus can boast fuel efficiency in its debut |
freep.com | Detroit Free Press
http://www.freep.com/article/20100929/BUSINESS01/100929046/1210/Busin...
In real word tests the VW TDI gets better mileage than a hybrid, and in
Europe there's a 62 MPG model.
The standard Polo 1.4 TDI rates 41 mpg city and 62 mpg highway fuel
economy
for the European driving cycle.

The BlueMotion Polo TDI is rated at 48 mpg city and 74 mpg highway
ratings
using the European MPG rating system. BTW The Bluemotion Polo is
slow,
it takes about 13 seconds to go from 0-62 mph (depending on the
year of the model you select)

The 2010 Toyota Prius is rated at listed at 72 mpg combined
using the European MPG rating system. It goes from 0-62 mph
in 10.8 seconds.

Keep in mind that the 2010 Bluemotion Polo TDI has only
a 3 cylinder engine and the 2010 Toyota Prius has a 4
cylinder engine AND two electric motors.


Theoretically, since a turbodiesel is a simplier
engineering approach than an electric-gas hybrid,
a turbodiesel could possibly be more reliable
and less expensive than a hybrid over the long
run BUT experience tell us this may not not be
true - because many other factors may negate
this theoretical advantage ...



http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/09q4/2010_volkswagen_polo_bluemotion_diesel-quick_spin
http://www.greencar.com/articles/vw-polo-bluemotion-tops-70-mpg.php
Loading Image...&zone=Zone%20NG%20Prius&navRoot=toyota_1024_root
Loading...