- #6473 of 8694
-
Re: Interesting Discussion! [dgecho1]
by boaz47
-
Dec 07, 2007 (8:07 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: dgecho1 (Dec 07, 2007 5:48 am)
I think the whole subject is what is wrong with sub compacts. It would also seem as if that questions was aimed at the US consumer. The US consumer has shown preferences for larger vehicles than the Asians and Europeans so there must be a reason. we have more paved roads than they do. We average more miles than they do. We even tend to have larger houses than they do. Every country does what they feel is best for their country with little or no regard for other countries that is just how the world works. In African nations they drive even more diesels than they do in Europe. In fact most of the old Nissan and Toyota Diesel mini vans seem to have gone to Africa and Israel. On a hot day you can see and smell belching clouds of black smoke as each one drives passed using the lowest grade of diesel they can buy. Is there a condemnation for this practice? No because we aren't about judging how other cultures address these issues. Yet somehow we are expected to flog ourselves for the success of our nation and feel guilty for not having the same restrictions on transportation as some other have.
Sub Compacts have as much right on our roads as any other car, that has never been an issue or the question. We have just shown as a society a preference for something more comfortable or with more power and yes even something as large as a SUV. It does not make US consumers evil simply because we haven't embraced the plight of drivers in other countries. We had clean air standards when Europe was still burning peat as heating fuel up to about 15 years ago. No one assumed they were evil because they were spewing dirt into the air and didn't care about American air. we simply have a different lifestyle and SUV and quad cab trucks work for us better than they do for people in other countries. We have no reason to feel guilty for being successful as a nation and for taking advantage of that success.
|
- #6474 of 8694
-
Re: Those are a lot of straws to be grasping at. [lilengineerboy]
by Mr_Shiftright HOST
-
Dec 07, 2007 (8:10 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: lilengineerboy (Dec 07, 2007 6:04 am)
Once you get the Smart on the highway, it will, I predict, lose ANY advantage in MPG over a Yaris. The faster you run a small engine, the more fuel it consumes because you cannot gear it to overdrive.
The Prius has already suffered the same fate. It's got great city mileage but when people take it on the freeway, their overall MPG sits right around 41-44 mpg, and this was a far cry from EPA or Toyota brochures.
Once again, a SMART only makes sense to a city dweller/driver who values parking over everything else, and is willing to pay a premium for that one advantage (presuming his city allows perpendicular parking and offers other perks to SMARTS).
RE; LIARS -- I don't think the people reporting 40 MPG + on their Yaris on this site are liars. If they are, they must have all agreed to tell the same lie. 
|
- #6475 of 8694
-
Re: Those are a lot of straws to be grasping at. [snakeweasel]
by robertsmx
-
Dec 07, 2007 (8:10 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: snakeweasel (Dec 07, 2007 5:03 am)
People can misremember, calculate wrong, have wrong facts or just outright lie. When something lies way outside the norm, say like everyone reporting between 32 and 36 MPG and someone comes along and reports 42MPG you should look at the 42 with suspect.
Have you ever shared your numbers to EPA's website? Calling those who do liars is the last thing that comes to my mind. I don't know about you, but I find the new EPA rating ridiculous. There is no way I can get 26 mpg in my TL on highway, unless (perhaps) I drive at 90 mph all day long. I get 24-26 mpg (lately, 26 mpg has been difficult perhaps due to traffic congestion and winter fuel, still got 24.9 mpg on last tank). Same with 98 Accord. 27 mpg on highway? How about 32-33 mpg at 80 mph?
The worst tank ever in either car is around 23 mpg, and over 236K miles. Interestingly enough, even that is better than the suggested combined mileage by EPA. So, tell me why I should take EPA more seriously than my personal observation, and reporting by others who seem to get similar mileage as I do?
Interestingly enough, the one that seems to lie outside of the norm is the EPA rating. At their website, 2007 Fit/Auto has 26 observed fuel economy. Among those, reported with 40-60% city, all but one exceeded EPA's rating. You may choose to disbelieve them all and stick with EPA, I won't.
|
- #6476 of 8694
-
Re: Interesting Discussion! [dromedarius]
by oregonboy
-
Dec 07, 2007 (8:23 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: dromedarius (Dec 07, 2007 7:54 am)
dromedarius, you make an excellent point regarding fuel savings.
The simple fact is that petroleum is a finite resource and while it won't run out overnight, at some point production will peak, demand will exceed supply, prices will increase dramatically (we ain't seen nothin' yet), and some areas will experience shortages. This may not happen this week, this month, or this year, but there is a very good chance that it will happen within ten years. 
When it does happen, what do you want parked in your garage? What do you want parked in all of you neighbors garages across the city/state/country? Hummers? 
The time to prepare is now, not after the situation becomes critical. 
james
|
- #6477 of 8694
-
Re: Interesting Discussion! [dromedarius]
by boaz47
-
Dec 07, 2007 (8:23 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: dromedarius (Dec 07, 2007 7:54 am)
All I am saying is the virtue is in your mind not reality. We already have cleaner pollution standards than Europe. They allow more particulants than we do. As we get more drivers we use more fuel and I can easily get 8 MPG better fuel mileage with a SUV simply by changing to a diesel. We could keep our vehicles just the way they are and save even more fuel if we refused to go shopping in the malls. we could save fuel even more if we went back to neighborhood schools and sold all the school busses. Cars only represent about 50 percent of the fuel and energy we use in the US. How much energy would we save by having smaller houses. After 911 fuel prices dropped by close to 75 cents a gallon simply because we cut back on Air travel just in this country. There are many things we could do that would save just as much as giving up our SUVs and trucks. Doing one of those things is no more virtuous than doing the other. It all depends on what soap box you are standing close to.
My complaint with Sub Compacts is they do not provide enough additional benefits over a current compact when the Corolla gets better fuel mileage than a Fit and the price is the same. I don't assume the owner of the Fit is an Ugly American because they decided the benefits of that car were worth the extra fuel it burns over the Corolla. It simply all breaks down to personal preferences.
|
- #6478 of 8694
-
Re: Interesting Discussion! [boaz47]
by Mr_Shiftright HOST
-
Dec 07, 2007 (8:28 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: boaz47 (Dec 07, 2007 8:23 am)
The Fit is far more versatile than the Corolla. It's more useful, that's why people buy it. And that utility doesn't give up gas mileage, so that's another perk. A Fit is not an irrational choice by any means, but a Hummer is unless you are a commando or a big game hunter I guess, where you really really need to crawl up the sides of mountains.
|
- #6479 of 8694
-
Re: Interesting Discussion! [boaz47]
by dromedarius
-
Dec 07, 2007 (9:29 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: boaz47 (Dec 07, 2007 8:23 am)
I would like to see people live in smaller houses (judging by the current foreclosure situation, they probably do, too), use fluorescent bulbs, carpool, fly commercial, etc., etc. My conservation streak is not limited to JUST SUVs and trucks. My point is if everyone had the myopic view "I can do what I want" we'd be in even more trouble, but conversely, EVERY person who changes their lifestyle just LITTLE bit can make a difference, especially as those numbers grow.
|
- #6480 of 8694
-
Re: Those are a lot of straws to be grasping at. [robertsmx]
by john500
-
Dec 07, 2007 (10:13 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: robertsmx (Dec 07, 2007 8:10 am)
I agree with snakeweasel on this one. If you asked 100 people how to calculate the fuel economy in their car, I would guess you would get 10 different answers and I suspect that is where a lot of the variation comes in. The way I record fuel efficiency is to fill up at time 1 (and do not top the tank - let the vapor lock stop the fill). Ride around for some distance to about 1/2 the tank volume and then fill up at time 2 when the ambient temperature is the same. This will ensure that the tank doesn't expand significantly (since the gasoline T is generally constant since it is stored underground). Even this technique has the problem that as you consume gasoline, the weight of the vehicle gets lower. Therefore, if I rode around until the gauge was nearly empty, I should get somewhat higher fuel economy due to a weight of the vehicle. I would like to hear you ask 10 people you know how they compute fuel efficiency and see if you still believe the 42 mpg outlier (try to avoid people in occupations that deal with measurements and constraints i.e. avoid engineers, scientists, accountants).
|
- #6481 of 8694
-
Re: Those are a lot of straws to be grasping at. [john500]
by Mr_Shiftright HOST
-
Dec 07, 2007 (10:19 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: john500 (Dec 07, 2007 10:13 am)
Yeah but when 90% of the reported MPG are in one clump and only 10% are in the outlying data, why would you believe the 90% are calculating incorrectly?
|
- #6482 of 8694
-
Or would increasing the sheer numbers of reporting
by iluvmysephia1
-
Dec 07, 2007 (11:05 am)
-
|
|
people be required? For instance, take mpg numbers from 1,000 people instead of the current 100 people and then average out all of their results. Then compare to what youv'e got now.
|
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views 
