Sign In Join 



Are gas prices fueling your pain? - READ ONLY

10042 messages,  Last post on Jul 12, 2008 at 3:07 PM

You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires

What is this discussion about? Fuel Efficiency (MPG)


Messages Page 630 of 1005
1
...
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
...
1005
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#6283 of 10042
Re: Cost of Hybrid and gas [gagrice] by kdhspyder
Apr 28, 2008 (8:08 pm)

Replying to: gagrice (Apr 28, 2008 7:07 pm)

Actually since the R&D of the 2-Modes only cost GM about $500 million they only need about 200,000 units to completely amortize that expense. That would be about $2500 per unit. At unit #200,001 - and every one thereafter - that $2500 'charge' goes directly to the bottom line as profit.
 
GM's stated plan for the 2-Modes are
Tahoe / Yukon
Escalade
Silverado / Sierra
Vue
Aura / Malibu
 
It's best use though would be in the Lambda crossovers, the Enclave, Acadia, Outlook where it would jump the fuel economy from the low 20's to the high 20's or even 30 mpg. It's just like the HSD in the Highlander. It's just as capable and probably costs the same.
 
 For GM to reach 200,000 units of 2-Modes it should be a snap. As soon as that happens the system becomes $2500 cheaper ( Toyota method ) or that $2500 becomes pretax profit ( GM needs this ).
#6284 of 10042
Re: $7 a gallon will be here in 2011, prepare thyselves.. [lemko] by tedebear
Apr 28, 2008 (8:16 pm)

Replying to: lemko (Apr 28, 2008 4:30 am)

I'd also have to pack a Beretta, as one neighborhood I have to pass through gets a little hairy at times.
 
Those are excellent opportunities for random sprint intervals - makes a great workout. You can get the same effect by riding on country roads with lots of farm dogs.
 
Not to mention the fact that the increased speed will cut down on your ride commute, although the added weight of the Beretta might slow you down.
#6285 of 10042
Re: Record Oil Price [flash11] by gagrice
Apr 28, 2008 (8:21 pm)

Replying to: flash11 (Apr 28, 2008 7:27 pm)

The Tesla cars have a massive back order
 
The car is FLAWED and poorly engineered. Now they have disgruntled customers that were promised cars last year. They are being sued for millions owed suppliers. It may have been a good idea. Just not good timing.
 
Tables turned: Tesla Motors sued by transmission supplier Magna
Posted Apr 16th 2008 1:58PM by Dan Roth

 
Magna doesn't seem upset that it was just a stepping stone – that's business. What the company would like, however, is to get paid for the work it performed. Magna is also telling Tesla "told you so" by claiming to have suggested a single-speed unit back in 2006. To recover its $5.6 million, Magna has filed suit in San Mateo to force the issue, which coincidentally comes not long after Tesla filed suit against Fisker, which it initially hired to designs its next product, the WhiteStar sedan. What goes around comes around, we guess. The legal wranglings haven't yet made a dent in Tesla's operations, but Magna's lawsuit could bolster the case of frustrated buyers who have yet to receive their cars, should those customers decide to also take to the courts.
#6286 of 10042
Not sure if it was mentioned by vchiu
Apr 28, 2008 (9:42 pm)
Chakib Khélil, Algerian Ministry of Energy and current chair of the OPEC mentions a $200 Barrel a possibility if the USD continues to slip.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/matieres-premieres/2008/04/28/04012-20080428ARTFIG00395-p- etrole-proche-des-dollars-.php
(in French)
OTOH, he estimates the prices may drop down to $80 (from the current $120 a barrel) if the USD value increases by 10%.
 
A few months ago, I made a guess that the barrel would reach $200. This proved too conservative, and I therefore increase it to 250$ within 30 months.
 
I estimate that within the same time frame, the US Gallon price will increase by 2,5 to 3 USD, so I would not be surprised to see 6,5 USD as a standard street price. In Europe, prices should easily shoot past the 10USD/Gal barrier at current USD/EUR rates.
 
The peak oil price is still in front of us. Let us enjoy our Caddy Escalade as much as we can now.
#6287 of 10042
Re: the greed we fear [greasecar] by ivan_99
Apr 28, 2008 (10:05 pm)

Replying to: greasecar (Apr 28, 2008 7:03 pm)

what i will do when gas gets to $4 a gal. i'll just think how bad its gotten for everyone else, since the rest of the world is already paying like $5 a gal. then i'll think how selfish we have become. and i'll probably look for ways around it, that will be eco friendly, cause if they are eco friendly, they will be profitable, and renewable.
 
how does paying $4 per gallon make you selfish if other countries decide to over tax their fuel to $5.
 
Nobody is stopping you from taking that extra $1 and sending it to the government.
 
If you do this you'll personally have the effect of higher gas tax and reduce your consumption; thereby alleviating your selfishness.
 
This will in turn leave more fuel on the market for us V8 drivers
 
Thanks for taking one for the team
#6288 of 10042
Re: Ouch.. [nippononly] by avalon02wh
Apr 29, 2008 (3:00 am)

Replying to: nippononly (Apr 28, 2008 7:35 am)

"They have almost identical 0-60 times, and the Fit weighs only 400 pounds more than the '92 Civic. Despite that, the best they could do with the Fit was 32/37 mpg (under the old rating system), compared to 43/51 for the Civic 15 years ago (also under the old system). It's pathetic, and it's because they are not even trying any more."
 
I ran the numbers too, and this is what I get.
 
EPA lists the 92 Honda CRX manual at 36/46 or 39/49 under the new system.
 
The 08 Honda fit manual was 28/34 under the new system.
 
The curb weight for the HF was 1713 according to this site.
http://kumo.swcp.com/synth/crx/specs.html
 
Wiki says the weight of the new Fit is 2390.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Fit
 
2390 - 1713 = 677 pounds (this is a huge difference for such a small car)
 
677/1713 x 100 = 39.5% increase in weight (Fit over CRX)
 
28 x 1.395 = 39.06 (Fit estimated mpg if you reduce the weight to 1713 )
34 x 1.395 = 47.43
 
The new Fit does not appear to be that much different. (F=MA & 0.5xMxVsquared)
The Fit has tighter emission controls. I wonder what the mpg penalty is? I also wonder if the cd (air resistance) is different. The CRX tires were only 165/70 13s, that has got to be worth 20 mpg right there
#6289 of 10042
Re: Ouch.. [avalon02wh] by mickeyrom
Apr 29, 2008 (3:55 am)

Replying to: avalon02wh (Apr 29, 2008 3:00 am)

Ivan, unless you are wealthy, I have a feeling that your V8 will be history if the gas prices get up to the $7...either that or you're a glutton for punishmen..I know that my 97 Town and country with a V6 will become retired.
#6290 of 10042
Re: Ouch.. [mickeyrom] by ny540i6
Apr 29, 2008 (4:15 am)

Replying to: mickeyrom (Apr 29, 2008 3:55 am)

Hmmmn.... I see V8s in Europe, they just don't drive them a whole lot...lolol
#6291 of 10042
Re: Ouch.. [avalon02wh] by andre1969
Apr 29, 2008 (4:43 am)

Replying to: avalon02wh (Apr 29, 2008 3:00 am)

I didn't know they were still building the CRX in 1992. The Civic went through a redesign that year, coming off more plump and rounded, and no doubt heavier. I think the car they used in that comparison with the 2008 Fit was actually the hatchback version of the new Civic, rather than a CRX. I think it was about 2100 pounds.
 
One notable difference between that '92 Civic and the Fit is that their test Civic didn't have a/c, while it comes standard on a Fit. Now, I don't know how much that really matters these days, but a/c will put a drag on the engine, even when it's not turned on. Back in the day, they used to say that buying a car with a/c was like adding the weight of an adult male passenger, but they've shrunken all those components down over the years and lightened them, so it's probably not that much of a difference these days.
 
I wonder what the overall top gear ratios are for the '92 Civic and Fit? It could just be something as simple as the Civic having a really tall overdrive gear, so while they both have aggressive enough lower gears for similar acceleration, the Civic might pull lower revs at highway speeds?
#6292 of 10042
CRX vs. Fit by 1stpik
Apr 29, 2008 (4:44 am)
When people cite the "50 mpg CRX," they're referring to the CRX HF, which got 49/52 mpg. However, its engine only produced 67 horsepower -- not even comparable to the 2008 Fit's 109 horsepower.
 
The standard CRX produced 92 horsepower, and got 32/35 mpg.
 
The CRX Si produced 108 horsepower, and got 28/33 mpg.
 
So, when comparing apples to apples, the 08 Fit is equal to or better than the CRX.
 
You can see the specs for both cars here:
 
http://allhonda.tripod.com/crxspecs.htm
 
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2008/honda/fit/100924410/specs.html
.

Messages Page 630 of 1005
1
...
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
...
1005
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

New? Join Now!

Forum Tools

Please sign in.
Email Address:

Password:

Forgot Password?

Search Forums

Enter Keyword(s)

Advanced Search

Browse by Vehicle



View All Vehicles
Advertisement
Ask the Community
See What People Are Asking

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic


View All Topics

Today's Chats

Advertisement