[quote]Tithonus81 wrote:
stokedporcupine wrote:
Blah blah blah.
Owned.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/17/autos/honda_civic_hf/index.htm [/quote]
Thats a stinger
[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
Tithonus81 wrote:
mazevedo wrote:
But really, I have remained smart enough to keep driving my old piece of shit 1990 Honda and laugh at all the suckers driving brand new rides. Although I won’t be getting any chicks because of my car, I will continue to have money in the bank!
I have a friend that used to drive an old 1985 Civic hatchback that got about 65 mpg. It was still running well with over 200,000 miles on the odometer when he sold it. They just don’t build them like that anymore. I don’t think the Prius will even do that. Once Honda upped the engine displacements and put all those steel side panels in they were left with half the original mpg from the old models.
you have no idea what your talking about.
First, i am really tired of hearing all these stories about people with mid 80’s civics and geo’s that got 60+ mpg. there is no way your friend got 65 mpg from ANY civic EVER. he either lied, exaggerated, or didn’t know how to check gas millage (i’m amazed at how many people honestly don’t know how to do this).
Second, it is nothing for ANY civic (and a lot of other cars too) to run well for over 200,000 miles. Hell, some companies are giving 200,000 mile warranties now-a-days.
Third, current honda civics (the base models) still get 35-40 mpg on the highway (i get 37-38 mpg out of my 2000 civic doing mostly city driving at the moment). that is hardly “half” of what they used too…
the point is that the cars built today, on average, are of MUCH higher quality and get MUCH better fuel economy then the cars built during the 80’s. to suggest otherwise is absurd. I’ve owned everything from a 93 geo metro that got 45 mpg highway to a 550 hp 99 firebird that got 12-15 city… i currently own a 2000 civic, and i wouldn’t trade it for a mid 80’s civic or another geo if you paid me. [/quote]
I bought my 1990 in 2003 with 180k miles and now it has 280k miles and all I’ve done to it is change the oil and add gas. My brother is a mechanic and he’s even surprised at how great of a car it’s been.
Mine gets ~30mpg which is fine. I drive it 1,000 mile per week currently. One thing I do know for sure is that even with the windows up and AC on, it still gets the same gas milage. I really think that you only waste a lot of gas with the AC on if you are driving in town or stuck in traffic.
[quote]ab_power wrote:
mazevedo wrote:
The funny thing for me is that I can afford, and have thought about buying a new GMC or Chevy truck simply because I like them and they have great financing options that become available.
But really, I have remained smart enough to keep driving my old piece of shit 1990 Honda and laugh at all the suckers driving brand new rides. Although I won’t be getting any chicks because of my car, I will continue to have money in the bank!
You could always just get one of those stickers “Don’t laugh, my other ride is your wife”[/quote]
LOL!
I’m still looking for the sticker that says “My other car is a piece of shit too”.
My parents bought a 1984 Olds '98 Regency brand new. V-8. 4 doors - real 4 doors where a grown man could sit in the back without being a yoga expert.
Drove like a tank, but never got less than 24mpg on the highway. Usually around 26-28.
A client of mine (gas station owner) and I were talking about this on Monday afternoon. What happened to the really good gas mileage we used to get back in the 80’s?
My lexus gets 30, but it’s about half the size the Olds was, and has an aluminum block. You’d figure it could do better than 30.
[quote]Tithonus81 wrote:
stokedporcupine wrote:
Blah blah blah.
Owned.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/17/autos/honda_civi
c_hf/index.htm[/quote]
oh please.
first of all, some of the “facts” they list are just wrong. they claim the highest mpg rating for a non-hybrid civic is 34. it is really 36. they could at least get their facts strait.
next, the cr-x they are talking about is a 58 hp 1.3 L car with no power steering or power breaks (as i mentioned, I owned a similar car, a 93 metro). they don’t make cars like this like anymore for two reasons: 1, they arn’t safe, and 2, very few people would buy them. (as your own article seems to suggest)
Furthermore, that car’s 1987 rating of “57 mpg”, as the article points out, is only 51 mpg by today’s standards. Also, in real world driving conditions with a mix of city and highway driving, that 51 mpg goes down to about 40-45 mpg. Which, is, just like like i said, a far cry from “65 mpg”.
I will say this one more time for the hard of hearing and the nostalgic, there were no cars from the 80’s that got 60+ mpg.
basicly, “owned”.
if you’d like to try again, please provide:
(1) proof that any civic or other car from the 1980’s ever got “65 mpg”
(2) stats showing that vehicles today on average are less fuel efficient then cars of 20 years ago (hint: you won’t find them)
[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
…
(1) proof that any civic or other car from the 1980’s ever got “65 mpg”
…[/quote]
This is possible if he is a “hypermiler”.
How’s this for a sign of the times?
Ford to delay new F-Series pickups, citing gas prices.
Who would have thought that the best-selling vehicle in the US for 23 years (5 in Canada)and the best-selling truck for 31 years (42 in Canada) could possibly end up like the mighty T-Rex. Ford F-150 Rex?
Fucking gas, there goes the Range Rover I wanted.
[quote]TKOWKD1 wrote:
How’s this for a sign of the times?
Ford to delay new F-Series pickups, citing gas prices.
Who would have thought that the best-selling vehicle in the US for 23 years (5 in Canada)and the best-selling truck for 31 years (42 in Canada) could possibly end up like the mighty T-Rex. Ford F-150 Rex?
[/quote]
I wonder how many soccer moms I will see driving one of these with no one else in it…while talking on the cell phone.
Here’s another sign of the times.
I don’t know about the US but here in Canada things are really getting f’stupid.
‘At the Canadian Automobile Association, some members have driven themselves dry to take advantage of the certain services, such as free towing and $5 worth of free gas for stranded motorists in some regions.’
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTG
AM.20080622.wgastehfts0622/BNStory/National/home
What really boggles my mind is those stupid people running on fumes to con $5 of gas from CAA. Not only is a stopped car in the middle of the road a serious safety hazard, it hold up traffic also. This really takes stupidity to a whole new level. It defies the concept of time=money. Since the avg. response time is likely 45 minutes, there’s a sudden rise in minimum wage earners.
This stupid practice shouldn’t go unpunished. Ticket those cheapos, nice $100 fine should do the trick.
What’s really sad about this article is the angry response of the readers about having to pre-pay for gas before filling up to deter gas theft. Not a major FAIL moment in Canadian history, but a FAIL moment none the less.
[quote]TKOWKD1 wrote:
How’s this for a sign of the times?
Ford to delay new F-Series pickups, citing gas prices.
Who would have thought that the best-selling vehicle in the US for 23 years (5 in Canada)and the best-selling truck for 31 years (42 in Canada) could possibly end up like the mighty T-Rex. Ford F-150 Rex?
[/quote]
An ugly vehicle like that should go extinct. Blatantly wasteful behavior can’t last forever.
[quote]TKOWKD1 wrote:
How’s this for a sign of the times?
Ford to delay new F-Series pickups, citing gas prices.
Who would have thought that the best-selling vehicle in the US for 23 years (5 in Canada)and the best-selling truck for 31 years (42 in Canada) could possibly end up like the mighty T-Rex. Ford F-150 Rex?
[/quote]
They need an alternative to those high displacement engines. Maybe turbocharged low displacement engines are the way to go.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
Or maybe he has a total, round trip distance to and from work of under 8 miles, like me, and the price of gas doesn’t affect him much.
When it comes time to replace my current truck, I know I will be getting another truck or SUV. And I’m just a single guy with no family.
Finally the one response that I wanted to hear. I for one am thrilled at the average consumer who is losing his mind trying to get the highest MPG and shunning the bigger trucks. I have been waiting to get a new Escalade. They cost 10-15K less now then they did a year ago. I am leasing the truck which gives me an out after three years. Basically my lease payment is $250/month less than what I was willing to pay a year ago. Based on my usage, I am ahead if gas stays bellow $5 and lose if it goes above. But the reality is only $1000 a year per dollar increase. Like I said, its a risk that works for me in “MY” situation. For sure everyone has other variables in their calculations.
For most people with a family to support, the incremental increase in total fuel cost will be minimal compared to real problem of soaring food costs. The gas required in the trucks to get food to the markets is was is going to catch people by surprise. Most people dont talk about that as much because the price of milk or eggs or meat is not displayed on a billboard every hundred yards on the street.
Again, the variables are different for each person/family
ROFL… Id rather ride a big wheel then a car that gets 11mpg
Guess what that is.
Hint: Gotta be affluent to afford $400K Rolls Royce Drophead Coupe.
Hint: Term Metro-Sexual is basically coined after him
Hint: Wonky legs still powerfull enough to score from 70 yards
Think you’ve got it tough, according to company website that POS only gets 12 MPG. He’s gotta spend like $100 per week on gas. Just wait 'till gas goes to $7/Gal, he’ll be bussing it like the rest of us…
http://www.reportonbusiness.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080626.wauto27/BNStory/Business/home
Why spend $400K when $40K will get you the above.
Better gas milage too, 25 vs 12 MPG.
Also more trunk space for the wifee.
Conclusion: Budget Ballers got thicker wallets.
Let’s see. If your Tahoe gets 20 mpg and you drive it 20,000 miles per year, that’s 1000 gallons of gas per year. Nobody was bitching about $3 gas, so if gas goes to $5, that’s a $2 difference. So you’re paying an extra $2 X 1000 gallons, or $2000 per year in gas.
If they “give them away” by taking $10,000 off the price, you are actually doing better off within the first 5 years. And you get a bigger, more comfortable car too.
How’s that for humor?
[quote]yorik wrote:
Let’s see. If your Tahoe gets 20 mpg and you drive it 20,000 miles per year, that’s 1000 gallons of gas per year. Nobody was bitching about $3 gas, so if gas goes to $5, that’s a $2 difference. So you’re paying an extra $2 X 1000 gallons, or $2000 per year in gas.
If they “give them away” by taking $10,000 off the price, you are actually doing better off within the first 5 years. And you get a bigger, more comfortable car too.
How’s that for humor?[/quote]
Exactly, and I don’t come anywhere near 20000 miles per year. I’ll be lucky if I hit 8000 per year.
This is just taking it to an extreme.
Hilariouse Top Gear Video: Smallest Car Ever Made
Going to a smaller car isn’t always an option, those diesels and two stoke engines aren’t all that environment friendly either. Notice the smoke from the exhaust. Today’s emission standards are at the level highest ever. In fact there’s this story of a guy trying to off him self through the exhaust from his Escalade. Wife found him asleep in the morning in the garage with the truck still running and a hose from the exhaust to the cabin. Dude had a head ache, from a hang over.
I am a huge fan of getting the best bang for my buck and if picking up a large car/truck at a huge discount is the answer so be it. I will factor in performance, safety, gas consumption, insurance rates, and depreciation.
Conclusion: F’gly cars get f’ugly women.