|
|
LA Times: U.S. Love Affair With The Car Ending
|
LA Times: U.S. Love Affair With The Car Ending
Beavis and Butt-Head wrote: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines Really smart folks commenting, If you slow from 75 to 60 you might save 10& on your gas. If you do that over 750 miles you will take 2.5 hours longer. For that distance you would probably use about 35. gal of gas and thus would save 3.5 gal. by their top estimate. Thus you would save $7 to $10 for 2 1/2 hours. A great rate of return. |
LA Times: U.S. Love Affair With The Car Ending
Frank F. Matthews wrote:
Really smart folks commenting, If you slow from 75 to 60 you might save 10& on your gas. If you do that over 750 miles you will take 2.5 hours longer. For that distance you would probably use about 35. gal of gas and thus would save 3.5 gal. by their top estimate. Thus you would save $7 to $10 for 2 1/2 hours. A great rate of return. Not a great rate of return. I'd rather go 90 than 60 or 75. Time is more important than money. Let's raise the speed limit on Interstates to, normally, 90. Doug McDonald |
LA Times: U.S. Love Affair With The Car Ending
Doug McDonald wrote:
Frank F. Matthews wrote: Really smart folks commenting, If you slow from 75 to 60 you might save 10& on your gas. If you do that over 750 miles you will take 2.5 hours longer. For that distance you would probably use about 35. gal of gas and thus would save 3.5 gal. by their top estimate. Thus you would save $7 to $10 for 2 1/2 hours. A great rate of return. Not a great rate of return. I'd rather go 90 than 60 or 75. Time is more important than money. Let's raise the speed limit on Interstates to, normally, 90. It's not just the time, it's the fatigue of drivers that are on the road longer because of the slower speeds. What the government should do is to set the price of fuel higher for the vehicles that have higher fuel consumption. In some ways they are doing this, with the tax credits for hybrids, but they should extend it to all vehicles with MPG ratings of 40 or higher, and make it a recurring tax credit, not a one time thing. |
LA Times: U.S. Love Affair With The Car Ending
"SMS" wrote in message ... Doug McDonald wrote: Frank F. Matthews wrote: Really smart folks commenting, If you slow from 75 to 60 you might save 10& on your gas. If you do that over 750 miles you will take 2.5 hours longer. For that distance you would probably use about 35. gal of gas and thus would save 3.5 gal. by their top estimate. Thus you would save $7 to $10 for 2 1/2 hours. A great rate of return. Not a great rate of return. I'd rather go 90 than 60 or 75. Time is more important than money. Let's raise the speed limit on Interstates to, normally, 90. It's not just the time, it's the fatigue of drivers that are on the road longer because of the slower speeds. What the government should do is to set the price of fuel higher for the vehicles that have higher fuel consumption. In some ways they are doing this, with the tax credits for hybrids, but they should extend it to all vehicles with MPG ratings of 40 or higher, and make it a recurring tax credit, not a one time thing. Screw the people who need a bigger vehicle for business, or a larger family or have to tow something. Buy a 40 mpg vehicle and you save on gas costs over a 20 mpg vehicle. That should be enough incentive. |
LA Times: U.S. Love Affair With The Car Ending
I was bemused by the mention of hybrids in the president's speech....when
you cut off the tax benefit after only 60,000 cars have been sold, you're not doing too much to help. Bob Gardner "SMS" wrote in message ... Doug McDonald wrote: Frank F. Matthews wrote: Really smart folks commenting, If you slow from 75 to 60 you might save 10& on your gas. If you do that over 750 miles you will take 2.5 hours longer. For that distance you would probably use about 35. gal of gas and thus would save 3.5 gal. by their top estimate. Thus you would save $7 to $10 for 2 1/2 hours. A great rate of return. Not a great rate of return. I'd rather go 90 than 60 or 75. Time is more important than money. Let's raise the speed limit on Interstates to, normally, 90. It's not just the time, it's the fatigue of drivers that are on the road longer because of the slower speeds. What the government should do is to set the price of fuel higher for the vehicles that have higher fuel consumption. In some ways they are doing this, with the tax credits for hybrids, but they should extend it to all vehicles with MPG ratings of 40 or higher, and make it a recurring tax credit, not a one time thing. |
LA Times: U.S. Love Affair With The Car Ending
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 21:14:54 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote: Screw the people who need a bigger vehicle for business, or a larger family or have to tow something. Buy a 40 mpg vehicle and you save on gas costs over a 20 mpg vehicle. That should be enough incentive. If you can't afford $3 or $4 a gallon gas, stay home. |
LA Times: U.S. Love Affair With The Car Ending
SMS spake thus:
Bob Gardner wrote: I was bemused by the mention of hybrids in the president's speech....when you cut off the tax benefit after only 60,000 cars have been sold, you're not doing too much to help. The tax benefit should be based on the actual mpg, not whether or not the vehicle has some batteries in the power train. A Toyota Corolla driven at 65 mpg gets better highway mpg than a Prius driven at the same speed, without all the environmental issues. Got a cite for that? Not disputing you, just intrigued (and too lazy to look for myself). -- Just as McDonald's is where you go when you're hungry but don't really care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when you're curious but don't really care about the quality of your knowledge. - Matthew White's WikiWatch (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm) |
LA Times: U.S. Love Affair With The Car Ending
-
------------------------------------------------------------------------- Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------- "SMS" wrote in message ... Bob Gardner wrote: I was bemused by the mention of hybrids in the president's speech....when you cut off the tax benefit after only 60,000 cars have been sold, you're not doing too much to help. The tax benefit should be based on the actual mpg, not whether or not the vehicle has some batteries in the power train. A Toyota Corolla driven at 65 mpg gets better highway mpg than a Prius driven at the same speed, without all the environmental issues. --------- The Corolla sells for a Blue Book reduced price of $17,083. The car, according to the EPA, gets 26 miles to a gallon in the city and 34 on the highway. With the Prius we find a new car Blue Book price of $21,900 for the base model. The EPA gas mileage estimate for the vehicle is 60 mpg in the city and 51 on the highway. http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news0...rids_math.html |
LA Times: U.S. Love Affair With The Car Ending
"Baxter" wrote:
"SMS" wrote: A Toyota Corolla driven at 65 mpg gets better highway mpg than a Prius driven at the same speed, without all the environmental issues. --------- The Corolla sells for a Blue Book reduced price of $17,083. The car, according to the EPA, gets 26 miles to a gallon in the city and 34 on the highway. With the Prius we find a new car Blue Book price of $21,900 for the base model. The EPA gas mileage estimate for the vehicle is 60 mpg in the city and 51 on the highway. The problem with the EPA highway estimate is that it is based on a speed profile that assumes the average speed is 48 mph, and doesn't go above 60 mph at any point. It is therefore completely useless when comparing vehicles at the speeds seen on interstates. Consumer reports found that the EPA highway estimates for hybrid vehicles grossly underestimated the fuel consumed when they were used on interstates. That is part of the reason the method of calculation is being redone by the EPA for the next model years. Some discussion of the issues: http://tinyurl.com/n77q6 http://tinyurl.com/2tsxwl http://www.edmunds.com/advice/specia...6/article.html http://autos.msn.com/advice/CRArt.as...tentid=4023460 As to the contention that the Corolla would have better mileage than the Prius, that is probably not true, but the actual mileage will likely be closer than the EPA estimates would imply. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:33 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
TravelBanter.com