A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travel Regions » USA & Canada
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

LA Times: U.S. Love Affair With The Car Ending



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 25th, 2007, 10:25 AM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada,ba.transportation,misc.transport.urban-transit
Beavis and Butt-Head
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default LA Times: U.S. Love Affair With The Car Ending


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines

  #2  
Old January 25th, 2007, 06:13 PM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada,ba.transportation,misc.transport.urban-transit
Frank F. Matthews
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,362
Default 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.

  #3  
Old January 25th, 2007, 07:37 PM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada,ba.transportation,misc.transport.urban-transit
Doug McDonald
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 86
Default 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


  #4  
Old January 25th, 2007, 08:02 PM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada,ba.transportation,misc.transport.urban-transit
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 899
Default 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.
  #5  
Old January 25th, 2007, 10:14 PM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada,ba.transportation,misc.transport.urban-transit
Calif Bill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 991
Default 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.


  #6  
Old January 26th, 2007, 01:04 AM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada,ba.transportation,misc.transport.urban-transit
Bob Gardner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default 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.



  #7  
Old January 26th, 2007, 04:56 AM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada,ba.transportation,misc.transport.urban-transit
gas is too cheap
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default 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.
  #8  
Old January 26th, 2007, 08:50 AM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada,ba.transportation,misc.transport.urban-transit
David Nebenzahl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default 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)
  #9  
Old January 26th, 2007, 05:21 PM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada,ba.transportation,misc.transport.urban-transit
Baxter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default 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


  #10  
Old January 26th, 2007, 07:10 PM posted to rec.travel.usa-canada,ba.transportation,misc.transport.urban-transit
James Robinson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 495
Default 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.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
American Love Affair With Cars Seen Waning Brian Griffin USA & Canada 33 September 3rd, 2006 07:52 PM
I'am single and want a true love for life, hope to meet someone serious about love [email protected] USA & Canada 1 June 9th, 2006 01:11 AM
I'am single and want a true love for life, hope to meet someone serious about love [email protected] Europe 0 June 8th, 2006 03:09 AM
I'am single and want a true love for life, hope to meet someone serious about love [email protected] Europe 0 June 8th, 2006 03:08 AM
Freedom Is ... A Family Affair! Ray Goldenberg Cruises 0 May 5th, 2005 06:09 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.