 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / February 2006Honda to sell sub $12,000 hybrid in 07 or 08
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/35270/story.htm JAPAN: February 23, 2006 TOKYO - Honda Motor Co. plans to sell a low-cost hybrid car, a version of its popular Fit subcompact, a Japanese daily reported, signalling the auto maker's long-term commitment to the fuel-sipping powertrain. Japan's third-biggest auto maker aims to sell the Fit hybrid as early as next year for around 1.4 million yen ($11,790), or about 200,000 yen more than the gasoline-only version, likely making it the world's first hybrid to cost less than 2 million yen ($16,840), the leading Japanese business daily said on Wednesday. The model could be launched in the business year starting April 2007 and would be sold globally, the paper said. A spokesman denied Honda had made any decision on whether to hybridise the Fit, but added it had the technological wherewithal to mount its hybrid system, which twins an electric motor and a conventional engine to save fuel, on most of its vehicles. Chief Executive Takeo Fukui has long said the price premium for a hybrid over a gasoline-only car needs to fall below 200,000 yen ($1,680) for the powertrain to go mainstream. With hybrid systems still costing auto makers - and customers - thousands of dollars, Fukui has said Honda had not made a strategic decision yet to produce the gasoline-electric vehicles in big volumes, unlike rival Toyota Motor Corp., which has aggressively promoted their proliferation. A decision to offer a hybrid version of the mass-volume Fit - Honda's best-selling model in Japan and due to debut in the United States soon - would suggest the auto maker is a step closer to committing to the powertrain longer-term. Honda also sells hybrid versions of its two best-selling cars, the Accord and Civic, at a premium of around 300,000 yen ($2,525). Its hybrid-only Insight coupe was the first gasoline-electric car to be sold in the United States. Honda is developing a smaller motor and battery to reduce the hybrid's cost and weight, the Nihon Keizai said. It will twin the hybrid unit with a one-litre engine for the Fit, the paper added. Toyota also aims to halve the production and selling cost of a hybrid system. It currently sells many of its hybrid models at a premium of around 500,000 yen ($4,200). Honda, Toyota and Ford Motor Co. are so far the world's sole mass-producers of hybrid passenger cars. Laggards like General Motors Corp. argue that hybrid systems are most suitable for large vehicles due to the added weight from the extra components. Compact cars are also generally fuel-efficient to begin with, and the extra cost of a hybrid car may be more difficult to justify, depending on how much can be saved at the pump. The newspaper said the Fit hybrid would have fuel economy comparable to that of the Honda Insight and Toyota Prius, which the auto makers advertise in Japan as getting around 35-36 km to a litre (82-84 miles per gallon). The most fuel-efficient gasoline-only Fit, with a 1.3-litre engine and continuous variable transmission, gets 24 km to a litre (56 miles per gallon). (US$1=118.78 yen) > http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/35270/story.htm > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > (US$1=118.78 yen) Hybrids are not the answer. They are more-expensive and more-efficient soon-to-be-obsolete technology. Their major flaw is that they still burn gasoline, and a lot of it. There is no way that you are going to see a hybrid do 82-84MPG. 50-60MPG tops is more realistic. Many years ago, Suzuki sold a subcompact vehicle in North America (Swift) which cost MUCH less than any hybrid (even adjusted for today's dollars) and realistically got mid-50s MPG on the highway. This ultra-efficient vehicle was also sold by Chevrolet, which dubbed it the "Geo Metro". The closest thing to a fuel efficient non-hybrid you are likely to find in 2006 in North America would be a Toyota Scion XA or a Honda Fit. But note that you won't find the 1.3 liter version of the Honda Fit. You will find a 1.5 liter version, though. I doubt very much that it will get 56MPG, but low to mid 40s is probably doable. Paying $2000 extra for a car with slightly better fuel economy and infinitely more numerous maintenance headaches does not seem like such a good idea. $2000 extra for a hydrogen car would be reasonable, but not for a gasoline burning car with electric motors, also. -Dave > Hybrids are not the answer. They are more-expensive and more-efficient > soon-to-be-obsolete technology. Their major flaw is that they still burn [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > $2000 extra for a hydrogen car would be reasonable, but not for a gasoline > burning car with electric motors, also. -Dave I don't like the whole technological solution to energy. The answer is simply smaller vehicles and lower speeds. Wouldn't cost a thing and would even save money. But that would require the dreaded "lifestyle change" that all red-blooded americans are opposed to. > I don't like the whole technological solution to energy. After oil peaks, it won't matter much what you or anybody else likes. -Dave >> I don't like the whole technological solution to energy. > >After oil peaks, it won't matter much what you or anybody else likes. -Dave Of course not. I'll have been dead for centuries, and everyone alive will be using "Mr. Antimatter" portable generators.  SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > Of course not. I'll have been dead for centuries, and everyone alive > will be using "Mr. Antimatter" portable generators. That's an overly optimistic viewpoint. I for one hope you are right, but know that you are wrong. -Dave >http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/35270/story.htm >JAPAN: February 23, 2006 > >TOKYO - Honda Motor Co. plans to sell a low-cost hybrid car, a version >of its popular Fit subcompact, a Japanese daily reported, signalling >the auto maker's long-term commitment to the fuel-sipping powertrain. Zero to fifty in 2.1 hours ? >>http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/35270/story.htm >>JAPAN: February 23, 2006 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Zero to fifty in 2.1 hours ? No, we won't get the fuel-efficient version in North America. If we did, the MSRP would be $17 - $18 grand (much higher than the sub $12 grand mentioned in the subject). Instead, Honda will sell the 1.5 liter version. It won't be a speed demon, but it will be a good short-distance commuter. Again, it will probably MSRP for about $17 grand. -Dave >>>http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/35270/story.htm >>>JAPAN: February 23, 2006 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >It won't be a speed demon, but it will be a good short-distance commuter. >Again, it will probably MSRP for about $17 grand. -Dave Moped performance at Saturn prices ... I guess *some* people will buy. There's always a self-superior segment who likes to rub everyone elses nose in their ecological consciousness. I'd suggest building cool-looking UNCONVENTIONAL vehicles - that just happen to get really good mileage. For example : http://www.triking-cyclecars.co.uk/images/Joeweigandcar_small.gif http://morgan3w.de/temp/homepage051027.jpg and ESPECIALLY the "Carver" : http://www.carver-europe.com/home.htm video : http://www.metacafe.com/watch/41431/3_wheel_carR/wfd_201 Such things can save you lots of gas AND be incredibly cool and peppy at the same time. >>>>http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/35270/story.htm >>>>JAPAN: February 23, 2006 [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > will buy. There's always a self-superior segment who likes to > rub everyone elses nose in their ecological consciousness. There's always the guy who thinks that everyone's in a race. Some people just need a car to get them and their stuff around, and not for the penis extension needs you seem to feel people shop for. > I'd suggest building cool-looking UNCONVENTIONAL vehicles - > that just happen to get really good mileage. You mean niche vehicles most people don't want to drive? > For example : > > http://www.triking-cyclecars.co.uk/images/Joeweigandcar_small.gif Looks too low to be safe, and can't have much storage space at all. > http://morgan3w.de/temp/homepage051027.jpg Might as well get a motorcycle. > and ESPECIALLY the "Carver" : > http://www.carver-europe.com/home.htm [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Such things can save you lots of gas AND be incredibly cool > and peppy at the same time. 40 mpg, the Carver web site claims. Just marginally more than my non-hybrid Honda. It looks like a fun toy, but nothing more. Dave > There's always the guy who thinks that everyone's in a race. Some > people just need a car to get them and their stuff around, and not for > the penis extension needs you seem to feel people shop for. The problem is a safety one. When I am stuck behind merge impared morons who think that mergining into 80mph traffic at 35mph or stopping at the end of an on ramp is a good idea I need horsepower to make a safe double-merge. The more horsepower the easier it becomes to deal with situations like this. I could get by with the torqueless wonder car, but it wasn't comfortable at all. It was quite scary at times when I had to rely on the competence of other drivers when some sloth had screwed things up making it impossible for me to be at the speed I needed to be at when I needed to be there. There just wasn't enough margin. If people in this nation (USA) drove properly there wouldn't be a safety need for horsepower as much as there is. But since they don't, horsepower and torque are damn good things to have. >> There's always the guy who thinks that everyone's in a race. Some >> people just need a car to get them and their stuff around, and not for [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >safety need for horsepower as much as there is. But since they don't, >horsepower and torque are damn good things to have. You can drive perfectly safely without tons of horsepower. 106 seems to be enough, attached to a light enough car. I rarely can find an interchange that won't allow me to get up to at least 65 mph before I'm merging with traffic. Hell, at 65 even I often have to slow down to meet the speed of the truck-filled right lane. If you like having a fast car, great, enjoy. I just don't see why some people bitch endlessly about someone else buying a car that's fuel efficient. My point was that to some people, a reasonably safe, cheap to maintain, reliable, cheap on gas car is something they're willing to sacrifice a bit of acceleration for. Dave >>> There's always the guy who thinks that everyone's in a race. Some >>> people just need a car to get them and their stuff around, and not for [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >You can drive perfectly safely without tons of horsepower. "Safe" ... is for chickens and cattle. We're PEOPLE and we demand something more exciting. >106 seems to be enough, attached to a light enough car. It's OK ... >I rarely can find an interchange that won't allow me to get up to at >least 65 mph before I'm merging with traffic. Hell, at 65 even I >often have to slow down to meet the speed of the truck-filled right >lane. Yea, but you'd better have a lot of RESERVE, just in case. >If you like having a fast car, great, enjoy. I just don't see why >some people bitch endlessly about someone else buying a car that's >fuel efficient. Because they SUCK, that's why. No joy for the spirit. However, as noted, we CAN have our proverbial cake and eat it too. >My point was that to some people, a reasonably safe, cheap to >maintain, reliable, cheap on gas car is something they're willing to >sacrifice a bit of acceleration for. A bit ... but they STILL aren't so castrated that they'll buy lots of GoreMobiles. >>>> There's always the guy who thinks that everyone's in a race. Some >>>> people just need a car to get them and their stuff around, and not for [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > "Safe" ... is for chickens and cattle. We're PEOPLE and we > demand something more exciting. You speak for the whole human race? Who's this "we" you're talking about? The soccer moms buying SUVs because they're safe? >>106 seems to be enough, attached to a light enough car. > > It's OK ... It works fine for many people. >>I rarely can find an interchange that won't allow me to get up to at >>least 65 mph before I'm merging with traffic. Hell, at 65 even I >>often have to slow down to meet the speed of the truck-filled right >>lane. > > Yea, but you'd better have a lot of RESERVE, just in case. Ummm, why? Do you get chased by the police often? >>If you like having a fast car, great, enjoy. I just don't see why >>some people bitch endlessly about someone else buying a car that's >>fuel efficient. > > Because they SUCK, that's why. No joy for the spirit. Again, you understand this is just an opinion, and not something that applies to most people. > However, as noted, we CAN have our proverbial cake and > eat it too. Again, who is this "we" you're talking about? Also you provided three examples of cars I'd never want to own for 5 minutes. Of the three only one looked like it might even make a fun toy, but not something I'd ever buy. A quad would be much more useful. >>My point was that to some people, a reasonably safe, cheap to >>maintain, reliable, cheap on gas car is something they're willing to >>sacrifice a bit of acceleration for. > > A bit ... but they STILL aren't so castrated that they'll > buy lots of GoreMobiles. Ah, that explains it. You're too stupid to understand anything other than Bush Good, Gore Evil. Hasn't that gotten boring after 6 years? Dave >>>>> There's always the guy who thinks that everyone's in a race. Some >>>>> people just need a car to get them and their stuff around, and not for [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >You speak for the whole human race? Yes. Wake up and smell the coffee. It's good ... >Who's this "we" you're talking >about? The soccer moms buying SUVs because they're safe? Because they're SAFE ? Ha ! SUVs are POWER ... the 'safe' aspect is just the excuse ... >>>106 seems to be enough, attached to a light enough car. >> >> It's OK ... > >It works fine for many people. And not for many others. >>>I rarely can find an interchange that won't allow me to get up to at >>>least 65 mph before I'm merging with traffic. Hell, at 65 even I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Ummm, why? Do you get chased by the police often? 18-wheelers ... >>>If you like having a fast car, great, enjoy. I just don't see why >>>some people bitch endlessly about someone else buying a car that's [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Again, you understand this is just an opinion, and not something that >applies to most people. Check around ... >> However, as noted, we CAN have our proverbial cake and >> eat it too. > >Again, who is this "we" you're talking about? Also you provided three >examples of cars I'd never want to own for 5 minutes. Have your testosterone levels checked. Might be a problem there .... If, on the off chance you're actually a woman, well, anger and its derivitive states have the same effect on women as testosterone does on men. Focus, and need for power ... >Of the three >only one looked like it might even make a fun toy, but not something >I'd ever buy. A quad would be much more useful. The "Carver" doesn't look fun AND practical ? OK ... what planet DID you come from ? Fess up ........ >>>My point was that to some people, a reasonably safe, cheap to >>>maintain, reliable, cheap on gas car is something they're willing to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Ah, that explains it. You're too stupid to understand anything other >than Bush Good, Gore Evil. Hasn't that gotten boring after 6 years? Gore isn't EVIL ... just sick in the soul. Sad to see a man so castrated ... >>> There's always the guy who thinks that everyone's in a race. Some >>> people just need a car to get them and their stuff around, and not for [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >>safety need for horsepower as much as there is. But since they don't, >>horsepower and torque are damn good things to have. > You can drive perfectly safely without tons of horsepower. 106 seems > to be enough, attached to a light enough car. Yes you can, provided you don't have to share the road with MORONS. > I rarely can find an interchange that won't allow me to get up to at > least 65 mph before I'm merging with traffic. Hell, at 65 even I > often have to slow down to meet the speed of the truck-filled right > lane. What did you not understand about having a moron sloth in front of me? When I have someone on the ramp in front of me going 35mph, how the f.ck am I supposed to get up to a merging speed of 65-80mph? That was my point. The TW car probably had like 100hp or so. My maverick is rated at like 90 or so... (but the mav has torque) > If you like having a fast car, great, enjoy. I just don't see why > some people bitch endlessly about someone else buying a car that's > fuel efficient. You obviously haven't grasped my point one bit. When you are at the bottom of the on ramp at 35mph or less because of some dipshit who didn't know how to merge, you're going to need power. Having driven cars without I can tell you for a fact that it is much easier and much saver to deal with that situation in a car that has. > My point was that to some people, a reasonably safe, cheap to > maintain, reliable, cheap on gas car is something they're willing to > sacrifice a bit of acceleration for. No, you were quite clearly saying horsepower is a 'penis extension'. Again, if I didn't have to drive around morons, my maverick would be perfectly fine to drive with it's 90hp and 4 wheel manual drum brakes every day. But since I have to share the road with morons, driving it can be a scary experience. Not because of the car's condition but it being 40 years behind the technology curve. >>>> There's always the guy who thinks that everyone's in a race. Some >>>> people just need a car to get them and their stuff around, and not for [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >Yes you can, provided you don't have to share the road with MORONS. I share it with morons daily, everyone does. What makes your morons so much more special? >> I rarely can find an interchange that won't allow me to get up to at >> least 65 mph before I'm merging with traffic. Hell, at 65 even I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >point. The TW car probably had like 100hp or so. My maverick is rated at >like 90 or so... (but the mav has torque) Like I do, accelerate, or merge at the speed the sloth is forcing traffic in the right lane to get up to. This is a pretty petty point. >> If you like having a fast car, great, enjoy. I just don't see why >> some people bitch endlessly about someone else buying a car that's [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I can tell you for a fact that it is much easier and much saver to deal >with that situation in a car that has. If I have a 2 lane onramp, I never have problems getting past a sloth. The problems come up when there's only one ramp lane, and in that case there's not a damn thing I can do about it other than wait for them to get up to speed, or get up to speed in the main lines. I grasped your point just fine. I just don't care to spend $5000 more for a larger engine so I can burn more gas most of the time for the occasional situation where it'd be nice to accelerate a few fractions of a second faster. Please answer my orignial point: What's the problem with me wanting a small, efficient car? >> My point was that to some people, a reasonably safe, cheap to >> maintain, reliable, cheap on gas car is something they're willing to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >be a scary experience. Not because of the car's condition but it being 40 >years behind the technology curve. Umm, try some reading comprehension. I implied that more horsepower is bought by some as a penis extension. I never said everyone who has a high HP car bought it for no good reason though. You assumed that. Again, what's the problem with someone else buying a lower powered car? Or were you just insulted by my comment about some high powered car owners, and decided to include yourself in that statement?? Why the f.ck do you feel a need to justify your purchase to me anyway, when I don't care what anyone else chooses to drive? Dave >>Yes you can, provided you don't have to share the road with MORONS. > > I share it with morons daily, everyone does. What makes your morons > so much more special? Perhaps you've never had one stop at the end of an on ramp and needed nearly instanous zero to eighty acceleration. >>> I rarely can find an interchange that won't allow me to get up to at >>> least 65 mph before I'm merging with traffic. Hell, at 65 even I >>> often have to slow down to meet the speed of the truck-filled right >>> lane. >>What did you not understand about having a moron sloth in front of me? >>When I have someone on the ramp in front of me going 35mph, how the f.ck >>am I supposed to get up to a merging speed of 65-80mph? That was my >>point. The TW car probably had like 100hp or so. My maverick is rated at >>like 90 or so... (but the mav has torque) > Like I do, accelerate, or merge at the speed the sloth is forcing > traffic in the right lane to get up to. This is a pretty petty point. That's called being the sloth's crumple zone. By placing yourself there and staying there you have just reduced the braking space for vehicles on the road, you have become dependent upon their competence and their vehicle's capabilities. This is not reasonable IMO. I want the power to pull off a double merge into the middle lane to shoot past the sloth and not become a statistic. >>> If you like having a fast car, great, enjoy. I just don't see why >>> some people bitch endlessly about someone else buying a car that's >>> fuel efficient. >>You obviously haven't grasped my point one bit. When you are at the >>bottom of the on ramp at 35mph or less because of some dipshit who didn't >>know how to merge, you're going to need power. Having driven cars without >>I can tell you for a fact that it is much easier and much saver to deal >>with that situation in a car that has. > If I have a 2 lane onramp, I never have problems getting past a sloth. I can count the number of two lane on ramps I use on one finger. Hell, I cannot even think of more than one two lane on ramp right now. And it's only two lanes because there used to be a toll booth there. > The problems come up when there's only one ramp lane, and in that case > there's not a damn thing I can do about it other than wait for them to > get up to speed, or get up to speed in the main lines. When you have power, you have something you can do about it. > I grasped your point just fine. I just don't care to spend $5000 more > for a larger engine so I can burn more gas most of the time for the > occasional situation where it'd be nice to accelerate a few fractions > of a second faster. Please answer my orignial point: What's the > problem with me wanting a small, efficient car? I don't have a problem with _YOUR CHOICE FOR YOU_. Do you have a problem reading? I replied when you made that penis extension remark. You are acting as if horsepower has no function in real world driving. Your cost to benefit calculation has no bearing on your previous comments. You live where? San deigo? Lots of lanes, long double ramps, etc. I live in c(r)ook county IL. Ramps are SHORT. Ramps are ONE lane. Traffic is tight and moving fast. In a low horsepower car I have to be accelerating from well before the merge point. The sloths can effectively make that impossible. Being able to accelerate to expressway speed in a very short distance is important. >>> My point was that to some people, a reasonably safe, cheap to >>> maintain, reliable, cheap on gas car is something they're willing to >>> sacrifice a bit of acceleration for. >>No, you were quite clearly saying horsepower is a 'penis extension'. >>Again, if I didn't have to drive around morons, my maverick would be >>perfectly fine to drive with it's 90hp and 4 wheel manual drum brakes >>every day. But since I have to share the road with morons, driving it can >>be a scary experience. Not because of the car's condition but it being 40 >>years behind the technology curve. > Umm, try some reading comprehension. I implied that more horsepower > is bought by some as a penis extension. I never said everyone who has > a high HP car bought it for no good reason though. You assumed that. Your some qualifier was on the people buying low hp cars. I simply decided to inform you the benefits of horsepower safety wise. > Again, what's the problem with someone else buying a lower powered > car? Again, learn to read. I never had or stated that there was any kind of problem with that. After all, I've owned two such cars and still own one. Although if that new clyinder head makes it to market that car may not have that problem any longer. > Or were you just insulted by my comment about some high powered > car owners, and decided to include yourself in that statement?? Why > the f.ck do you feel a need to justify your purchase to me anyway, > when I don't care what anyone else chooses to drive? I am not justifying anything to you, I am trying to give you half a clue. But feel free to drive a geo metro in chicago and become the crumple zone between some sloth and semi that's moving at 70+mph. >>>Yes you can, provided you don't have to share the road with MORONS. >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >pull off a double merge into the middle lane to shoot past the sloth and >not become a statistic. Ummm, do you tailgate sloths in the torqueless wondercar? Seriously? I just watch for a gap, and take it, and never have problems getting in at all without cutting anyone off. It's not difficult at all for me to find a reasonable gap, and I don't need a Camaro SS to do it. >>>> If you like having a fast car, great, enjoy. I just don't see why >>>> some people bitch endlessly about someone else buying a car that's [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >cannot even think of more than one two lane on ramp right now. And it's >only two lanes because there used to be a toll booth there. So we both use a lot of short one lane ramps, yet I'm still able to merge with a slower car safely every time (so far)? >> I grasped your point just fine. I just don't care to spend $5000 more >> for a larger engine so I can burn more gas most of the time for the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >impossible. Being able to accelerate to expressway speed in a very short >distance is important. I-8, CA-163, CA-94 and Pacific Hwy don't have short ramps I guess. Or I-5. Sure. And that also makes the assumption that I never leave SD, and drive in say, LA, Riverside, or maybe Mexico? Mexico and LA are known for their long, double lane ramps all over, right? Oh, and I learned to drive in Buffalo, NY. The Scajaquada, 33 and the Skyway sure as hell aren't Interstates. Maybe we just have nicer drivers in SoCal, but that would just destroy some stereotypes about the region. >>>> My point was that to some people, a reasonably safe, cheap to >>>> maintain, reliable, cheap on gas car is something they're willing to [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Your some qualifier was on the people buying low hp cars. I simply >decided to inform you the benefits of horsepower safety wise. No, it was against one person. And not you. You made it presonal. The person I made it against laughed at the idea of safety being a concern, and only cared about speed. I agree, it's nice to have more HP, but I'm not spending thousands of dollars more when I found a car I really, really like. Compared with my ~130 hp Mustang, it's freaking fast. 1/3 less weight too though. >> Again, what's the problem with someone else buying a lower powered >> car? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Although if that new clyinder head makes it to market that car may not >have that problem any longer. Okay, I'm confused why you posted now. The thread is about Honda saying they'll offer a cheap hybrid soon, someone pointed out that nobody wants one and offering bizzarre selections for what Honda should do, negating that their current customers might want to buy another Honda someday that they actually want. You then jump in stating why you need more HP, defending yourself, needlessly I might add from my overall opinion of you from your posts. You and some others don't seem like the compensation type of sports car owners, but I think we all know they're out there. Someone has to be one, and the poster with his Cutter suggestion for Honda sure seems the type. Your whole post was stating the times you need more HP, yet with my driving situation I rarely if ever see a time when I need more acceleration. If I did I wouldn't have bought it, would have traded it in, or would have modified it as needed. >> Or were you just insulted by my comment about some high powered >> car owners, and decided to include yourself in that statement?? Why [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >But feel free to drive a geo metro in chicago and become the crumple zone >between some sloth and semi that's moving at 70+mph. I'd never drive a Geo Metro, and never have implied I would. Hell, one of my favorite anecdotes about human vs. car accidents has to deal with a friend who caused more damage to a Geo than the Geo did to him. (Broken leg vs. totalled.) Main reasons: I won't buy Ford/GM anymore, and I would never accept a Metro as a rental even. A 120hp Chevy Cavalier I drove for a job before compared to my Civic is unacceptable to me even, maybe it's the gears, or the extra ~450 lbs. sh.t, maybe it's the Chevy nameplates even. (To be fair, until I drove a Civic around a bit I thought they were ugly pieces of sh.t. I still think they're ugly, but I'm so happy otherwise with my car I couldn't care less how ugly it is.) My point from the start of this thread, is that a 1.5L Honda Hybrid that would probably be lighter than my Civic would be a good car for me, and I probably don't need a larger engine to be happy with the car. Sorry you took a comment directed at someone else personally. Dave >>That's called being the sloth's crumple zone. By placing yourself there >>and staying there you have just reduced the braking space for vehicles on >>the road, you have become dependent upon their competence and their >>vehicle's capabilities. This is not reasonable IMO. I want the power to >>pull off a double merge into the middle lane to shoot past the sloth and >>not become a statistic. > Ummm, do you tailgate sloths in the torqueless wondercar? Seriously? No. > I just watch for a gap, and take it, and never have problems getting > in at all without cutting anyone off. It's not difficult at all for > me to find a reasonable gap, and I don't need a Camaro SS to do it. Often, the gap requires the sloth to ACCELERATE. When he doesn't he either cuts off the vehicle in the right lane or stops dead at the end of the ramp. In either case, I then have to scrub off speed or delay acceleration even longer as the available space to accelerate then becomes smaller. Now, prehaps you choose to continue for the gap, which means becoming the crumple zone for the sloth. I don't. I either go in anyway because I see an opening in the middle lane and do a double merge, or I am stuck slowing and hoping there is another gap that has to be many many times larger than the first because now there is insufficent space to accelerate. While I can accomplish it with a low powered car, it is not desirable nor enjoyable. In one case a sloth came to a dead stop at the end of the ramp confused by the construction cones turning a satisifactory gap for both of us into a situation where he was nearly rear-ended by a semi. >>I can count the number of two lane on ramps I use on one finger. Hell, I >>cannot even think of more than one two lane on ramp right now. And it's >>only two lanes because there used to be a toll booth there. > So we both use a lot of short one lane ramps, yet I'm still able to > merge with a slower car safely every time (so far)? Can you not read? I can do it with an underpowered car, it's simply not as safe when sloth are about. And these days, 9 out of ten times I have to merge onto an expressway there is some retard in front of me who doesn't know how t merge. Traffic is getting that bad around here. >>> I grasped your point just fine. I just don't care to spend $5000 more >>> for a larger engine so I can burn more gas most of the time for the >>> occasional situation where it'd be nice to accelerate a few fractions >>> of a second faster. Please answer my orignial point: What's the >>> problem with me wanting a small, efficient car? >>I don't have a problem with _YOUR CHOICE FOR YOU_. Do you have a problem >>reading? I replied when you made that penis extension remark. You are [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>impossible. Being able to accelerate to expressway speed in a very short >>distance is important. > I-8, CA-163, CA-94 and Pacific Hwy don't have short ramps I guess. Or > I-5. Sure. Never been there. Just have your previous description to go by. If your description of double ramps was not representive, why did you choose it? > And that also makes the assumption that I never leave SD, > and drive in say, LA, Riverside, or maybe Mexico? Mexico and LA are > known for their long, double lane ramps all over, right? Oh, and I > learned to drive in Buffalo, NY. The Scajaquada, 33 and the Skyway > sure as hell aren't Interstates. So you were lying about having double ramps. Nice. save the usenet tricks then. > Maybe we just have nicer drivers in SoCal, but that would just destroy > some stereotypes about the region. Maybe the people on the road stop for the merge impared. In chicago, many don't unless they _have_ to in order to avoid a collision. Hell, some people accelerate. I got a speeding ticket once when I had to punch it up to make a safe merge because some a.shole decided to accelerate to stop my merge. (A semi moved into the gap he created so there was no just moving in behind him) That means if you follow a sloth on the expressway, you can very well be a crumple zone. I've seen semi drivers not even throttle lift from 70+mph until the last possible moment to avoid hitting a sloth. If you enjoy merging at 35mph in such conditions, have your underpowered car. I don't enjoy it. I can do it, but I don't enjoy it and I have decided not to put up with it. > No, it was against one person. And not you. You made it presonal. > The person I made it against laughed at the idea of safety being a > concern, and only cared about speed. I agree, it's nice to have more > HP, but I'm not spending thousands of dollars more when I found a car > I really, really like. Compared with my ~130 hp Mustang, it's > freaking fast. 1/3 less weight too though. > You then jump in stating why you need more HP, defending yourself, > needlessly I might add from my overall opinion of you from your posts. > You and some others don't seem like the compensation type of sports > car owners, but I think we all know they're out there. Someone has to > be one, and the poster with his Cutter suggestion for Honda sure seems > the type. Um, I made a comment. You decided to continue it, telling me I'm wrong. Sorry, I've had enough time behind the wheel of lower powered vehicles to know that I prefer having some power to accelerate at my disposal. > Your whole post was stating the times you need more HP, yet with my > driving situation I rarely if ever see a time when I need more > acceleration. If I did I wouldn't have bought it, would have traded > it in, or would have modified it as needed. Then why didn't you post that initially? No, you had to tell me I was wrong instead. >Then why didn't you post that initially? No, you had to tell me I was >wrong instead. I guess I just didn't realize how much drama occurs on the roads around you. I drive a bit more than the average American, and yet I rarely run into any of the problems you encounter daily. I guess IL just really, really sucks. Maybe it explains why so many people in SoCal are from there. Maybe you should just throw in the towel and find a better place to live. I've never heard you say one good thing about living in Crook County. Dave >>Then why didn't you post that initially? No, you had to tell me I was >>wrong instead. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >I guess IL just really, really sucks. Yes it does. You know how you can tell when you are approaching Illinois? All the drivers around you become a.sholes. There was a post in the last year from a guy that drove all the way from NY or something, and there were cars around him that had a destination somewhere in Illinois. He described how they were driving like respectable people, until a few miles from the border, where they all moved over to the left lane and started blocking. ************************* Dave >>Then why didn't you post that initially? No, you had to tell me I was >>wrong instead. > > I guess I just didn't realize how much drama occurs on the roads > around you. I drive a bit more than the average American, and yet I > rarely run into any of the problems you encounter daily. Often multiple times a day. > I guess IL just really, really sucks. Maybe it explains why so many > people in SoCal are from there. Driving wise yes. Remember, IL is still in the NMSL era. > Maybe you should just throw in the towel and find a better place to > live. I've never heard you say one good thing about living in Crook > County. Family etc is here... everywhere else I can think of where I could support myself I would dislike equally for other reasons. >>> There's always the guy who thinks that everyone's in a race. Some >>> people just need a car to get them and their stuff around, and not for [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >maintain, reliable, cheap on gas car is something they're willing to >sacrifice a bit of acceleration for. I can see myself driving that puppy down the middle lane of the Santa Monica Freeway. The interior should be lined with satin and brass handles installed on the outside. It would make a wonderful as well. Signature"The president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone, but we're not going to sit by and let them rewrite history." -- Dick Cheney 11/16/2005 "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -- Ambrose Bierce "America is a vast conspiracy to make you happy." -- John Updike "Long term commitment in relationships is only necessary because it takes so damn long to raise children. Marriage may well be some kind of trick to keep the males around beyond sexual satiation." -- Captain Compassion "Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life. --Will Durant Joseph R. Darancette daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net >>>>>http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/35270/story.htm >>>>>JAPAN: February 23, 2006 [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >people just need a car to get them and their stuff around, and not for >the penis extension needs you seem to feel people shop for. You underestimate the human spirit. It's more than a 'penis extention' ... it's pleasure in POWER. >> I'd suggest building cool-looking UNCONVENTIONAL vehicles - >> that just happen to get really good mileage. > >You mean niche vehicles most people don't want to drive? Depends on the vehicle, doesn't it ? >> For example : >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >40 mpg, the Carver web site claims. Just marginally more than my >non-hybrid Honda. It looks like a fun toy, but nothing more. The 'prototype' Carvers use a relatively BIG engine. More conservative versions - STILL fun - are in the pipeline. Oh yea, 40 MPG is NOT insignificant ... look at the real-world mileage of the vehicles most people ARE driving. >> Moped performance at Saturn prices ... I guess *some* people >> will buy. There's always a self-superior segment who likes to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > people just need a car to get them and their stuff around, and not for > the penis extension needs you seem to feel people shop for. I've owned many vehicles in my life. The first two cars I owned were both RWD sedans that had over 350HP. One was a police package cruiser. They both flat out hauled a.s when you got on them. But of all the many vehicles I've personally driven, I was happiest driving a diminutive Suzuki Swift (FWD sub-compact hatchback, averaged mid-40s MPG). That thing had a top speed of about 80MPH, downhill with the wind behind it. But it was like the PERFECT vehicle for me. I loved the way it handled. With the 5-speed tranny, it had plenty of GO power for my tastes. It handled like a dream, and used like almost NO fuel. For the many years I owned it, I didn't spend one penny on unscheduled maintenance. It was like the perfect car, I'm pissed that Suzuki doesn't sell it in North America anymore. In fact, Suzuki doesn't sell ANYTHING that is remotely fuel-efficient in North America anymore. The Aerio SX is a pretty nice car, but it averages about 27MPG in real world conditions. That's hardly what I'd call fuel-efficient, and there is not another Suzuki that will beat it currently sold in North America. Note that there are plenty of fuel-efficient Suzuki vehicles sold OUTSIDE of North America, so it's frustrating that Suzuki is working so hard to exclude me (a loyal repeat customer) from ever buying a Suzuki again. I'd probably be happy with a mini, if they didn't require premium fuel, and assuming I could get one with a non-flashy paint scheme, such as forest green all over with no stripes. I like the way small cars handle. It's nice being able to take almost all corners without slowing down at all. I'd gladly take a under-sized engine anyday, if it came in a car that handled well. I guess you can count me among the many people who don't view driving as a race. -Dave >http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/35270/story.htm > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >of its popular Fit subcompact, a Japanese daily reported, signalling >the auto maker's long-term commitment to the fuel-sipping powertrain. I'll buy one if it can pull my Bass Boat. >Japan's third-biggest auto maker aims to sell the Fit hybrid as early >as next year for around 1.4 million yen ($11,790), or about 200,000 [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > >(US$1=118.78 yen) Signature"The president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone, but we're not going to sit by and let them rewrite history." -- Dick Cheney 11/16/2005 "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography" -- Ambrose Bierce "America is a vast conspiracy to make you happy." -- John Updike "Long term commitment in relationships is only necessary because it takes so damn long to raise children. Marriage may well be some kind of trick to keep the males around beyond sexual satiation." -- Captain Compassion "Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life. --Will Durant Joseph R. Darancette daranc@NOSPAMverizon.net We must bomb Japan immediately. Vaporizing their entire industrial plant. It's the only way. Ryd |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.