 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / June 2008Corolla v Civic v Hyundai/Nissan moeds
Our old Camry is showing its age (~12 years) and we have decided to look for a new car but budget down to "Corolla level". I said "level" as I am open to competing models from Honda, Hyundai, Nissan, etc. I would appreciate your help in choosing the model, as well as the "sub-model" (CE, LE, DX etc.). Most of our driving is city or regional: round trips to places 10-50 miles away. A few times a year we drive 300-500 miles trips. I would like basic safety features (line anti-lock brakes) and comforts (4-door, AC). Very high priority running cost (mpg, reliability). I can live with manual or automatic. I would consider new, or low-mileage dealer demos etc, but not "really used". (Like everyone else, I thought about Prius but it looks too expensive.) A few questions: 1. Which make/model would be the best fit? 2. What is the best site for reading up on these and well as comparison reviews? (Bought my last car 12 years ago and online resources must have come along since then.) 3. Would you go to a local dealer or Carmax, Carsdirect etc? 4. At this point would you buy a 2009, or 2008? 5. When is the best time of the year to get good deals on last years models, dealer demos, loaners and like? (These I'd imagine are only available from dealers.) Thanks for all help. > I would like basic safety features (line anti-lock brakes) and comforts > (4-door, AC). Very high priority running cost (mpg, reliability). I can > live with manual or automatic. I would consider new, or low-mileage > dealer demos etc, but not "really used". (Like everyone else, I thought > about Prius but it looks too expensive.) Well, you may be thinking that it's "too expensive to buy". It may or may not be too expensive to operate. The up front cost is only one of the many costs. You buy it once, but you operate it over and over again. You must look at an overall cost, per mile, to come to any conclusions. Don't dismiss any car simply because it looks "too expensive" to purchase up front. I'd compare similarly equipped Corolla and Prius. Just use the base prius; it has everything you need. Then compare ongoing costs--fuel, maintenance, and so on--and come up with a per mile cost across 12K, 24K, 50K, 100K miles and so on. A buddy of mine has a mid 90s Corolla, coming up on 300K miles. Still looks and runs great. : Well, you may be thinking that it's "too expensive to buy". It may or : may not be too expensive to operate. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : : I'd compare similarly equipped Corolla and Prius... Just using round numbers, the price difference appears to be $6000. If I drive 12000 miles per year, Corolla (30 mpg) would need 400 gallons of fuel. Prius (40mpg) about 300 gallons. Difference is 100 gallons, let's say $500. That would mean 10-12 years to merely recover the extra money you pay upfront. So, I am not saying Prius is not a good car, but it has become something of a fad/fashion too and I don't see the economy: I give them $6000, and hope that maybe I'd earn it back by 2020? :) So, I am inclined to stay with the best of conventional cars. Trying to figure out which one! > : I'd compare similarly equipped Corolla and Prius... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > gallons of fuel. Prius (40mpg) about 300 gallons. Difference is 100 > gallons, let's say $500. Hmmmm. The Prius will get, over a year's time, no less than 45mpg. And that's without any freaky driving techniques. : Hmmmm. The Prius will get, over a year's time, no less than 45mpg. And : that's without any freaky driving techniques. I realize that Prius would do better than 40, Corolla than 30. These are just the nearest nice numbers I could work with without a calculator. "Elmo P. Shagnasty" ... > RPS : > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Hmmmm. The Prius will get, over a year's time, no less than 45mpg. And > that's without any freaky driving techniques. Yep, well said, and with the freaky driving techniques over 50 MPG (it is just a way of using the foot is all). "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message > Hmmmm. The Prius will get, over a year's time, no less than 45mpg. And > that's without any freaky driving techniques. My concern is still the batteries. The OP had his present car for 12 years so I'm going to assume he wants long life from the next. Will the batteries become a nightmare or just another expense? Just something to be factored in for the total cost of driving over the years. I keep hearing about a five year life, so that would be two changes for the OP if he keeps the car that long. > "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > five year life, so that would be two changes for the OP if he keeps the car > that long. Based on other rechargeable batteries I would expect a significant drop off in capacity after 3 to 5 years. Since the Prius will still run anyway I'm sure the batteries will be run into the ground before replacement. > Based on other rechargeable batteries I would expect a significant drop > off in capacity after 3 to 5 years. > Since the Prius will still run anyway I'm sure the batteries will be run > into the ground before replacement. This is true, but the way Toyota does battery discharging, the _usable_ capacity will be about the same. They don't take full advantage of the battery, especially on the U.S. models (in other countries there's an option to do deeper discharge). All they have to do to get ten years of identical capacity is to slowly increase the discharge level to compensate. You are rightly concerned about the batteries. These 270 or so volt batteries have a list price in the $2500 range. They have 228 cells in series and only one needs to go bad to ruin your battery assembly. Newer models only use 201.6 volt batteries, ;) Besides you have the $3400 list price for the inverter and $1100 for the generator module. Though the warranty should do good, imagine getting hit with the prorated prices. Think about all the dead weight you carry around, pollution issues (disposing of the battery), and then, having your system repaired in case of a failure. We all have heard the stories about a battery not charging, alternator issues etc with conventional cars. Think about a system many times more complex... With all the problems fuel cells still have, I think hydrogen is the way to go. > "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > five year life, so that would be two changes for the OP if he keeps the car > that long. > You are rightly concerned about the batteries. > > These 270 or so volt batteries have a list price in the $2500 range. > They have 228 cells in series and only one needs to go bad to ruin your > battery assembly. Newer models only use 201.6 volt batteries, ;) Yet, the individual cells can be replaced. > Besides you have the $3400 list price for the inverter and $1100 for the > generator module. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > charging, alternator issues etc with conventional cars. Think about a > system many times more complex... Yet, the technology has been proven and has been in use for over ten years (although not in the US during the first few years). > With all the problems fuel cells still have, I think hydrogen is the way > to go. Why? Hydrogen is used to power fuel cells. And there is almost no infrastructure for fuel cells. Hydrogen has the problem that to make hydrogen, CO2 is generated, as well (i.e., using hyrdogen as a fuel still results in CO2 being produced). Fuel cells have been used for year. In fact, the O2 tank that exploded on Apollo 13 when I was about four was used in two different types of fuel cells (mitochondria in the astronaut's bodies and the fuel cells that supplied electricity to the Aquarius and Odyssey). >> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> years. I keep hearing about a five year life, so that would be two >> changes for the OP if he keeps the car that long. > Why? Hydrogen is used to power fuel cells. And there is almost no > infrastructure for fuel cells. Hydrogen has the problem that to make > hydrogen, CO2 is generated, as well (i.e., using hyrdogen as a fuel still > results in CO2 being produced). Hydrogen can be produced pollution-free with solar cells. Solar array produces DC power. DC power is used to split water into H and O2. H is used in fuel cells or whatever. Heck, it burns nicely in internal combustion engines. Or externally in the Hindenburg. O2 is sold to NASA for their monkey business. What could be simpler? Alternative methods to produce energy are easy. All they require is our cleverness and industry. Tough part is the politics. Here in Houston the normal grocery-getter is an F-350 dually towing a boat. It is easy to hear its one passenger muttering about the high diesel prices to the clerk at HEB. The most gentle suggestion to this poor soul that perhaps a smaller vehicle might be in their enlightened self-interest and well.......you can imagine. We are talking about a driver who has a Ph.D. in engineering here. From Texas A&M. The best damn school on earth! Light rail, interurban, bike paths, golf cart trails, abundant plug-ins for the electric vehicles, efficient use of our rail freight system to keep the use of 18 wheelers to a minimum and a zillion other schemes (no hyperbole) will never come to fruition because we are too ignorant as a species. And too stubborn. On the topic of my 2003 Civic Si engine spinning too fast at 80mph: Is it possible and affordable to put a 6 speed in that little car? I'd be happier if its revs were closer to 2000 at 80 mph. Anyone have a referral for that project? > On the topic of my 2003 Civic Si engine spinning too fast at 80mph: Is > it possible and affordable to put a 6 speed in that little car? I'd be > happier if its revs were closer to 2000 at 80 mph. Anyone have a > referral for that project? I suspect the tranny from an RSX would fit in the Civic,it's a 6 speed,IIRC. Whether that changes the final drive ratio,I don't know. you could always go to a larger diameter tire and recal the speedo.  SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >> On the topic of my 2003 Civic Si engine spinning too fast at 80mph: Is >> it possible and affordable to put a 6 speed in that little car? I'd be [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > you could always go to a larger diameter tire and recal the speedo. That is one good idea. The larger tire would act to effectively lower my final drive ratio, thus slowing me down off the line. That might be a good thing :) My 64 VW 1.4 had a 4.11 gear and was quick until the rpm's ran out at 15 mph for the 1-2 shift. That flat four wasn't a real high revver. But, since I've done no homework at all, it is possible the six speed from the RSX could have the same ratios for 1st and 6th that my box has for 1st and 5th, but with closer ratios. That would do me no good at all for my plan. I should research the possibility of putting a taller 5th gear in my box. Perhaps that is possible? My first inclination is to just throw money at the idea and see what happens. I hope I know better than that...... >>> On the topic of my 2003 Civic Si engine spinning too fast at 80mph: >>> Is it possible and affordable to put a 6 speed in that little car? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > possibility of putting a taller 5th gear in my box. Perhaps that is > possible? I doubt the gears would be available,and tearing apart your tranny would be a very complex task with a high chance for screwing things up. I would just swap the whole tranny,assuming the gear ratios were what you desire.(and as long as you're putting in the RSX tranny,the RSX-S motor would be a nice increase,too!) > My first inclination is to just throw money at the idea and > see what happens. I hope I know better than that...... BTW,is the motor in your Civic a K series? Other Honda motors rotate in the opposite direction,and are positioned 180 deg from the K series. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >>>> On the topic of my 2003 Civic Si engine spinning too fast at 80mph: >>>> Is it possible and affordable to put a 6 speed in that little car? [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Other Honda motors rotate in the opposite direction,and are positioned 180 > deg from the K series. It seems my motor is a K20A3 which would swap with the RSX powerplant. I really feel insane contemplating that. I'll leave well enough alone for now :) >On the topic of my 2003 Civic Si engine spinning too fast at 80mph: Is it >possible and affordable to put a 6 speed in that little car? I'd be happier >if its revs were closer to 2000 at 80 mph. Anyone have a referral for that >project? I think it would be unable to maintain 80 mph at 2000 rpm. If it did, you might find that you wreck the engine pretty quick. >>On the topic of my 2003 Civic Si engine spinning too fast at 80mph: Is >>it possible and affordable to put a 6 speed in that little car? I'd be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I think it would be unable to maintain 80 mph at 2000 rpm. If it did, > you might find that you wreck the engine pretty quick. it takes a certain amount of HP to maintain a given speed(dependent on gearing,drag,powertrain losses,road grade,wind directions...),and that HP might be not be achieved at 2000 rpm. it would increase cylinder wall/piston wear. the SI has only 2 liters displacement,and it's HP and torque is developed on the high end of the RPM scale. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net on 5/16/2008 10:55 PM Gordon McGrew said the following: > >> On the topic of my 2003 Civic Si engine spinning too fast at 80mph: Is it [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > It depends upon where the vehicle will be operated. On the DelMarVa peninsula you can probably ride from one end to the other in 5th gear on a 5 speed bicycle, except after stops. :-) SignatureBill In Hamptonburgh, NY To email, remove the double zeroes after @ >> Why? Hydrogen is used to power fuel cells. And there is almost no >> infrastructure for fuel cells. Hydrogen has the problem that to make [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >if its revs were closer to 2000 at 80 mph. Anyone have a referral for that >project? And you are delusional enough to think there is, or ever will be, enough solar power available to fuel all the cars onthe road? Then there is the issue of how much energy it takes to make the solar cells..... > And you are delusional enough to think there is, or ever will be, > enough solar power available to fuel all the cars onthe road? Then > there is the issue of how much energy it takes to make the solar > cells..... Mental Health Care professionals call this "a statement posed as a question". What he meant to say was, "You, Sir, are completely delusional!" to which I am able to respond. This "question" is meant to confound. Emotionally challenged people pose their statements as questions in order to provide themselves "cover" from more intelligent, more aggressive or perhaps more nearly sane people. This is passive/aggressive behavior. I believe the most energy we need to expend as a species is the novel, creative human energy it will take to make our planet a garden instead of a garbage dump. I believe all humans are served poorly by their "leaders". I also believe that each person awakens each day with the intention of making their lives, and their children's lives, as prosperous, comfortable and happy as their circumstances allow. We'll be OK unless the nukes fly. Then it'll be 'They are on their way in and no one can bring them back. For the sake of our country and our way of life, I suggest you get the rest of SAC in after them. Otherwise, we will be totally destroyed by Red retaliation. My boys will give you the best kind of start, 1400 megatons worth, and you sure as hell won't stop them now. So let's get going. There's no other choice. God willing, we will prevail in peace and freedom from fear and in true health through the purity and essence of our natural fluids. God bless you all.' Then he hung up. :) >> And you are delusional enough to think there is, or ever will be, >> enough solar power available to fuel all the cars onthe road? Then [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >through the purity and essence of our natural fluids. God bless you all.' >Then he hung up. :) Does that mean the Corolla or the Civic? >>> And you are delusional enough to think there is, or ever will be, >>> enough solar power available to fuel all the cars onthe road? Then [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Does that mean the Corolla or the Civic? Civic > On the topic of my 2003 Civic Si engine spinning too fast at 80mph: Is it > possible and affordable to put a 6 speed in that little car? I'd be happier > if its revs were closer to 2000 at 80 mph. Anyone have a referral for that > project? I doubt it's engine would have enough torque for less revs at 80 mph. That's not a legal speed anyway. >> On the topic of my 2003 Civic Si engine spinning too fast at 80mph: Is it >> possible and affordable to put a 6 speed in that little car? I'd be happier [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I doubt it's engine would have enough torque for less revs at 80 mph. > That's not a legal speed anyway. That depends on where you are. There are a few states with speed limits of 75, which means 80 would be a pretty normal speed. In some parts of Texas, the posted limit is 80. I'd agree, though, that the engine would be able to provide enough torque to keep the car going 80 @ 2000 RPM. Just not a big enough engine. SignatureJoe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733 joe at hits - buffalo dot com "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the time..." - Danny, American History X >You are rightly concerned about the batteries. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >With all the problems fuel cells still have, I think hydrogen is the way >to go. Really? Have you priced out a fuel cell lately? And where do you buy hydrogen? Or for that matter, a car that burns hydrogen? Of course you can modify a piston engine to burn hydrogen, but I don't think you will get a cost advantage and it certainly won't be convenient. The Honda and Toyota hybrids have been on the road long enough to prove the doomsayers wrong. Hybrid batteries are very reliable and it appears that they could easily last the life of the car in many or most cases. The batteries and other hybrid components have an 8 to 10 year warranty so they are all likely to last the life of the car for most owners. AFAIK, the warranty is not pro-rated. >> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> five year life, so that would be two changes for the OP if he keeps the car >> that long. > You are rightly concerned about the batteries. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Though the warranty should do good, imagine getting hit with the > prorated prices. Yes, those batteries are expensive as well as being dangerous in an accident. > Think about all the dead weight you carry around, pollution issues > (disposing of the battery), and then, having your system repaired in > case of a failure. We all have heard the stories about a battery not > charging, alternator issues etc with conventional cars. Think about a > system many times more complex... In spite of the weight hybrids do very well. There are many reasons for this, and some of the technology can be applied to mild hybrids to get much of the fuel savings, without having a huge battery. > With all the problems fuel cells still have, I think hydrogen is the way > to go. I live 1km from Ballard, a fuel cell developer. A few years ago a tanker delivering H to their plant developed a leak and fire at the hose fitting. The area 0.5km around was shut down for 12+ hrs until it burned off. Fuel cells need much further development and then there is the high cost, plus a required refueling network for this dangerous fuel. IMO the new diesels, developed in Germany will be the next fuel saving hot vehicle. Over 50% of people in Europe are now buying them. The 2L VW diesel performs very well in the small mid size cars. "Josh S" <Josh@clean.spam> wrote in message > IMO the new diesels, developed in Germany will be the next fuel saving > hot vehicle. Over 50% of people in Europe are now buying them. > The 2L VW diesel performs very well in the small mid size cars. I would have agreed with you in the past, but diesel is selling for $1 a gallon more than regular right now. At current prices, a gas engine at 40 mpg costs the same in fuel per mile as a diesel at 50 mpg. I don't know if it has changed in Europe, but gas and diesel were just pennies apart per liter last year, diesel was 1.16 Euro gas was 1.22 per liter. Fuel oil cost was exactly the same as diesel too. In milder climates it is not uncommon for homeowners to buy 5 or 10 gallons at a time at the filling station as needed. > "Josh S" <Josh@clean.spam> wrote in message > > IMO the new diesels, developed in Germany will be the next fuel saving [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > not uncommon for homeowners to buy 5 or 10 gallons at a time at the filling > station as needed. I agree with you that if diesel is selling for too high premium, using diesel doesn't make sense. Here in Canada diesel has recently crept a bit higher than regular gasoline, but I believe it's more of a supply situation as diesel use is increasing. In the USA you seem to be facing more variability in fuel pricing than here in Canada. For urban driving a properly sized diesel gets about 30% more MPG than an equivalent performance gasoline engine. The Jeep Cherokee 2 wd EPA figures are: Gas 3.7L- 15/20 Gas 5.7L- 13/19 Diesel 3L- 18/23 Performance is close to the gas 5.7L. > : I'd compare similarly equipped Corolla and Prius... > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > So, I am inclined to stay with the best of conventional cars. Trying to > figure out which one! Don't forget the size. The Prius is larger than the Corolla; if you think you'd want something larger that also gets good gas mileage, that's the Prius. If you think you're stuck with a Corolla-sized car, you're not. Not necessarily. > Don't forget the size. The Prius is larger than the Corolla; if you > think you'd want something larger that also gets good gas mileage, > that's the Prius. If you think you're stuck with a Corolla-sized car, > you're not. Not necessarily. IMO they've similar in interior space. A few months ago we drove to the airport in a Corolla and returned in a Prius. The Prius did have the advantage of being able to pile our luggage up to the back window, so you couldn't see out the window even the tiny bit that is normal. I would never pile the luggage that high for safety reasons and would wrap a cargo net around the Prius luggage to avoid it coming forward in a quick stop. I have read that the Prius mileage in cold winter weather is similar to the Corolla's. > > Don't forget the size. The Prius is larger than the Corolla; if you > > think you'd want something larger that also gets good gas mileage, > > that's the Prius. If you think you're stuck with a Corolla-sized car, > > you're not. Not necessarily. > > IMO they've similar in interior space. They're not. >> Don't forget the size. The Prius is larger than the Corolla; if you >> think you'd want something larger that also gets good gas mileage, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I have read that the Prius mileage in cold winter weather is similar to > the Corolla's. Grille blocking enhances the Prius' mileage significantly. Tomes "Tomes" <ask.me@here.net> wrote in message >> I have read that the Prius mileage in cold winter weather is similar to >> the Corolla's. > > Grille blocking enhances the Prius' mileage significantly. > Tomes I'd think that Toyota would know that and have a thermostatic louver rather than risk having people block it when too warm. > "Tomes" <ask.me@here.net> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I'd think that Toyota would know that and have a thermostatic louver > rather than risk having people block it when too warm. Yep, I wish Toyota would have put that in as well. I a car as sophisticated as this one is, it should also be automatically driven. Tomes > Don't forget the size. The Prius is larger than the Corolla; if you > think you'd want something larger that also gets good gas mileage, > that's the Prius. If you think you're stuck with a Corolla-sized car, > you're not. Not necessarily. It's a little larger, though it's misleading because the cargo capacity is higher only if you pile things up so you can't see out the back! It's still closer to the Corolla in size than the Camry. Corolla ------- 92.0 cubic feet: passenger compartment 12.3 cubic feet: cargo Prius ----- 96.2 cubic feet: passenger compartment 16.1 cubic feet: cargo Camry ----- 101.4 cubic feet: passenger compartment 16.7 cubic feet: cargo "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message > It's a little larger, though it's misleading because the cargo capacity is > higher only if you pile things up so you can't see out the back! It's [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > 101.4 cubic feet: passenger compartment > 16.7 cubic feet: cargo But is bigger better? That extra 4 cubic feet of passenger space does little if it is not in the hip room when you want it. Of if the trunk space is more in volume but the trunk lid is too small to fit a decent sized carton through it. . > "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message >> It's a little larger, though it's misleading because the cargo capacity is [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > is more in volume but the trunk lid is too small to fit a decent sized > carton through it. . That's a good point. I find the Corolla to have much more usable room. It's a lot more cramped than a Corolla. You can carry five people in a Corolla and not be too uncomfortable, but not in a Prius which is really good for only two adults and two children. Still, if you're using the Prius as a commute vehicle, and have a larger family vehicle for trips with more people, it's fine. > > Don't forget the size. The Prius is larger than the Corolla; if you > > think you'd want something larger that also gets good gas mileage, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > 101.4 cubic feet: passenger compartment > 16.7 cubic feet: cargo That's correct, the Corolla and Prius are similar, but if you pile things high in the Prius it has more space for cargo. I would not do that due to the safety concern of luggage flying forward in a fast stop. The Prius has a lot of passenger Cu Ft. forward of the dash, which is unusable. Having been a passenger in both, with two & three others, I suggest they are similar for practical purposes. As for the driver the previous Corollas didn't fit me comfortably; I'm 5'-11". A similar height friend of mine who has the previous Corolla confirms that it wouldn't fit me very well as a driver, his shorter wife drives his. I've not tried the new Corolla for size. Before you say you cant afford a hybrid, lets take a look at the web site, base Prius $21,100, base Corolla auto (apples to apples) $17,110, difference $2,715, City epa for Prius is 48, Corolla 26 Presuming that is the best you could do in either car (not likely) the Prius would use 250 gallons of gas a year, the Corolla 461 presuming your 12,000 per year driven....@ lets say $4.50 a gallon you would save $949 per year/ 2715=2.8 years for break even, then you would save oh I don't know $1000 a year in gas, not to mention be driving a MUCH cleaner car and doing your own little part to reduce the use of fossil fuel. As for the batteries, Honda has had Hybrids since 96, Toyota about 98 (not positive) if there were massive battery failures, don't you think there would be a public outcry by now? why do you think no one really knows what it would cost to replace them? could it be not many are replaced? If it were a common item, I can assure you, there would be a price attached to it. By the way, Brakes last much longer in a Hybrid due to the fact that much of the forward energy is converted to electricity when stopping. So, Lets recap, 10 years ownership, Prius, car and fuel only $32,350, Corolla, car & fuel only $37,855, so, looks like you can't afford to save $5,505? I am not a fan of the Prius BTW, I prefer the Honda Civic Hybrid, it, to me is a far more comfortable car. > : Well, you may be thinking that it's "too expensive to buy". It may or > : may not be too expensive to operate. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > So, I am inclined to stay with the best of conventional cars. Trying to > figure out which one! : Before you say you cant afford a hybrid, lets take a look at the web site, : base Prius $21,100, base Corolla auto (apples to apples) $17,110, difference : $2,715, ONE, the difference between your own numbers is $4000. TWO, I am not sure if "apples to apples" is as fair a comparison as you make it sound. Corolla is available in cheaper versions, Prius is not. A manual CE would not only cost less but also have better mpg. > : Before you say you cant afford a hybrid, lets take a look at the web site, > : base Prius $21,100, base Corolla auto (apples to apples) $17,110, difference [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > make it sound. Corolla is available in cheaper versions, Prius is not. > A manual CE would not only cost less but also have better mpg. Hmmm, Cost of battery pack when it needs replacing? > > TWO, I am not sure if "apples to apples" is as fair a comparison as you > > make it sound. Corolla is available in cheaper versions, Prius is not. > > A manual CE would not only cost less but also have better mpg. > Hmmm, > Cost of battery pack when it needs replacing? Is no different than the cost of the traditional automatic transmission when it needs replacing. And after 125K, a traditional auto trans will need replacing. It seems to be normal nowadays. >>> TWO, I am not sure if "apples to apples" is as fair a comparison as you >>> make it sound. Corolla is available in cheaper versions, Prius is not. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > And after 125K, a traditional auto trans will need replacing. It seems > to be normal nowadays. Maybe on some vehicles. I know a lot of high-mileage Corollas (>200K) and it's certainly not normal to need a new transmission, at least no one I know of with a high-mileage Corolla (or Camry, or Accord, or Civic) has ever needed one. Where did you get the idea that it was "normal?". Oops that was a math error, so that drops your savings down to $4,000 in 10 years. Show me the data indicating battery packs fail in great numbers, at least as much as transmission and engine problems as hybrid cars have been on the road more than 10 years and some have over 300,000 miles on them. The other issue, is why would you want a low end car with a manual transmission, I would not even consider one. It would also have poor resale value? though not a major factor, but, unless you are going to drive the car into the ground, it has some bering. If you are comparing a car with an automatic trans, yes, you need to add the auto to the other....BTW. I did use the base Corolla for the comparison but comparing a stripped econo-box to a fairly well equipped car is the same logic people use when comparing the Honda hybrid to the Civic DX, sorry, like it or not, the hybrid is on par with the EX not the DX so, though you may be happy with a low end car, Hybrids are not and therefore the difference it owed to more than the cost of the hybrid system but the Hybrid may not be for you. > : Before you say you cant afford a hybrid, lets take a look at the web > site, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > make it sound. Corolla is available in cheaper versions, Prius is not. > A manual CE would not only cost less but also have better mpg. : The other issue, is why would you want a low end car with a manual : transmission.. I was just pointing out that it is an option. If someone is comfortable with manual transmission (as OP stated) and wants to save money while still getting Corolla quality, he can. I have owned manual and automatic Toyotas and never had problem selling either kind. > : The other issue, is why would you want a low end car with a manual > : transmission.. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I have owned manual and automatic Toyotas and never had problem selling > either kind. And as gas prices climb closer to $4/gal, small efficient manual transmission vehicles will be more desirable. I expect to see a premium on manual trans, small engine cars pretty soon in the US. Jon > And as gas prices climb closer to $4/gal, small efficient manual > transmission vehicles will be more desirable. I expect to see a premium on > manual trans, small engine cars pretty soon in the US. As CVT's gain ground, the benefits of a manual transmission (in terms of fuel economy) fade. Most CVT's are either equaling or exceeding the mpg rating of manuals. I'm not ready to trust CVT's yet, and prefer to see them proven over time, but they do show promise. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net CVT's have been in common production since 1989, Subaru Justy & Honda Civic HCH how long do they need to be around before you can trust them? >> And as gas prices climb closer to $4/gal, small efficient manual >> transmission vehicles will be more desirable. I expect to see a premium [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > rating of manuals. I'm not ready to trust CVT's yet, and prefer to see > them proven over time, but they do show promise. > CVT's have been in common production since 1989, Subaru Justy & Honda > Civic HCH how long do they need to be around before you can trust them? I was not aware that they were in common production for those cars. Are you quite certain? Most of the Civics I'm aware of had automatics or standards. In any event, not all manufacturers have a lot of experience with them. If you want to jump on board with a manufacturer's early ventures into a technology, be my guest. Experience has shown that to be less than advisable. Signature-Mike- mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net >> : The other issue, is why would you want a low end car with a manual >> : transmission.. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > transmission vehicles will be more desirable. I expect to see a premium on > manual trans, small engine cars pretty soon in the US. The newer automatics are so efficient that they often get higher mileage than a manual transmission in the same car. No one that drive extensively in heavy stop and go traffic is going to put up with a manual transmission. > TWO, I am not sure if "apples to apples" is as fair a > comparison as you > make it sound. Corolla is available in cheaper versions, > Prius is not. > A manual CE would not only cost less but also have better > mpg. Most of the reason a manual Toyota Corolla still gets better mpg than an automatic Toyota Corolla is that the manual has a 5-speed tranny while the auto has a 4-speed one. For other makes and models, and in the last five years or so, changes in auto tranny design have resulted in it often surpassing manual trannies when it comes to mpg, when comparing the same models whose only difference is the tranny. > Most of the reason a manual Toyota Corolla still gets better > mpg than an automatic Toyota Corolla is that the manual has > a 5-speed tranny while the auto has a 4-speed one. I don't think so. Can you explain that? Clay > Elle wrote: >> Most of the reason a manual Toyota Corolla still gets [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I don't think so. Can you explain that? www.fueleconomy.gov , among other sites, indicates the 2008 Corolla is available with either a manual 5-speed (five forward gears) tranny or an automatic, 4-speed (four forward gears) tranny. Generally for diverse driving (e.g. some kind of cross between city and highway driving), the more gears, the better the odds the engine has of running at optimal fuel efficiency. Though I probably should have qualified this somewhat. For one, with other makes, there are some automatic four-speed trannies with variable yada that can do as well as or better than manual five-speeds. The bigger point to me is that it's worth checking the MPG for both the auto and manual versions of a particular model and year before just assuming the manual tranny will do better than the auto. Lastly, as others are saying and MPG aside, I think manual transmissions tend to be cheaper to maintain and are less prone to breakdown. >> Elle wrote: >>> Most of the reason a manual Toyota Corolla still gets [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > transmissions tend to be cheaper to maintain and are less > prone to breakdown. Actually, an automatic transmission can easily go 200K miles with no repairs or maintenance other than perhaps one change of fluid. 200K miles of city driving on a manual will require at least one clutch change. For highway driving, you could go longer on a clutch. > Elle wrote: >>> Elle wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > miles with no repairs or maintenance other than perhaps > one change of fluid. Actually, you're speaking in possibilities and outliers. I am talking about averages. I can say that, anecdotally, reports of serious problems with auto transmissions are much more common in this newsgroup than reports of serious problems with manual trannies. Fact is the engineering of an auto tranny is far more complicated than that of a manual. This of course translates to a greater propensity for problems. > 200K miles of city driving on a manual will require at > least one clutch change. I would not generalize like this. Clutch wear depends on shifting style as well as stops and starts. I do not do all city driving but it's been almost all suburban driving, with some city and highway. My 91 Civic is on 204k miles on its original clutch. > Actually, you're speaking in possibilities and outliers. I > am talking about averages. LOL, it actually was Elmo one talking about outliers, claiming that 125K miles to be the norm for an automatic transmission. Maybe it's the norm for Ford or Chevy (actually I don't believe that either), but definitely for Toyota and Honda. A Canadian study on longevity (11-20 year old cars) showed the following as the five non-luxury vehicle brands with the highest percentage of vehicles (based on number originally sold): Saturn Toyota Honda Mazda Volkswagen Of course you don't know how much was spent to keep these going that long, how much oil the engines consumed, or how much was spent on repairs in years 1-10, but there's no reason to believe that these owners were willing to spend more on repairs than owners of more poorly ranked vehicles. > LOL, it actually was Elmo one talking about outliers, claiming that 125K > miles to be the norm for an automatic transmission. Maybe it's the norm [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > owners were willing to spend more on repairs than owners of more poorly > ranked vehicles. For reference here are my facts: My '95 Concorde now has 140k kms on it. The engine runs perfectly, gets the original fuel mileage, goes 8k on a liter of oil and the auto shifts as new. The only repairs on the engine were a set of plugs at 95k, and replacement of the rubber parts on the engine external , associated with the fuel and PVC system, in '06. Engine service is oil changes at 5 to 8 k, always twice per year, plus a few air filters. The only transmission service has been oil changes every 50k plus a flush at 120k. A friend of mine has a '94 of the same car going strong at 210k. I've read the design was for 200k miles (300k kms) This is not unusual, but typical of this engine transmission. Transmission failures from '94 on are usually due to lack of adequate service. Oh I should mention that although I often drive on severe winter roads to the ski hills, the body is rust free and stil shines lovely. The body has had no special treatment, just washed with Turtle wash and wax. You're lucky because I have yet to see one that doesn't have any rust in my area. > In article <2klWj.1939$hJ5.813@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > to the ski hills, the body is rust free and stil shines lovely. The body > has had no special treatment, just washed with Turtle wash and wax. >> TWO, I am not sure if "apples to apples" is as fair a >> comparison as you [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > comparing the same models whose only difference is the > tranny. Actually, this mileage is related to less transmission slippage, not gear selection. I have seen some automatics that were close in mileage, but I would like for you to point out one that surpasses the manual. Clay SignatureWarning: keyboard may cause involuntary vowel movement - Clay Ferriola > I have seen some automatics that were close in mileage, but I would like > for you to point out one that surpasses the manual. Current generation Honda Civic. >> I have seen some automatics that were close in mileage, but I would like >> for you to point out one that surpasses the manual. > > Current generation Honda Civic. The only one I see that get better mileage is the CNG version. Clay > >> I have seen some automatics that were close in mileage, but I would like > >> for you to point out one that surpasses the manual. > > > > Current generation Honda Civic. > > > The only one I see that get better mileage is the CNG version. Nope. Look again. >>>> I have seen some automatics that were close in mileage, but I would like >>>> for you to point out one that surpasses the manual. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Nope. Look again. Okay, where am I to look? I didn't see it on Honda's' site, nor Fueleconomy.gov > Elle wrote: >>> TWO, I am not sure if "apples to apples" is as fair a [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Actually, this mileage is related to less transmission > slippage, not gear selection. Not to sound condescending or anything, but I am glad you chimed in, because on further reading, I thought it should be pointed out that a major factor in automatics traditionally getting worse MPG is the torque converter. The TC represents a "fluid coupling," whereas the manual tranny's clutch etc. are a mechanical linkage. Energy transmission losses are greater with the liquid linkage. As many of the pros here know. (I am just an amateur who works on her own car and reads like crazy to understand it.) But this has changed somewhat with the advent of the "lock up torque converter." Optimal gearing is still said to be a factor, though. Several other factors are said to play significant roles, as well. So my post did not do justice to why older automatic trannies were less efficient than manual trannies. > I have seen some automatics that were close in mileage, > but I would like for you to point out one that surpasses > the manual. Sure. www.fueleconomy.gov. Just sort of randomly, based on checking this a few times in the last several years, and using only the same engine size for a given model: 2007 Civic, same engine size, both five forward speeds: Manual = 26 MPG city, 34 MPG highway Auto = 25, 36 2007 Subaru Impreza (an all-wheel drive vehicle) Manual (5-speed) = 19, 26 Auto (4-speed) = 20, 25 2007 Nissan Sentra Manual (6-speed) = 24, 31 Auto (variable gear) = 25, 33 2007 Hyundai Elantra Manual (5-speed) = 24, 33 Auto (4-speed) = 25, 33 2007 Kia Rio Manual (5-speed) = 27, 32 Auto (4-speed) = 25, 35 From this survey, I think we could argue that newer automatic trannies seem to do better at highway speeds, even though it often has fewer gears. The lock up converter (used only at higher speeds) is the first area I would explore to explain most of this higher efficiency. I see the lockup converter started gaining in popularity around the late 1970s but ISTM only recently did all models start having them. I see the 1995 versions of the cars above never saw the autos beating the manuals for miles per gallon. Granted other improvements may have been implemented, like continuously variable transmissions (CVT). The Sentra is interesting, since for the two versions I compared, the big difference is the variable gearing in the auto. It's the only model that beat the manual version in both city and highway. Toyota OTOH seems to consistently have no models where the auto does better than the manual under city or highway conditions. Again, just an amateur here. > From this survey, I think we could argue that newer > automatic trannies seem to do better at highway speeds, even > though it often has fewer gears. The lock up converter (used > only at higher speeds) is the first area I would explore to > explain most of this higher efficiency. My Chrysler 4 sp automatic, which came out in the early 90s, has lockup on the top 3 gears. In effect it has 7 gears. The fuel mileage is excellent. Josh S <Josh@clean.spam> wrote in news:Josh- D0B8B7.16053514052008@news.telus.net: >> From this survey, I think we could argue that newer >> automatic trannies seem to do better at highway speeds, even [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > on the top 3 gears. In effect it has 7 gears. > The fuel mileage is excellent. "lockup" doesn't change gear ratios,it just eliminates torque converter slippage. it "locks" the input turbine to the output turbine. No "7 gears". "Overdrive" would be "extra" gears. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > Josh S <Josh@clean.spam> wrote in news:Josh- > D0B8B7.16053514052008@news.telus.net: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > "Overdrive" would be "extra" gears. When he wrote "in effect" he was probably right. Unless the RPM at lockup happens to match between one or more of those combinations, you get seven different "ratios" of crankshaft to ouput shaft speed, even though it doesn't happen because of gear ratios changing. >> Josh S <Josh@clean.spam> wrote in news:Josh- >> D0B8B7.16053514052008@news.telus.net: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > get seven different "ratios" of crankshaft to ouput shaft speed, even > though it doesn't happen because of gear ratios changing. nope. wrongo. when the converter locks up,the crank RPM equals the converter output RPM,because they are -locked together-. No slippage. after that,it's all gear ratios determining output shaft RPMs. fixed ratios. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >>>Josh S <Josh@clean.spam> wrote in news:Josh- >>>D0B8B7.16053514052008@news.telus.net: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > after that,it's all gear ratios determining output shaft RPMs. > fixed ratios. Are you deliberately misunderstanding us? Nobody claimed an overdrive type shaft speed ratio. What is being said is that when the lockup engages, you do in fact get the geared ratio - which you *weren't* effectively getting with the converter unlocked. So for each gear in which the lockup works, you have two different shaft speed ratios: one with the lock off and one with the lock on. The *effect* is the same as having seven gear ratios, with *none* of them being an overdrive. I don't know how much clear I can make it... >>>>Josh S <Josh@clean.spam> wrote in news:Josh- >>>>D0B8B7.16053514052008@news.telus.net: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > is the same as having seven gear ratios, with *none* of them being an > overdrive. I don't know how much clear I can make it... It's still not any "effective gear ratio".It's just slippage.Wasted energy. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >>>>>Josh S <Josh@clean.spam> wrote in news:Josh- >>>>>D0B8B7.16053514052008@news.telus.net: [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > It's still not any "effective gear ratio".It's just slippage.Wasted energy. Whatever you have to say. Usenet never changes... So my slipping clutch in my old mustang 3 on the floor effectively meant I had a six on the floor kinda maybe? Or did I miss a imaginary gear or 2? >>>>>>Josh S <Josh@clean.spam> wrote in news:Josh- >>>>>>D0B8B7.16053514052008@news.telus.net: [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > Whatever you have to say. Usenet never changes... "mjc13<REMOVETHIS> @verizon.net>" <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS> > > Are you deliberately misunderstanding us? Nobody > claimed an overdrive type shaft speed ratio. What is being [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > *none* of them being an overdrive. I don't know how much > clear I can make it... From my reading, the typical auto tranny's lockup does not fully engage until cruising at speeds upwards of 40 mph. At 40 mph, it is probably in 3rd or 4th gear. At lower speeds, the lockup is disengaged. But the gear should alway be lower at lower speeds, too. So I am not sure that I buy Josh's characterization of doubling the top three gears to yield effectively seven gears on a 4-speed automatic tranny. On the other hand, I see that "partial lockup" is possible and occurs under many conditions, too. This is per the 95-97 Civic's description at http://media.honda.co.uk/car/owner/media/manuals/CivicManual/pdf/14-34.pdf. Partial lockup has to be better than no lockup, as far as overall fuel efficiency is concerned. So I would say it is not exactly two gears for one that lockup on/off gives. It's more that lockup is often active in degrees, being neither fully on nor fully off. When it is "on" even partly, I expect it usually helps fuel efficiency compared to no lockup at all. > "mjc13<REMOVETHIS> @verizon.net>" <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS> > >> Are you deliberately misunderstanding us? Nobody [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > "on" even partly, I expect it usually helps fuel efficiency > compared to no lockup at all. slippage would be an infinite number of "gears". SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > slippage would be an infinite number of "gears". In this context, where I think Josh was arguing the lockup feature increases the effective number of gears and so increases engine efficiency, I would not put it this way. The slippage is arguably infinite gears but not in a way that improves efficiency the way direct mechanical linkage (= lockup) to infinite gears would. To split hairs. > "mjc13<REMOVETHIS> @verizon.net>" <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS> > > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > "on" even partly, I expect it usually helps fuel efficiency > compared to no lockup at all. Agreed. I have no idea if the transmission cited engages the lockup at low speeds or not. I could see it helping at 30MPH on level ground in third, though... >>>>TWO, I am not sure if "apples to apples" is as fair a >>>>comparison as you [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > But this has changed somewhat with the advent of the "lock > up torque converter." Just a short anecdote here... I'm not sure what manufacturer introduced "lock up converters," but Studebaker began using its self designed automatic featuring a lock up converter for the 1950 model year. My 1955 President, a hefty 4,200 lb sedan with 259 V8/DG-250 tranny achieved 21/28 mpg in real time road tests in that era. Not bad for a 4 bbl carb, auto and pretty good performance. My uncle used to really rub it in to Chevy/Ford owners... In a lot of ways, we really haven't advanced much farther. JT Did you have a CAT on that Stude and run ethanol tainted gas? >>>>>TWO, I am not sure if "apples to apples" is as fair a comparison as you >>>>>make it sound. Corolla is available in cheaper versions, Prius is not. [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > JT "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote Elle wrote >> But this has changed somewhat with the advent of the >> "lock up torque converter." [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > automatic featuring a lock up converter for the 1950 model > year. Bravo. I read Wikipedia a few hours ago and I believe it confirms Studebaker was first c. 1949. > My 1955 President, a hefty 4,200 lb sedan with 259 > V8/DG-250 tranny achieved 21/28 mpg in real time road > tests in that era. They did MPG tests back then? What is the history of fuel economy becoming important to car manufacturers? Elle Who pumped gasoline as a summer job when it was 59 cents a gallon. > "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote > Elle wrote [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Who pumped gasoline as a summer job when it was 59 cents a > gallon. There were a few small models with small engines that were designed to be thrifty for just about as long as cars were built. It would be hard to answer your question definitively, because it would depend on how you defined it. Volkswagen used to boast about the 25 MPG Beetle (although the heavier, faster, more robust Volvo Amazon would also average 25). Models like the Nash Rambler (introduced in 1950) and Plymouth Valiant were designed with fuel economy as a significant factor. I'm sure that whenever there was a Depression or Recession, or gas rationing, fuel economy was used as a selling point... "mjc13<REMOVETHIS> @verizon.net>" <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS> Elle wrote: >>>My 1955 President, a hefty 4,200 lb sedan with 259 >>>V8/DG-250 tranny achieved 21/28 mpg in real time road [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > whenever there was a Depression or Recession, or gas > rationing, fuel economy was used as a selling point... I imagine you are right, re the Depression etc. Maybe it's not as obvious to historians because advertising back then was not quite as developed as an industry. Nor were cars as abundant, per capita. But surely a Depression-era salesman used this as a selling point to the appropriate consumer sector (those on a budget). Wiki does indeed report fuel efficiency was a considered factor for Volkswagen's, starting as early as the 1930s, and possibly under orders from Hitler. Another, lesser wrench to throw into this discussion, one of which no doubt JT, you and others are aware: I see some (fancier?) current car models give the driver some manual control over when lockup engages. > "mjc13<REMOVETHIS> @verizon.net>" <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS> Elle > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > (fancier?) current car models give the driver some manual > control over when lockup engages. My "new" Civic is a '95. I don't imagine I'll ever own a car built in this century. > Wiki does indeed report fuel efficiency was a considered > factor for Volkswagen's, starting as early as the 1930s, and > possibly under orders from Hitler. I had three VW Beetles, two 1.1L and one 1.3L; '55, '56, '61. I've keep very accurate mileage records. My '95 3.3L Concorde of twice the weight gets the approx. the same city/hwy MPG as I got with the VWs and of course at a much more consistent and higher speed, particularly up hills and against the wind. The VW Beetle had a top speed of about 65mph, it took some time to get there, couldn't maintain 60mph into a medium head wind, but with a strong tail wind it could maintain 75-80mph. >>Wiki does indeed report fuel efficiency was a considered >>factor for Volkswagen's, starting as early as the 1930s, and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > there, couldn't maintain 60mph into a medium head wind, but with a > strong tail wind it could maintain 75-80mph. The point wasn't that anybody (except VW) claimed that the Beetle got great gas mileage; it was that VW used fuel economy as a selling point. As I noted earlier, the Beetle was pretty unimpressive in the fuel economy department. It was better than the big American cars, but no better than many faster, larger imports. I'm sure it was worse than some of them... > I had three VW Beetles, two 1.1L and one 1.3L; '55, '56, > '61. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > consistent and higher speed, particularly up hills and > against the wind. Thanks for the report. :-) > The VW Beetle had a top speed of about 65mph, it took > some time to get > there, couldn't maintain 60mph into a medium head wind, > but with a > strong tail wind it could maintain 75-80mph. Ha! > They did MPG tests back then? What is the history of fuel economy becoming > important to car manufacturers? > > Elle > Who pumped gasoline as a summer job when it was 59 cents a gallon. In 1959 the Mobil Economy Run began running real-world gasoline mileage competitions with "stock" automobiles. Mobil had sponsored the Economy Run for years but hadn't used miles per gallon (MPG) to determine the winner. Some sort of Rambler won, IIRC. GM, Chrysler and Ford complained since they didn't have any dinky cars that could compete. The Economy Run then became a 2 tier event with Rambler, Studebakers and other little cars competing in one class and the "Big Three" in the other. Popular Mechanics and Popular Science covered this competition extensively and the winner got bragging rights. The drivers were automotive engineers with pocket protectors, slide rules and taped together glasses. Classic nerds. They'd put skinny overinflated tires on the cars, install final drive ratios in the 2.20 vicinity and drive like Grandma. Any result over 25 MPG was a big deal. I'll open Pandora's box with this one, but I remember paying 24.9 cents a gallon for regular gas in Cape Girardeau in, I think, the Spring of 1971. By 1974 things had changed dramatically. 59 cents was considered obscene in comparison by then. >> They did MPG tests back then? What is the history of fuel >> economy becoming important to car manufacturers? > In 1959 the Mobil Economy Run began running real-world > gasoline mileage [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > complained since they > didn't have any dinky cars that could compete. Ha, that would be so Ford. > The Economy Run then became a > 2 tier event with Rambler, Studebakers and other little [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > considered obscene in > comparison by then. Indeed. :-) > I have seen some automatics that were close in mileage, but I would like > for you to point out one that surpasses the manual. CVTs. > : Before you say you cant afford a hybrid, lets take a look at the web site, > : base Prius $21,100, base Corolla auto (apples to apples) $17,110, difference [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > make it sound. Corolla is available in cheaper versions, Prius is not. > A manual CE would not only cost less but also have better mpg. Also, the Prius isn't heavily discounted off of MSRP, while the Corolla is. There was brief period, after California gave out the maximum number of carpool lane stickers for hybrids, that Prius street prices fell a lot, but now with the higher gas prices they're back up. > Before you say you cant afford a hybrid, lets take a look at the web site, > base Prius $21,100, base Corolla auto (apples to apples) $17,110, difference [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > driving a MUCH cleaner car and doing your own little part to reduce the use > of fossil fuel. A good analysis, but real world consumption figures show the Prius lower than the EPA rating, much lower in cold winter weather. On the up side for the Prius here in Canada there are Gov. rebates for low consumption vehicles, which drop the price of the Prius significantly, the Camry hybrid quite a bit and even the Corolla slightly. >> Before you say you cant afford a hybrid, lets take a look at the web >> site, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > significantly, the Camry hybrid quite a bit and even the Corolla > slightly. My real world consumption figures for my Prius in NJ is a reliable 50+ MPG in the winter and 52-55 nowadays. Blocking the front grille slats in the winter keeping the engine warmer goes a long way. So my real world consumption figures for my Prius in NJ is higher than the EPA rating. Tomes > If I drive 12000 miles per year, Corolla (30 mpg) would need 400 > gallons of fuel. Prius (40mpg) about 300 gallons. Difference is 100 > gallons, let's say $500. The cabbies here tell me they get: -9 l/100 (26 mpUSg) with the Corolla and -6 l/100 (39 mpUSg) with the Prius. This is all urban driving. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message