 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Toyota / Prius / March 2005prius worth getting?
I just got a new job in Irvine and have a girlfriend in Pasadena. I moved to Anaheim so that I'm not too far from both. Since I will be doing a lot of commuting I thought a hybrid would be a good option. I checked both the insight and prius and the prius looks like the best option, especially for traffic. My question is, would it be worth getting a prius to save gas money?? It looks better than a insight since it doesn't run the gas engine all the time. I just don't want to waste my money buying a hybrid when I can just buy another car that burns less fuel (like a civic) for less money. Thanks for any suggestions, Aaron > My question is, would it be worth getting a prius to save gas money?? > It looks better than a insight since it doesn't run the gas engine > all the time. I just don't want to waste my money buying a hybrid > when I can just buy another car that burns less fuel (like a civic) > for less money. If you're going to buy a new car anyway, then it's worth buying. It will cost you more than a conventional car, but you'll get a $2000 tax exemption (not a tax credit, so the tax break is $2000 multiplied by your tax bracket). Eventually, you will save in gas expenditures the difference in prices--the better mileage the other car gets, the longer it will take to make up the difference, though. But the reason to get a Prius is not to save money; it is to cut down on emissions and to enjoy the high-tech features. :)  SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Vote for John Kerry. > But the reason to get a Prius is not to save money; it is to cut down on > emissions and to enjoy the high-tech features. :) _AND_ to save money. :-) > Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Vote for John Kerry Um, I think it's time to change sigs. :-( SignatureMike Rosenberg <http://www.macconsult.com> Macintosh consulting services for NE Florida <http://bogart-tribute.net> Tribute to Humphrey Bogart Toyota Prius fans: Check out alt.autos.toyota.prius > > Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Vote for John Kerry > > Um, I think it's time to change sigs. :-( OK. SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. > > > Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Vote for John Kerry > > > > Um, I think it's time to change sigs. :-( > > OK. And what a good influence you are. and have you visited the NG alt.impeach.bush yet? <g. Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. Let's not get back into the politics again. You Dem's like to think you lost the election by 120,000 votes in OH, when the reality is that Bush took 84% of the counties nationwide. Who's the deluded? Those of us who voted and campaigned for Bush, or those of you who threw John under a train that he had no chance of stopping? KK >> > > Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Vote for John Kerry >> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > <g. > Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. > Let's not get back into the politics again. You Dem's like to think you lost > the election by 120,000 votes in OH, when the reality is that Bush took 84% > of the counties nationwide. Who's the deluded? Those of us who voted and > campaigned for Bush, or those of you who threw John under a train that he > had no chance of stopping? There are better placed to argue. It doesn't matter if you are the 51% majority or 48% minority. You'll end up ignored if you pursue it here. Daniel > Let's not get back into the politics again. Then why did you? > You Dem's like to think you lost the election by 120,000 votes in OH, > when the reality is that Bush took 84% of the counties nationwide. The reality is that he took only 51% of the popular vote; that is one of the smallest margins ever. The number of counties means bupkis. (Yeah, and so does the popular vote because of the Electoral College. However, the popular vote shows that he doesn't have much of a mandate.) Yes, so the votes given to Bush in Ohio by Diebold is what gave Bush the election, just like the Florida vote theft four years earlier gave it to him then. SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. > > But the reason to get a Prius is not to save money; it is to cut down on > > emissions and to enjoy the high-tech features. :) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Um, I think it's time to change sigs. :-( I was thinking about buying a Prius but someone told me to lease one because new battery technology/features are coming out soon... anyone have any opinions on that? Thanks, Aaron > I was thinking about buying a Prius but someone told me to lease one > because new battery technology/features are coming out soon... anyone > have any opinions on that? The current Prius just started its 2nd model year, with major changes improvements in those areas. I doubt that there will be any major changes before the 2006 models. The bottom line is that if you don't need a new car now and don't have a strong want for one now, wait until you do. SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. I was told by a dealer recently that the $2000 tax exemption is no longer applicable. That may just be in CA. But what does "the Group" say? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Life is too short to post at the bottom! John (remove .remove to reply) DeGrazia >> My question is, would it be worth getting a prius to save gas money?? >> It looks better than a insight since it doesn't run the gas engine [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > But the reason to get a Prius is not to save money; it is to cut down on > emissions and to enjoy the high-tech features. :) > I was told by a dealer recently that the $2000 tax exemption is no > longer applicable. That may just be in CA. But what does "the Group" > say? It's a federal tax credit (not an exemption), and is applicable throughout the country. In 2006, it will be reduced to $500, and in 2007, it will be eliminated--unless the law is changed again, that is. Your dealer is just plain wrong. SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. >> I was told by a dealer recently that the $2000 tax exemption is no >> longer applicable. That may just be in CA. But what does "the Group" >> say? > > It's a federal tax credit (not an exemption), and is applicable > throughout the country. To be more accurate, it is a tax deduction - you don't get $2000 back, but you do get to deduct $2000 from your taxable income. Still very worthwhile. Mike > > It's a federal tax credit (not an exemption), and is applicable > > throughout the country. > > > To be more accurate, it is a tax deduction - you don't get $2000 > back, but you do get to deduct $2000 from your taxable income. Still > very worthwhile. Sorry, I got the terms wrong; I knew what it was, but used the wrong term. Actually, it's neither a credit, exemption, nor deduction; it's an adjustment. It is entered on line 35 of the (2003; the line number may change for the 2004) tax return. Credits: Money reducing the tax itself. Exemption: Money reducing income, based on the number of people in the family (who meet age and other criteria) and certain physical conditions of the filer or filers (e.g., age and eyesight). Deduction: Money reducing income, based on expenditures for certain activities (e.g., medical expenses, property tax, mortgage payments) meeting specific criteria--or a standard amount, depending on filing status (e.g., single, married, head of household)--whichever is greater. Adjustment: Money reducing income based upon expenditures for certain listed activities, in addition to any exemptions or deductions. The advantage of tax credits is that it reduces the tax dollar-for-dollar by the amount you can claim. All the rest reduce the tax by the percentage of your tax bracket. (E.g., a $100 deduction or adjustment results in a $25 tax savings for someone in the 25$ tax bracket.) The advantage of adjustments is that you do not have to itemize to claim it. If your itemized deductions come to less than the standard deduction, you have to take the standard deduction, but you can then reduce your claimed income even further with any adjustments you may be eligible for. SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. >>> I was told by a dealer recently that the $2000 tax exemption is no >>> longer applicable. That may just be in CA. But what does "the Group" [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Mike Right, Mike. Even if one takes the standard deduction instead of itemizing, they still benefit from the $2000.00 adjustment. > I was told by a dealer recently that the $2000 tax exemption is no longer > applicable. That may just be in CA. But what does "the Group" say? Your dealer is misinformed. Thanks to the newly signed "Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004," the Clean Fueled Vehicle deduction has been extended. The amount of the deduction for purchases in 2004 and 2005 are now the old amount of $2000, whereas prior to the act the amounts were $1500 and $1000 respectively. 2006 is still $500, with the sunset still in 2007. http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=130146,00.html http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=104549,00.html For information on how to file: http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/2005/prius/tax.html and see the IRS Publication 535 "Business Expenses," chapter 12, for the Clean Fueled Vehicle federal income tax DEDUCTION. Note that you can only take the deduction on NEW purchases (financing OK), but not on leased vehicles, or used vehicles. I have been told it is $1500 this year, it was $2000 last year. Ken >I was told by a dealer recently that the $2000 tax exemption is no longer >applicable. That may just be in CA. But what does "the Group" say? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> But the reason to get a Prius is not to save money; it is to cut down on >> emissions and to enjoy the high-tech features. :) > I have been told it is $1500 this year, it was $2000 last year. That's been changed by legislation passed last month. It was restored to $2000 this year (and next year). In 2006, it becomes $500, and after that it's eliminated--unless it's changed by legislation again. SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. > I just got a new job in Irvine and have a girlfriend in Pasadena. I > moved to Anaheim so that I'm not too far from both. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > can just buy another car that burns less fuel (like a civic) for less > money. If you want to minimize your direct expenses, buy a recent used Civic. If you want get a really neat car that reduces oil imports and minimizes pollution, and you don't mind waiting for it, get the Prius. I am seeing more and more Prius' in the parking lots of the local malls. If you do a lot of city driving, this rock solid reliable car should pay back within a year or two. >> I just got a new job in Irvine and have a girlfriend in Pasadena. I >> moved to Anaheim so that I'm not too far from both. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >If you want get a really neat car that reduces oil imports and minimizes >pollution, and you don't mind waiting for it, get the Prius. Prius is good for city driving, but don't sell it short! In the past few months, I have taken my 01 from Missouri to Easton, PA and home again, to Austin and back, and most recently to Atlanta, Mobile, Lake Charles, LA, and home again with flawless performance, significant velocity, and good comfort, while getting somewhere between 50 and 60 mpg. Lou >I am seeing more and more Prius' in the parking lots of the local > malls. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >>If you want get a really neat car that reduces oil imports and minimizes >>pollution, and you don't mind waiting for it, get the Prius. >I just got a new job in Irvine and have a girlfriend in Pasadena. I >moved to Anaheim so that I'm not too far from both. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Thanks for any suggestions, >Aaron A very good question. Because I was considering buying a Prius, I made some energy calculations to get an idea of how much gasoline is "recovered" through the "regenerative" braking. The energy recovered from braking the car and subsequently storing it in the battery is some fraction -- less than 1 -- of the kinetic energy of the car. For purposes of calculation I assumed 100% would be recovered. The kinetic energy depends on the mass and speed of the car and is calculated from the familiar equation KE = 1/2 * m(v^2). I used 2890 lbs for the weight of the car as given in the Prius brochure (mass = 2890/32.2 = 89.75 slugs). The results at several speeds are given below: 20 mph - 50 Btu 30 mph - 112 Btu 40 mph - 199 Btu 50 mph - 311 Btu 60 mph - 448 Btu For illustration, let's assume that if the Prius went 45 miles with no stops it would get 45 miles per gallon. To estimate the effect of recovery by regenerative braking, assume another trip of 45 miles with stops every mile from 30 mph. That's a total of 45 stops which would recover 5,040 Btu. Gasoline has a heat of combustion of approximately 115,000 Btu per gallon, thus the 5,040 recovered Btu are equivalent to 5040/115,000 = 0.0438 gallon (5.6 ounces). We can subtract that from the gallon burned to get (1-0.0438)=0.9562 net gallon consumed to cover the 45 miles with 45 stops. The mileage with 100% regenerative recovery would be 45/0.9562 = 47 mpg, or about 4.5% better. The recovery cannot be 100% because the hydraulic brakes come into play, there are losses in generating, transmitting and storing the recovered energy in the battery, and further losses in extracting the energy from the battery and utilizing it to power the car. I have no idea what the overall recovery factor should be, but a 50% value would reduce the mileage value to 46 mpg, which is about a 2.2% improvement over no regenerative braking. Can't estimate how much gas is saved by stopping the engine at traffic signals. etc, because I don't know the rate of fuel consumption of the engine at idle. However, the Prius brochure lists miles per gallon at 51 hwy and 60 city, and one newsgroup poster (Jeffry Johnson) reported 44 hwy and 52 city. Both sets of data provide a crude estimate of overall mpg improvement of about 18%. Assuming the city mileage improvement is due to braking + engine stopping (because there is neither on the highway) and using 3% as the braking effect gives a 15% improvement attributable to engine stopping (any drag effects neglected). I pondered these results for awhile and it became apparent that the advantages of the hybrid technology are not so much from regenerative braking but rather from two factors: 1) stopping the engine at vehicle stops, and 2) employing a small gasoline engine with an electric motor for power boosts when needed. Ultimately, the gas engine has to replace the energy expended in those boosts since gasoline is the sole source of energy in the vehicle. I know this is a bit long and that it does not answer the many questions that can be raised, but it helped clarify my thinking and maybe it will help some others. Personally, I'm going to hold off on buying a hybrid for a while. Maybe a long while. Economic analysis on the cost difference of the hybrid versus the non-hybrid when compared to gasoline savings using current prices just doesn't justify purchasing the hybrid. Come to think of it, one can almost never justify purchasing any new car on an economic basis :-) Rod Here is a good technical description of the Prius Hybrid System. http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/tech/environment/ths2/in-house.html GAN >>I just got a new job in Irvine and have a girlfriend in Pasadena. I >>moved to Anaheim so that I'm not too far from both. [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > >Rod >Here is a good technical description of the Prius Hybrid System. >http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/tech/environment/ths2/in-house.html > >GAN >snip Thanks GAN for the excellent reference. Recommended reading for anyone contemplating buying a hybrid auto. Rod > >I just got a new job in Irvine and have a girlfriend in Pasadena. I > >moved to Anaheim so that I'm not too far from both. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > I used 2890 lbs for the weight of the car as given in the Prius > brochure (mass = 2890/32.2 = 89.75 slugs). That's a wasted step, just changing to a different unit of mass, and one which is of no utility whatsoever in getting to the units of energy you use below, British thermal units, which are not in the subsystem of units which includes slugs. Of course, miles are also not part of the system which includes slugs, nor are hours, so you've also had to do a conversion of your speed numbers to use slugs with any meaningful results. Another wasted step. Then you've had to convert the resultant ft·lbf to Btu. Better just to use the pounds in the KE formula, and mi/h for speed, then use a conversion factor from lb mi^2/h^2 to Btu--and you can factor in the constant 1/2 factor as well. You can figure that out once and reuse it, rather than having to waste time in so many intermediate calculations. But what is this, a drone, a driverless car? Don't you need to add in the mass of the driver? What is that listed mass for, a vehicle with an empty tank? Or one 1/4 full only? Let's just throw in a little more for driver and fuel (say you drive it from full down to a quarter tank, so use an average value of 5/8 of a tank of fuel would seem reasonable), and call the total mass 3100 pounds. Better yet, just use the mass in kilograms and energy in joules, and energy density of gasoline in joules per liter. The calculations are simpler yet. >The results at several > speeds are given below: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > stops. The mileage with 100% regenerative recovery would be 45/0.9562 > = 47 mpg, or about 4.5% better. You also have 44 more accelerations from 0 to cruising speed, each requiring additional expenditure of energy over what would be used just in normal maintining of speed in the face of friction losses and those due to terrain, going up and down. Gene Nygaard > The recovery cannot be 100% because the hydraulic brakes come into > play, there are losses in generating, transmitting and storing the [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Rod Thanks for the response, Gene. Interesting post. My comments below. >> The energy recovered from braking the car and subsequently storing it >> in the battery is some fraction -- less than 1 -- of the kinetic [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >energy you use below, British thermal units, which are not in the >subsystem of units which includes slugs. Weight and the slug are not different units of mass. The units of weight are force units, not mass. The slug is a mass unit as are kilograms. As to the units of energy, I can use any I prefer. If you like Joules or kwh or ft-lbs(f), use them. > Of course, miles are also >not part of the system which includes slugs, nor are hours, so you've >also had to do a conversion of your speed numbers to use slugs with >any meaningful results. Another wasted step. Then you've had to >convert the resultant ft·lbf to Btu. No big deal. Did the numbers on a spreadsheet. Retired my slide rule decades ago. >Better just to use the pounds in >the KE formula, and mi/h for speed, then use a conversion factor from >lb mi^2/h^2 to Btu--and you can factor in the constant 1/2 factor as >well. If you plug weight (pounds force) into the KE equation I gave you're going to get the wrong answer. >But what is this, a drone, a driverless car? Don't you need to add in >the mass of the driver? What is that listed mass for, a vehicle with >an empty tank? Or one 1/4 full only? Let's just throw in a little >more for driver and fuel (say you drive it from full down to a quarter >tank, so use an average value of 5/8 of a tank of fuel would seem >reasonable), and call the total mass 3100 pounds. Of course it's a drone. I was just making a rough estimate to satisfy my curiosity, ball park as some would say. Make any assumptions you prefer. A weight of 3100 lbs would increase the kinetic energy by 7% over my figure. >Better yet, just use the mass in kilograms and energy in joules, and >energy density of gasoline in joules per liter. The calculations are >simpler yet. That's true indeed. Matter of fact, I did do it that way just for kicks as well as the way I posted. I was raised in the English system or something like it, so I still use it. Old habits are hard to break. I even measure lengths in feet and inches. Going to get a metric tape measure some day. Would make life simpler. <snip> >You also have 44 more accelerations from 0 to cruising speed, each >requiring additional expenditure of energy over what would be used >just in normal maintining of speed in the face of friction losses and >those due to terrain, going up and down. Not relevant. All I needed was the kinetic energy stored in the moving vehicle. I did tacitly assume level terrain. Should have stated that. By the way, since this is the Prius newsgroup, do you have any comments or opinions about the car? Rod > Thanks for the response, Gene. Interesting post. My comments below. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Weight and the slug are not different units of mass. No, "weight" is not a unit of anything. Pounds are units of mass. Slugs are units of mass. >The units of > weight are force units, not mass. You are one confused fool, failing to understand the simple fact that "weight" is an ambiguous word, one with several different meanings. The word "weight" entered Old English over 1000 years ago, meaning the quantity measured with a balance. That quantity is mass, not force. It was used as a measure of how much stuff people had, for the purpose of trade. We still use the very same word today, with the very same meaning, for the very same purposes. Weight is never a force when anybody talks about "net weight" of anything, nor about "tare weight" of its container. Naturally, when products in American supermarkets and auto parts stores and whatever include pounds and ounces for this weight, they are every bit as much units of mass as the grams and kilograms which appear right alongside them on the same label. In fact, we no longer have independent standards for those pounds; since a 1959 international agreement, the common, worldwide definition of these pounds is as units of mass exactly equal to 0.45359237 kg. Weight is never a force when anybody talks about "troy weight" of anything. That's one way the troy units differ not only from their avoirdupois cousins, but from grams and kilograms as well--they have never spawned units of force of the same name. There is no troy ounce force, never has been. Weight is never a force when anybody talks about "carat weight" of anything (5 carats = 1 gram in the modern definition). >The slug is a mass unit as are > kilograms. http://de.toyota.ch/showroom/Prius/specs.asp?body=S http://www.toyota-europe.com/showroom/Prius/specs.asp?body=S Fuel tank capacity (l) 45 . . . Load Capacity Kerb weight (kg) 1300 Gross vehicle weight (kg) 1725 http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3012/is_12_179/ai_58398900 Toyota Prius Curb weight is 2,733 pounds--about 250 pounds heavier than a Corolla, and 330 pounds more then a Ford Focus sedan. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3165/is_11_39/ai_110225713 Curb weight: 2,890 lbs. (1,311 kg) [Note that this is the number you used, Rod--GN] http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/spec_Exterior.aspx?modelid=11047&trimid=-1&src=VIP Curb Weight - Automatic (lb.) 2890 <end of quotes> Now, Rod, it is your turn. Like you said, those kilograms are units of mass. Now, why in the hell don't you just explain to us all exactly what is done differently when this "curb weight" is measured in pounds, from what is done when it is measured in kilograms. While you are at it, tell us why in the world the manufacturers would measure two different quantities for this purpose in the first place? Or just wake up and smell the coffee. Let's add another to my list above: weight is never a force when anybody talks about "curb weight" or "kerb weight." It doesn't make any difference how they spell it. It doesn't make any difference whatsoever what units they use to express it. Nobody in the whole wide world ever measures curb weight in newtons, and nobody in the whole wide world ever measures curb weight in pounds force. >As to the units of energy, I can use any I prefer. You can. But the only units of energy in the only subsystem which includes slugs are foot-pounds force. >If you > like Joules or kwh or ft-lbs(f), use them. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > If you plug weight (pounds force) into the KE equation I gave you're > going to get the wrong answer. You don't have pounds force. You have pounds mass. If you use pounds mass and feet per second in your kinetic energy formula, the result is in foot poundals. It is just as easy to convert foot poundals to Btu, as your calculations converting foot pounds force to Btu were. If the curb weight is indeed 1311 kg, as listed in one of the sites above, at exactly what areas on the surface of the earth would that much mass exert a force of 2890 pounds force, measured to the nearest pound force? Note that even if you limit yourself to sea level on the surface of the earth, a mass of 1311 +/0.5 kg will exert a force of from 2881.4 lbf to 2898.9 lbf (throw in elevation, including Mt. Chimborazo, the highest mountain on earth in both ways relevant to this discussion, and the variation on the surface of the earth is even greater). But 1311 kg is 2890 lb anywhere on earth, or anywhere else. If curb weight were in pounds force, as you erroneously believed, you'd never have more than 2 significant digits, if all you know about location is that it is somewhere on earth. > >But what is this, a drone, a driverless car? Don't you need to add in > >the mass of the driver? What is that listed mass for, a vehicle with [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Not relevant. All I needed was the kinetic energy stored in the moving > vehicle. I did tacitly assume level terrain. Should have stated that. It is indeed relevant to figuring any change in the fuel efficiency overall. > By the way, since this is the Prius newsgroup, do you have any > comments or opinions about the car? > > Rod I'm intrigued by the idea, but I've never even seen a Prius. Gene Nygaard Arrogant Prick<gnygaard@nccray.com> wrote in message news:df336888.0411171831.6a4b1b11@posting.google.com... > You are one confused fool... and nothing else deserved consideration. >Arrogant Prick<gnygaard@nccray.com> wrote in message >news:df336888.0411171831.6a4b1b11@posting.google.com... >> You are one confused fool... >and nothing else deserved consideration. Thanks Bill. You are right. He has no interest in the Prius, just wants to show off his knowledge of an arcane subject. How do you suppose he landed on the Prius newsgroup? Do you suppose he Googles newsgroups looking for people who abuse units? Chief of the Units Police maybe? Anyway, I just put him in the kill-filter box and closed the lid. Rod, the happily confused fool. >>Arrogant Prick<gnygaard@nccray.com> wrote in message >>news:df336888.0411171831.6a4b1b11@posting.google.com... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Rod, the happily confused fool. I didn't read beyond the insult (never do) but having spent a lifetime in engineering, the topic boors me to distraction anyway. I ordered a Prius on June 25th and was 9th on the waiting list. I'm now 3rd on that list and will be 2nd by the end of the month. Mine will be black with the 2005 level 6 package. Is it worth it? From the standpoint of putting my money where my mouth is, yes. It is my environmental statement. > I know this is a bit long and that it does not answer the many > questions that can be raised, but it helped clarify my thinking and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > justify purchasing the hybrid. Come to think of it, one can almost > never justify purchasing any new car on an economic basis :-) True. I bought the Prius primarily because it saves gas, thus extending the petroleum supply, and (more importantly) it reduces emissions, thus contributing less to air pollution than a conventional car. By themselves, that wouldn't have been enough for me to buy one when I did (my former car was in great shape and was paid off, so I would have waited until I needed to replace it), but the additional gee gaws in package 9 (which is the same as package 6 in the 2005 model) tipped the scales. SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. >In article <nv6kp0p4smo4oe7t472jcrntvak8p1vrhf@4ax.com>, >snip [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >package 9 (which is the same as package 6 in the 2005 model) tipped the >scales. Thanks for the response, Michelle. Your motivations are partly what sparked my interest in the hybrids too, along with a concern not so much for the price of fuel in the future, but its availability. In the early 1970's I was in my lower 40's with a wife and children, working for a major oil company in Texas in oil production research. I remember the oil embargo well, and I know how oil reserves are calculated. Done that. Don't put too much faith in those numbers. The input data are (is for you moderns) too uncertain. And as we know now, the numbers are sometimes deliberately falsified. I know what you mean by the "additional gee gaws". Geez, they grabbed me too, and I came close to buying a Prius because of its cutting edge engineering. However, I'm retired and don't drive much anymore, and it won't be long before I'll be going to my Great Reward. I wouldn't get much use out of any new car. I keep cars a long time, too. Drove a '63 volkswagon for 23 years. I drive a 10-year old Grand Caravan and my wife drives a 20-year old Toyota Cressida. They'll make a few more years. I did the rough calculations primarily from a curiosity about the kinetic energy recovery. It's a lot smaller than I expected. Rod > I know what you mean by the "additional gee gaws". Geez, they grabbed > me too, and I came close to buying a Prius because of its cutting > edge engineering. However, I'm retired and don't drive much anymore, > and it won't be long before I'll be going to my Great Reward. I > wouldn't get much use out of any new car. I'm retired too, but about a decade younger than you apparently are. I still put quite a bit mileage on the car, though; nothing other than one supermarket is close around here. Still, why not enjoy retirement by getting the "stuff" we like, even if our remaining years are few? My daughter and my SO are quite accepting of my plan to leave just enough in my estate to cover funeral costs. SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. No Way! For some reason I thought you were a young, sexy, environmentalist. no-bra-wearin' hotty. That happened to monitor a NG about her car of choice. I guess first impressions can be deceiving! Just kidding of course. But I still wanted to flirt! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Life is too short to post at the bottom! John (remove .remove to reply) DeGrazia > I'm retired too, but about a decade younger than you apparently are. I > still put quite a bit mileage on the car, though; nothing other than one [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > our remaining years are few? My daughter and my SO are quite accepting > of my plan to leave just enough in my estate to cover funeral costs. > For some reason I thought you were a young, sexy, environmentalist. > no-bra-wearin' hotty. Well, except for the young part, you pretty much got it right. We'll be celebrating my 62nd birthday at the local Rocky Horror Picture Show in a few weeks. > That happened to monitor a NG about her car of choice. That too. > I guess first impressions can be deceiving! Well, you did get 4 out of 5, big boy. > Just kidding of course. But I still wanted to flirt! Nothing wrong with that. ;) SignatureStop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush. But have you put the back seats down and done it in your Prius yet??? :) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Life is too short to post at the bottom! John (remove .remove to reply) DeGrazia >> For some reason I thought you were a young, sexy, environmentalist. >> no-bra-wearin' hotty. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Nothing wrong with that. ;) > For some reason I thought you were a young, sexy, environmentalist. > no-bra-wearin' hotty. That happened to monitor a NG about her car of > choice. I guess first impressions can be deceiving! I've met Michelle in real life. She's an older sexy, environmentalist... SignatureMike Rosenberg <http://www.macconsult.com> Macintosh consulting services for NE Florida <http://bogart-tribute.net> Tribute to Humphrey Bogart Toyota Prius fans: Check out alt.autos.toyota.prius > >My question is, would it be worth getting a prius to save gas money?? To save gas money, no. To save on air pollution and foreign oil dependence, yes. If you want to minimize your direct expenses buy a used Honda. >> >My question is, would it be worth getting a prius to save gas money?? > >To save gas money, no. To save on air pollution and foreign oil >dependence, yes. If you want to minimize your direct expenses buy a >used Honda. Thanks for the response Richard. By the way, I didn't write the question above; I wrote a respone to it, but I agree with your answer. Well said! That's the story in a nutshell. Rod > > >My question is, would it be worth getting a prius to save gas money?? > > To save gas money, no. To save on air pollution and foreign oil > dependence, yes. If you want to minimize your direct expenses buy a > used Honda. If all you want to do is save money, walk/bike. You're already feeding yourself anyways. Otherwise, how about a nice used Honda Insight, Honda Civic Hybrid, or Toyota Prius? clean, good gas mileage, and since they're used they're less expensive. Or get an old diesel, convert it to 100% biodiesel/veggie oil, not so clean but no more money going for petro-fuels. I have owned an Insight for four years. I also just picked up my Prius. The Insight is a great car and you won't be able to beat the great mileage it gets. Love the Prius for all of its other great features, but it won't touch the Insight's mileaage. Also, I was T-boned a few months ago, a woman with dialated eyes ran a stop sign. Nailed the Insight's passenger door. The officer was amazed at how well it took the damage. Repair costs were amazingly low, under $3,000. - Robert >I just got a new job in Irvine and have a girlfriend in Pasadena. I > moved to Anaheim so that I'm not too far from both. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Thanks for any suggestions, > Aaron Well, after reading these posts and many articles I decided to get a Prius, and I love it! The Prius had more room and features than the Insight, and according to the EPA, better gas mileage (for automatics) - and that's the whole reason for me getting a hybrid. I've driven almost 400 miles already and it only cost me $13. A lot better than my $30+ a tank before. For the person who wrote "ride a bike" probably doesn't live in CA or commutes to work. Thanks for everyone's feedback. > I just got a new job in Irvine and have a girlfriend in Pasadena. I > moved to Anaheim so that I'm not too far from both. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Thanks for any suggestions, > Aaron Congrats, Aaron! We now have 7000 miles on our '04 (purchased mid-July) and we cannot imagine having a nicer or more economical vehicle. Although we're not getting the 60 mpg that we've heard about, we don't baby it either and drive 80 on most Interstate highways and 60+ on the state highways and county farm-to-market roads. We live in Iowa so it will be interesting to see how the Prius handles the cold weather but we expect no problems whatsoever. Our fuel savings have been significant and it handles and rides like a dream. We truly believe that this is the best auto we've ever owned and we've owned some nice Caddies, Oldsmobiles, Chryslers, etc., in the past. Good luck with your new Prius and I hope you enjoy yours as much as we are enjoying ours! Larry Morphew '04 Toyota Prius '55 Studebaker Commander --------------------------- > Well, after reading these posts and many articles I decided to get a > Prius, and I love it! The Prius had more room and features than the <snip> don't want to waste my money buying a hybrid when I > > can just buy another car that burns less fuel (like a civic) for less > > money. > > > > Thanks for any suggestions, > > Aaron |
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.