Elmo P. Shagnasty

In article <NEgZm.57280$ZF3.16311@newsfe13.iad>, Leftie <No@Thanks.net>
wrote:

> Keep in mind too that
> the Prius isn't really a midsize car: it qualifies as one because they
> managed to stretch the interior space out just enough to earn the
> designation.

So, keep in mind that the Prius isn't really a midsize car; it qualifies
as one only because it fits the size criteria for a midsize car???

What are you smoking? It fits the criteria for a midsize car, therefore
it's a midsize car.

What you're saying is that YOU disagree on the criteria for midsize
cars. What YOU think is midsize is way different than how the
manufacturers and governing bodies define midsize.

rick++

Economically, generally no.
I compute the number of years it would take to
pay off the difference between hybrid and
non-bybrid economy car. With my habits
I'd save 150 gallons a year. Thats a payoff
of $400 to $600 per year or 6-10 years
for the price difference.

The Prius III in two years is supposed have better
economics.

Elmo P. Shagnasty

In article <isqZm.84450$Wd1.8248@newsfe15.iad>, Leftie <No@Thanks.net>
wrote:

> > What you're saying is that YOU disagree on the criteria for midsize
> > cars. What YOU think is midsize is way different than how the
> > manufacturers and governing bodies define midsize.
>
>
> No, I'm saying that it's lighter than a typical midsize car.

Weight is not a criterion for the definition, therefore you can't say
"it doesn't fit the defintion".


> Did you
> know that the defining criterion is interior room and nothing else? It
> just squeaks in with enough interior space to be defined as "midsize."

So what if it "just squeaks in"? There have to be limits; either it
fits within those limits, or it doesn't.

You appear to be saying that "yeah, well, it's at the lower end of those
size limits, plus it doesn't weigh as much as what a traditional midsize
car always has, therefore it's not really midsize".

In other words, you disagree with the criteria that define "midsize".

Leftie

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <SGgZm.57281$ZF3.48390@newsfe13.iad>, Leftie <No@Thanks.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Ok, I have a '95 Civic EX sedan that isn't as roomy as a Prius, but
>> gets 55mpg on the highway.
>
> US miles per US gallon?
>
> I had a 92 Civic that got 35mpg on the highway; several years into
> owning that, I discovered that the speedeometer was wrong, and as a
> result the odometer was wrong.


Yes, US MPG, and the speedometer is within 1.5MPH.

Leftie

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <NEgZm.57280$ZF3.16311@newsfe13.iad>, Leftie <No@Thanks.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Keep in mind too that
>> the Prius isn't really a midsize car: it qualifies as one because they
>> managed to stretch the interior space out just enough to earn the
>> designation.
>
> So, keep in mind that the Prius isn't really a midsize car; it qualifies
> as one only because it fits the size criteria for a midsize car???
>
> What are you smoking? It fits the criteria for a midsize car, therefore
> it's a midsize car.
>
> What you're saying is that YOU disagree on the criteria for midsize
> cars. What YOU think is midsize is way different than how the
> manufacturers and governing bodies define midsize.


No, I'm saying that it's lighter than a typical midsize car. Did you
know that the defining criterion is interior room and nothing else? It
just squeaks in with enough interior space to be defined as "midsize."
IIRC, the old Volvo 240, with its larger size but smaller interior, was
a "compact."

jim beam

On 12/25/2009 09:53 PM, Leftie wrote:
> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>> In article <dw4Zm.2757$pA1.482@newsfe17.iad>, Leftie <No@Thanks.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> There's more to the Prius than just managing kinetic energy. No car
>>>> of similar size and feature set is capable of getting over 50mpg on
>>>> the highway, or anywhere near 50mpg.
>>>
>>> No, but there are cars of similar size that will get 40mpg highway
>>> and are substantially cheaper (like a Jetta diesel), so there is no
>>> payback of the difference.
>>
>> Have you ever owned a VW?
>>
>> 'Nuff said. They're absolute pieces of junk. I wouldn't drive one if
>> you gave it to me and paid for all gas, maintenance, insurance, and
>> repairs.
>
>
> Ok, I have a '95 Civic EX sedan that isn't as roomy as a Prius, but gets
> 55mpg on the highway.

i call bullshit. i keep fuel records of all my cars, and the best
you'll get out of the ex is maybe 45, on a good day, flat road,
following wind, skinny tires, 55mph. the hx can do that, if it's been
well maintained, but not the ex.


> It isn't rocket science:

actually, it is.

> cars got better fuel
> economy in the '80's,

yes, and economy has declined since then.


> before they started to make them larger and faster
> than necessary.

no, heavier. remember your 95 ex? you check the weight of that and
compare it to earlier generations.


> The Prius is in some ways just a return to '80's design
> philosophy: efficiency and quality over acceleration.

more bullshit - you evidently haven't driven a prius.

Elmo P. Shagnasty

In article <VsidnfLbwa3RzqvWnZ2dnUVZ_vFi4p2d@speakeasy.net> ,
jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:

> > Ok, I have a '95 Civic EX sedan that isn't as roomy as a Prius, but gets
> > 55mpg on the highway.
>
> i call bullshit.

yeah, me too.

On the internet, no one knows you're a dog.

My '92 Civic couldn't get 55mpg going downhill with a tailwind unless
the engine was off.

jim beam

On 12/26/2009 04:22 PM, Leftie wrote:
> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>> In article <VsidnfLbwa3RzqvWnZ2dnUVZ_vFi4p2d@speakeasy.net> ,
>> jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Ok, I have a '95 Civic EX sedan that isn't as roomy as a Prius, but
>>>> gets
>>>> 55mpg on the highway.
>>> i call bullshit.
>>
>> yeah, me too.
>>
>> On the internet, no one knows you're a dog.
>>
>> My '92 Civic couldn't get 55mpg going downhill with a tailwind unless
>> the engine was off.
>
>
> Then believe I get 35mpg in the city if you like, because I average
> 36-45mpg per tankful. Usually it's 37 in Winter and 41 in Summer.
> Personally I think it's much more likely I get 55mpg highway, with a 1.6
> liter engine spinning at about 2200 RPM. Your reality may vary.

you're still bullshitting dude. or you've made serial accidental typos.
or you can't do math.

take at least 10mpg off those numbers and you'll be closer to the truth.

oh, and check your gear ratios for your 55mph speed - you're not pulling
2200rpm.

Elmo P. Shagnasty

In article <WLadnaN235RrAavWnZ2dnUVZ_rVi4p2d@speakeasy.net> ,
jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:

> > Then believe I get 35mpg in the city if you like, because I average
> > 36-45mpg per tankful. Usually it's 37 in Winter and 41 in Summer.
> > Personally I think it's much more likely I get 55mpg highway, with a 1.6
> > liter engine spinning at about 2200 RPM. Your reality may vary.
>
> you're still bullshitting dude. or you've made serial accidental typos.
> or you can't do math.
>
> take at least 10mpg off those numbers and you'll be closer to the truth.
>
> oh, and check your gear ratios for your 55mph speed - you're not pulling
> 2200rpm.

he's GOT to understand he's talking to people who DRIVE these cars, and
know what they do.

2200rpm in fifth on my 92 Si (same engine/trans as EX) was nowhere near
highway speeds. In fifth gear I was (this is from memory) at least
3000rpm, maybe 3300rpm, on the highway--minimum.

I got 35 on the highway without much trouble, but that was about it. I
think one time, trying, I got to 41--in good weather, no AC, no hills,
taking it very easy.

55? Not on your life.

Leftie

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <isqZm.84450$Wd1.8248@newsfe15.iad>, Leftie <No@Thanks.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> What you're saying is that YOU disagree on the criteria for midsize
>>> cars. What YOU think is midsize is way different than how the
>>> manufacturers and governing bodies define midsize.
>>
>> No, I'm saying that it's lighter than a typical midsize car.
>
> Weight is not a criterion for the definition, therefore you can't say
> "it doesn't fit the defintion".
>
>
>> Did you
>> know that the defining criterion is interior room and nothing else? It
>> just squeaks in with enough interior space to be defined as "midsize."
>
> So what if it "just squeaks in"? There have to be limits; either it
> fits within those limits, or it doesn't.
>
> You appear to be saying that "yeah, well, it's at the lower end of those
> size limits, plus it doesn't weigh as much as what a traditional midsize
> car always has, therefore it's not really midsize".
>
> In other words, you disagree with the criteria that define "midsize".


In other words, I think that *most people* would disagree with the
definition, so their perceptions of what is and isn't a "midsize" car
matter. My whole point is that the Prius isn't a fantastically efficient
middle-sized car; it's a very efficient compact car with lots of
interior space.

Leftie

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <VsidnfLbwa3RzqvWnZ2dnUVZ_vFi4p2d@speakeasy.net> ,
> jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>> Ok, I have a '95 Civic EX sedan that isn't as roomy as a Prius, but gets
>>> 55mpg on the highway.
>> i call bullshit.
>
> yeah, me too.
>
> On the internet, no one knows you're a dog.
>
> My '92 Civic couldn't get 55mpg going downhill with a tailwind unless
> the engine was off.


Then believe I get 35mpg in the city if you like, because I average
36-45mpg per tankful. Usually it's 37 in Winter and 41 in Summer.
Personally I think it's much more likely I get 55mpg highway, with a 1.6
liter engine spinning at about 2200 RPM. Your reality may vary.

Grumpy AuContraire

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <SGgZm.57281$ZF3.48390@newsfe13.iad>, Leftie <No@Thanks.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Ok, I have a '95 Civic EX sedan that isn't as roomy as a Prius, but
>> gets 55mpg on the highway.
>
> US miles per US gallon?
>
> I had a 92 Civic that got 35mpg on the highway; several years into
> owning that, I discovered that the speedeometer was wrong, and as a
> result the odometer was wrong.



Yes, US miles per gallon.

Difference between my Gen II and a '92 (Gen IV) is weight and horsepower.

JT

Leftie

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <WLadnaN235RrAavWnZ2dnUVZ_rVi4p2d@speakeasy.net> ,
> jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>> Then believe I get 35mpg in the city if you like, because I average
>>> 36-45mpg per tankful. Usually it's 37 in Winter and 41 in Summer.
>>> Personally I think it's much more likely I get 55mpg highway, with a 1.6
>>> liter engine spinning at about 2200 RPM. Your reality may vary.
>> you're still bullshitting dude. or you've made serial accidental typos.
>> or you can't do math.
>>
>> take at least 10mpg off those numbers and you'll be closer to the truth.
>>
>> oh, and check your gear ratios for your 55mph speed - you're not pulling
>> 2200rpm.
>
> he's GOT to understand he's talking to people who DRIVE these cars, and
> know what they do.
>
> 2200rpm in fifth on my 92 Si (same engine/trans as EX) was nowhere near
> highway speeds. In fifth gear I was (this is from memory) at least
> 3000rpm, maybe 3300rpm, on the highway--minimum.
>
> I got 35 on the highway without much trouble, but that was about it. I
> think one time, trying, I got to 41--in good weather, no AC, no hills,
> taking it very easy.
>
> 55? Not on your life.


Man, you guys give shade tree mechanics a bad name. First, the Si
and EX sedan for '95 aren't very bloody likely to have the exact same
drivetrain: my Ca.-spec car can barely get out of its own way in third,
and it *does* turn at 2200 RPM at 55mph in 5th. In fact, both 5th *and*
4th gears are overdrives. It's rated at about 126HP, IIRC, and that's
only if you rev it near the redline. The Si has to be putting out more
power, and certainly has lower gearing as well, or it too is a slow car.
Second, reports of 37mpg per tankful with this generation Civic are very
common, including the ones with automatics. You boys just don't know how
to drive for economy. Your brains are concentrated in one foot.

Elmo P. Shagnasty

In article <FRFZm.4788$5i2.236@newsfe14.iad>, Leftie <No@Thanks.net>
wrote:

> First, the Si
> and EX sedan for '95 aren't very bloody likely to have the exact same
> drivetrain:

Yes, they did.

"Not likely to" means you don't know--but don't come in here and try to
tell us that what you don't know must or must not be factual.

Joe

On 2009-12-27, Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
> In article <FRFZm.4788$5i2.236@newsfe14.iad>, Leftie <No@Thanks.net>
> wrote:
>
>> First, the Si
>> and EX sedan for '95 aren't very bloody likely to have the exact same
>> drivetrain:
>
> Yes, they did.
>
> "Not likely to" means you don't know--but don't come in here and try to
> tell us that what you don't know must or must not be factual.

From motortrend.com:

95 Civic Si:
1,590 cc 1.6 liters 4 in-line front transverse engine with 75 mm bore,
90 mm stroke, 9.2 compression ratio, overhead cam and four valves per
cylinder
Power: 93 kW , 125 HP @ 6,600 rpm; 106 ft lb @ 5,200 rpm

95 Civic EX Sedan:
1,590 cc 1.6 liters 4 in-line front transverse engine with 75 mm bore,
90 mm stroke, 9.2 compression ratio, overhead cam and four valves per
cylinder
Power: SAE and 93 kW , 125 HP @ 6,600 rpm; 106 ft lb , 144 Nm @ 5,200
rpm

Looks pretty close to me...


--
Joe - 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