On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:26:15 -0800, jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>On 12/27/2009 07:00 PM, Leftie wrote:
>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>> In article <gXRZm.5031$5i2.4117@newsfe14.iad>, Leftie <No@Thanks.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I do get 37-41mpg per tank of midgrade (along with lost of other
>>>> people),
>>>
>>> What happened to your story about 55mpg?
>>>
>>> Suddenly the story changes. Interesting.
>>
>>
>> No, idiot, I claimed 55mpg *highway* and I still do. I drive in the city
>> about 1/3 of the time. Do the math.
>
>
>we have done the math. and it shows you to be a bullshitter.

OK...


If you are getting 39 mpg and burn 3 gallons you should have gone 117
miles. 2/3 of those miles on the highway is 78 miles at 55mpg burning
1.41 gal. In the city you traveled 39 miles burning 1.59 gal giving
you 24.5 mpg in the city. Is that what you meant?

 

On 12/30/2009 08:35 PM, Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:26:15 -0800, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On 12/27/2009 07:00 PM, Leftie wrote:
>>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>>> In article<gXRZm.5031$5i2.4117@newsfe14.iad>, Leftie<No@Thanks.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I do get 37-41mpg per tank of midgrade (along with lost of other
>>>>> people),
>>>>
>>>> What happened to your story about 55mpg?
>>>>
>>>> Suddenly the story changes. Interesting.
>>>
>>>
>>> No, idiot, I claimed 55mpg *highway* and I still do. I drive in the city
>>> about 1/3 of the time. Do the math.
>>
>>
>> we have done the math. and it shows you to be a bullshitter.
>
> OK...
>
>
> If you are getting 39 mpg and burn 3 gallons you should have gone 117
> miles. 2/3 of those miles on the highway is 78 miles at 55mpg burning
> 1.41 gal. In the city you traveled 39 miles burning 1.59 gal giving
> you 24.5 mpg in the city. Is that what you meant?
>

why are you asking me? didn't you like elmo's answer?

 

Thus spake Tegger <invalid@invalid.inv> :

>News <News@Group.Name> wrote in news:vdCdnfDvQK6_
>467WnZ2dnUVZ_qBi4p2d@speakeasy.net:
>
>> dgk wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 17:10:49 +0800, Patrina <moonr@tm.net.my> wrote:
>>>
>>>> is hybrid better than normal car?
>>>
>>> Yes. What is the criteria that would make it better?
>>
>>
>> What's normal?
>>
>
>
>The opposite of abnormal, of course. And abnormal is the opposite of
>normal.

According to my psych prof many, many years ago, normal is 51%
(although I think "the experts" say 65%)

For me, normal would be a Veyron. But I'm abnormal.
--

- dillon I am not invalid

I love my country, It's my government I fear.

Hey, turnabout's fair play.

 

Thus spake "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> :

>In article <Xns9CEB6E05C5AF1tegger@208.90.168.18>,
> Tegger <invalid@invalid.inv> wrote:
>
>> Forbes Magazine's Jerry
>> Flint has calculated in the current issue that a Prius will take 12 years
>> to break-even compared to a Corolla.
>
>...unless you need some feature of the Prius that's not in the
>Corolla...like the extra room...in which case, buying the Corolla is a
>$15K waste of money.

Not the same manufactorer, but my Fit has a butt load more room than
the Prius (how many 8ft 2x4s can a Prius haul?) On the highway? 35
to 38 at 75 mph.

If a) you keep the Prius less than 10 years and b) the price of gas
exceeds ~$5.50 a gallon, the Prius wins. At 10 to 12 yeas, you have
to pop for new batteries. Sell it before then to some sucker who
doesn't know better.

Okay, Fit vs Civic hybrrd to keep in the family. Drive it around
town, the Civic wins. Want to carry four friends to lunch on Friday,
the Civic wins. Want to carry 800 pounds of cinder block. The F150
wins, but if you want to carry four 400 dog crates the Fit wins.
Driving to and from Kerrville every day (which I might be doing, 90
miles each way), the Fit wins.

So, as you point out, what do you want it to do?
--

- dillon I am not invalid

I love my country, It's my government I fear.

Hey, turnabout's fair play.

 

Thus spake "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> :

>In article <rqXYm.74756$de6.54438@newsfe21.iad>, Leftie <No@Thanks.net>
>wrote:
>
>> If
>> you drive mostly highway miles a hybrid is not worth the extra cost,
>> because it's advantage comes from recovering and storing the energy lost
>> during lots of slowing and stopping.
>
>except, try to find a modern car of similar size and comfort as the
>Prius that gets 50+ mpg.

Around town. How about serious highway driving?

>
>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.

Actually, I beleive the slam on the Prius is that the highway mileage
isn't as good as city. And Toyota is in a pinch becuase the proposed
metric for mileage (by the Feds) would reduce its "apparent"
efficiancy.

The real problem in the US is the passenger-miles per gallon. A Burb
with 5 people beats (barely) a Prius with only a driver. Not that I
seen many Burbs with more than a driver. And that's the problem in
the US. A Greyhound type bus only get about 3 mpg, but with 30 pax it
beats all of the above. And at full capacity (44) ...
--

- dillon I am not invalid

I love my country, It's my government I fear.

Hey, turnabout's fair play.

 

In article <shnkk5tghlqm3q71gri9tm6nrtqmetdq50@4ax.com>,
Dillon Pyron <invaliddmpyron@austin.rr.com> wrote:

> >except, try to find a modern car of similar size and comfort as the
> >Prius that gets 50+ mpg.
>
> Around town. How about serious highway driving?

53mpg on the highway. No .

 

In article <shnkk5tghlqm3q71gri9tm6nrtqmetdq50@4ax.com>,
Dillon Pyron <invaliddmpyron@austin.rr.com> 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.
>
> Actually, I beleive the slam on the Prius is that the highway mileage
> isn't as good as city.

Real world, it's the opposite for me.

 

In article <icmkk5tmaipunu62g1b4845ctr84dis6jh@4ax.com>,
Dillon Pyron <invaliddmpyron@austin.rr.com> wrote:

> >...unless you need some feature of the Prius that's not in the
> >Corolla...like the extra room...in which case, buying the Corolla is a
> >$15K waste of money.
>
> Not the same manufactorer, but my Fit has a butt load more room than
> the Prius (how many 8ft 2x4s can a Prius haul?)

Shall we try?

Have YOU tried?

If not, then we can't know that the Fit has more room than the Prius.

And frankly, "room" means different things in different circumstances.
Room for what? 2x4s is one thing, passengers is another.

 

In article <icmkk5tmaipunu62g1b4845ctr84dis6jh@4ax.com>,
Dillon Pyron <invaliddmpyron@austin.rr.com> wrote:

> If a) you keep the Prius less than 10 years and b) the price of gas
> exceeds ~$5.50 a gallon, the Prius wins. At 10 to 12 yeas, you have
> to pop for new batteries.

We don't really have any data on that, do we?

 

On 01/13/2010 08:54 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article<shnkk5tghlqm3q71gri9tm6nrtqmetdq50@4ax.com >,
> Dillon Pyron<invaliddmpyron@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>> except, try to find a modern car of similar size and comfort as the
>>> Prius that gets 50+ mpg.
>>
>> Around town. How about serious highway driving?
>
> 53mpg on the highway. No .

concur. that's my experience driving a prius extensively this summer.