On Thu, 15 May 2008 04:17:24 -0500, "Enrico Fermi" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>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 Mon, 12 May 2008 13:07:14 -0500, RPS <rps@null.void> wrote:

>Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
>: 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.
>:
>: 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!

As others have pointed out, the Prius is larger than a Corolla so the
comparison isn't completely fair. OTOH, a Civic Hybrid costs about
$3000 more than a Civic EX and the 40 to 30 mpg comparison would be
about right fro these two. So it could pay for itself and then some
during the period you expect to own it.

As for your original questions:

Civic LX or EX model is worth considering. LX saves you about $2000
if you don't need a sunroof, alloy wheels or a fancy stereo.

Use Edwards and the manufacturer sites to do your research. Google is
your friend.

I would shop any place that sells the cars. You can play them against
each other to see who will give you the best price.

 

On 2008-05-17, Gordon McGrew <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 May 2008 13:07:14 -0500, RPS <rps@null.void> wrote:
>
>>Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>>
>>: 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.
>>:
>>: 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!
>
> As others have pointed out, the Prius is larger than a Corolla so the
> comparison isn't completely fair. OTOH, a Civic Hybrid costs about
> $3000 more than a Civic EX and the 40 to 30 mpg comparison would be
> about right fro these two. So it could pay for itself and then some
> during the period you expect to own it.

It's also fair to point out that there are Federal tax breaks
available to those that buy hybrids. If those tax breaks are still in
existence (and I believe they are), they greatly enhance the economy
of these vehicles.

>
> As for your original questions:
>
> Civic LX or EX model is worth considering. LX saves you about $2000
> if you don't need a sunroof, alloy wheels or a fancy stereo.
>
> Use Edwards and the manufacturer sites to do your research. Google is
> your friend.
>
> I would shop any place that sells the cars. You can play them against
> each other to see who will give you the best price.
>
>

And by all means, use the fleet manager and the web site of the
dealership. You can usually get better deals this way than by dealing
with the snake on the sales floor...

--
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

 

Elle wrote:

> "mjc13<REMOVETHIS> @verizon.net>" <"mjc13<REMOVETHIS> Elle
> wrote:
>
>>>"Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote
>>>
>>>>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.
>>
>> 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...
>
>
> 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.
>
>

My "new" Civic is a '95. I don't imagine I'll ever own a car built
in this century.

 

on 5/16/2008 10:55 PM Gordon McGrew said the following:
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 04:17:24 -0500, "Enrico Fermi" <noone@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> 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.
>
>

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. :-)



--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

 

"Joe" ...
> It's also fair to point out that there are Federal tax breaks
> available to those that buy hybrids. If those tax breaks are still in
> existence (and I believe they are), they greatly enhance the economy
> of these vehicles.
>

If one is stuck paying the AMT (alternative minimum tax), there is no break
for them.
Tomes

 

On Thu, 15 May 2008 04:17:24 -0500, "Enrico Fermi" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>
>> 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?
>

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.

 

On Mon, 19 May 2008 07:15:44 -0500, "Enrico Fermi" <noone@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>
>> 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.
>

Does that mean the Corolla or the Civic?

 

"dgk" <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:c4483414eolj7m8eadmc73d9am9s3uk3g1@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 19 May 2008 07:15:44 -0500, "Enrico Fermi" <noone@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>
> Does that mean the Corolla or the Civic?
Civic

 

On 2008-05-19, Tomes <ask.me@here.net> wrote:
> "Joe" ...
>> It's also fair to point out that there are Federal tax breaks
>> available to those that buy hybrids. If those tax breaks are still in
>> existence (and I believe they are), they greatly enhance the economy
>> of these vehicles.
>>
>
> If one is stuck paying the AMT (alternative minimum tax), there is no break
> for them.
> Tomes
>

If one is "stuck" paying the AMT, the price shouldn't be that big of a
deal to them... ;-)


--
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

 

"Joe" <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> wrote in message
news:slrng39mpi.lp8.joe@barada.griffincs.local...
> On 2008-05-19, Tomes <ask.me@here.net> wrote:
>> "Joe" ...
>>> It's also fair to point out that there are Federal tax breaks
>>> available to those that buy hybrids. If those tax breaks are still in
>>> existence (and I believe they are), they greatly enhance the economy
>>> of these vehicles.
>>>
>> If one is stuck paying the AMT (alternative minimum tax), there is no
>> break
>> for them.
>> Tomes
>>
> If one is "stuck" paying the AMT, the price shouldn't be that big of a
> deal to them... ;-)
>
I don't disagree. It remains that the tax break is not for everyone, and
more folks need to know that then know it today.
Tomes

 

On Thu, 22 May 2008 21:33:58 -0400, "Tomes" <ask.me@here.net> wrote:

>
>"Joe" <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> wrote in message
>news:slrng39mpi.lp8.joe@barada.griffincs.local. ..
>> On 2008-05-19, Tomes <ask.me@here.net> wrote:
>>> "Joe" ...
>>>> It's also fair to point out that there are Federal tax breaks
>>>> available to those that buy hybrids. If those tax breaks are still in
>>>> existence (and I believe they are), they greatly enhance the economy
>>>> of these vehicles.
>>>>
>>> If one is stuck paying the AMT (alternative minimum tax), there is no
>>> break
>>> for them.
>>> Tomes
>>>
>> If one is "stuck" paying the AMT, the price shouldn't be that big of a
>> deal to them... ;-)
>>
>I don't disagree. It remains that the tax break is not for everyone, and
>more folks need to know that then know it today.
>Tomes

My understanding of the tax incentive is that it is limited to the
first 60,000 cars of each model, or maybe the auto maker. The Prius
has gone over that so there is no more incentive.

 

In article <OuiWj.677$l97.113@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>
> > 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

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.

 

In article <482ab78d$0$20197$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
Crabman <C@dud.net> wrote:

> 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.