A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

fuel economy in car commercials



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old March 28th 05, 03:05 PM
C. E. White
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Magnulus wrote:

> On the Civic? Compare the Civic to the Ford Focus, the Civic has much
> better fuel economy by a wide margin (high 30's vs. mid 20's). The Civic
> also has a little less horsepower, I believe. Maybe on the Camrys and
> Accords they are going the power route, but still, they have better fuel
> economy than big American cars.



According to fueleconomy.gov -

2005 Ford Focus with the 2L 4 cylinder and 5 speed manual
transmission - 26 mpg city /35 mpg highway

Civics are a hard one to compare ...there are so many
models. The "lean burn" Civic is rated 36/44 (where is that
one sold?). The Civic hybrid is rated 45/51 (although no
testers actually achieve this). The model closest to a
Focus, the 2L 4 cylinder, 5 speed Manual Si Model is rated
26 mpg city /31 mpg highway.

So...you are right and you are wrong. Some Civics are better
than some Foci and some are worse. The 2L Civic Si is worse
than the 2L Focus, despite being 10% smaller and
significantly slower. Any 1.7L Civic is better than any 2L
Focus, but then those Civic models are both smaller and much
slower.

Ed
Ads
  #82  
Old March 28th 05, 03:22 PM
C. E. White
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Magnulus wrote:
>
> "Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message
> news
> > >
> > > On the Civic? Compare the Civic to the Ford Focus, the Civic has

> much
> > >better fuel economy by a wide margin (high 30's vs. mid 20's).

> >
> > As Ronald Reagan might say "There you go again"... comparing two
> > completely different vehicles and trying to pretend one particular
> > difference is the cause.
> > --

>
> The Civic and Focus are directly comparable. They are both compact cars.
>
> If the Civic is not good enough for you, compare the Focus and Corolla.
> The Corolla hsa better fuel economy, too. The reason is in the engines.
> Ford does not use variable valve timing in most of the Focus engines- or any
> of their cars. Most American automakers don't.


As with the Civic, some Corolla models are better than some
Foci models and some are not. However, all Corollas are
smaller and slower than the Focus. The 1.8L (premium gas), 6
speed manual Corolla "Sports" model is rated 26 city / 34
highway. The comparable 2L, 5 speed manual Focus is rated 26
city / 35 highway despite being both larger and faster (but
only a little faster, both are faster than the fastest
Civic). And the Corolla is even smaller than the Civic.

Makes you wonder about the supposed technological advantage
of the Japanese small cars. Apparently if you can live with
small and slow, then the Japanese cars will get better fuel
mileage. However, as soon as you go for better performance,
the fuel economy advantage vanishes...iamagine that. And you
still have to live with small.

Ed
  #83  
Old March 28th 05, 03:54 PM
Lloyd Parker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
"C. E. White" > wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> In article >,
>> DTJ > wrote:
>> >On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 19:42:15 -0500, "Vendicar Decarian" >
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>"DTJ" > wrote in message
>> >>> You liberals sure like to throw around make believe terms about
>> >>> government.
>> >>
>> >>By now it's well known how Bush turned the $127 billion surplus he
>> >>inherited in 2001 into a historic $413 billion deficit by 2004. It's
>> >
>> >Hey retard, there was no surplus. Your "lockbox" for SS was a fraud,
>> >and your favorite Ken Lay supporter, slick willy klinton, used all the
>> >SS money to make it appear, to low life incompetent fools like
>> >yourself, that he had a surplus.
>> >
>> >

>> 1. SS has a surplus, a trust fund, that is invested in gov't bonds.
>> 2. For 2 years under Clinton, the gov't had a surplus, not counting SS.

>
>Item 2 is not true.
>They did include the SS revenue when
>declaring a surplus.


The last 2 years under Clinton, there was a surplus even w/o counting the
SS surplus. If you look at the data, you see those 2 years, revenues
exceeded expenditures and the debt held by the public declined.


>As for "1" while technically true, the
>money is spent and the "investment" is little more than a
>bookkeeping fiction.
>


No, the money is no more fiction than when you buy a savings bond.

>
>Ed

  #84  
Old March 28th 05, 06:00 PM
C. E. White
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> In article >,
> DTJ > wrote:
> >On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 19:42:15 -0500, "Vendicar Decarian" >
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"DTJ" > wrote in message
> >>> You liberals sure like to throw around make believe terms about
> >>> government.
> >>
> >>By now it's well known how Bush turned the $127 billion surplus he
> >>inherited in 2001 into a historic $413 billion deficit by 2004. It's

> >
> >Hey retard, there was no surplus. Your "lockbox" for SS was a fraud,
> >and your favorite Ken Lay supporter, slick willy klinton, used all the
> >SS money to make it appear, to low life incompetent fools like
> >yourself, that he had a surplus.
> >
> >

> 1. SS has a surplus, a trust fund, that is invested in gov't bonds.
> 2. For 2 years under Clinton, the gov't had a surplus, not counting SS.


Item 2 is not true. They did include the SS revenue when
declaring a surplus. As for "1" while technically true, the
money is spent and the "investment" is little more than a
bookkeeping fiction.


Ed
  #86  
Old March 29th 05, 04:04 AM
Big Bill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 28 Mar 05 14:54:36 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article >,
> "C. E. White" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>> In article >,
>>> DTJ > wrote:
>>> >On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 19:42:15 -0500, "Vendicar Decarian" >
>>> >wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>"DTJ" > wrote in message
>>> >>> You liberals sure like to throw around make believe terms about
>>> >>> government.
>>> >>
>>> >>By now it's well known how Bush turned the $127 billion surplus he
>>> >>inherited in 2001 into a historic $413 billion deficit by 2004. It's
>>> >
>>> >Hey retard, there was no surplus. Your "lockbox" for SS was a fraud,
>>> >and your favorite Ken Lay supporter, slick willy klinton, used all the
>>> >SS money to make it appear, to low life incompetent fools like
>>> >yourself, that he had a surplus.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> 1. SS has a surplus, a trust fund, that is invested in gov't bonds.
>>> 2. For 2 years under Clinton, the gov't had a surplus, not counting SS.

>>
>>Item 2 is not true.
>>They did include the SS revenue when
>>declaring a surplus.

>
>The last 2 years under Clinton, there was a surplus even w/o counting the
>SS surplus. If you look at the data, you see those 2 years, revenues
>exceeded expenditures and the debt held by the public declined.


But not the debt held by the Government.
>
>
>>As for "1" while technically true, the
>>money is spent and the "investment" is little more than a
>>bookkeeping fiction.
>>

>
>No, the money is no more fiction than when you buy a savings bond.


No, when I buy a Savings Bond, the money is real; I know, I paid it.
However, when I want to redeem it, the scale is far lower than when
the SS Bonds will come due; the Government can cover it. The
Government can't cover those bonds used to replace the funds in the SS
account.
You can, I'm certain, cover a $100 check. Can you cover a $1,000,000
check? I doubt it. Same principle.
>
>>
>>Ed


--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
  #87  
Old March 29th 05, 04:24 AM
Joshua Halpern
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Big Bill wrote:
(Lloyd Parker)
>> DTJ > wrote:
>>> "Vendicar Decarian" >
>>>>"DTJ" > wrote in message

SNIp....
>>>>By now it's well known how Bush turned the $127 billion surplus he
>>>>inherited in 2001 into a historic $413 billion deficit by 2004. It's
>>>
>>>Hey retard, there was no surplus. Your "lockbox" for SS was a fraud,
>>>and your favorite Ken Lay supporter, slick willy klinton, used all the
>>>SS money to make it appear, to low life incompetent fools like
>>>yourself, that he had a surplus.


In which case there was a surplus in Fiscal 1999, 2000, and 2001
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm
Look at the bottom where the public debt per year is given. Since the
social security lockbox does not exist that means you think the
intragovernmental holdings (Social Security special bonds) are not real,
and so you agree that the public debt did decrease.
>>>

>>1. SS has a surplus, a trust fund, that is invested in gov't bonds.

>
> Do you know what those bonds are? They are Treasury bonds. Do you knw
> where the funds to redeem those bonds are? Neither does anyone else.
>

Same place the funds to redeem the public debt are. This is a silly
argument because to say that there is no money to redeem the Social
Security Treasury bonds is the same as saying there is no money to
redeem any Treasury bond.

>>2. For 2 years under Clinton, the gov't had a surplus, not counting SS.>


> Do you know WHY? Do you know what happened to stop those surpluses?
> You should, if you're as smart as you think you are.
> And no, it had nothing to do with Bush, as he wasn't elected before
> this happened.


Oh, you mean those large tax cuts in 2001, and 2002. Hmm, glad to know
you think Clinton was responsible for those.
>
>>Retard, look to the beam in your eye first.


I love your way of hitting yourself in the face

josh halpern
>

  #88  
Old March 29th 05, 07:54 AM
Vendicar Decarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"C. E. White" > wrote in message
...
> Item 2 is not true. They did include the SS revenue when
> declaring a surplus.


The SS Surplus is government revenue. Hence the surplus.


"C. E. White" > wrote in message
...
> As for "1" while technically true, the
> money is spent and the "investment" is little more than a
> bookkeeping fiction.


It represents a long term liability... yes. Yet under Clinton, the
publicly held debt declined over his last three years in office. And in the
middle year, without the SS Surplus, total liabilities increased by only 14
billion.

Meanwhile Under Bush, not only is the SS Surplus treated the same way, but
Bush now deficit spends $450 billion a year. A figure that will continue
unchanged because of Bush's economic policy for the next decade.

So long suckers....


  #89  
Old March 29th 05, 08:03 AM
Vendicar Decarian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Big Bill" > wrote in message
...
> No, when I buy a Savings Bond, the money is real; I know, I paid it.
> However, when I want to redeem it, the scale is far lower than when
> the SS Bonds will come due; the Government can cover it.


No more real than the dollars used by the Social Security system to
purchase U.S. bonds and treasuries.

Stupid... Stupid... Billyboy.



"Big Bill" > wrote in message
...
> The Government can't cover those bonds used to replace the funds in the SS
> account.


Don't be silly. That would mean that the there is no faith to be had in
the U.S. financial system, and that U.S. government bonds were a worthless
investment.

Once the world realizes this, the 1.5 trillion the world lends the U.S.
yearly will vanish.

What will happen to the U.S. economy then Jacko? Snicker....

The U.S. is just an animated corpse at this point.

So long suckers.....


  #90  
Old March 29th 05, 10:01 AM
Lloyd Parker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
Big Bill > wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Mar 05 10:50:11 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> DTJ > wrote:
>>>On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 19:42:15 -0500, "Vendicar Decarian" >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"DTJ" > wrote in message
>>>>> You liberals sure like to throw around make believe terms about
>>>>> government.
>>>>
>>>>By now it's well known how Bush turned the $127 billion surplus he
>>>>inherited in 2001 into a historic $413 billion deficit by 2004. It's
>>>
>>>Hey retard, there was no surplus. Your "lockbox" for SS was a fraud,
>>>and your favorite Ken Lay supporter, slick willy klinton, used all the
>>>SS money to make it appear, to low life incompetent fools like
>>>yourself, that he had a surplus.
>>>
>>>

>>1. SS has a surplus, a trust fund, that is invested in gov't bonds.

>
>Do you know what those bonds are? They are Treasury bonds.



Yep, just like thousands of investors own, little different from savings
bonds.

> Do you knw
>where the funds to redeem those bonds are? Neither does anyone else.


If people with treasury bonds, T bills, and savings bonds cash them in,
where does that money come from?

When the foreign investors holding trillions of dollars of US debt
obligations redeem them, where does that money come from? Bush seems to
believe it'll never have to be paid.

>>2. For 2 years under Clinton, the gov't had a surplus, not counting SS.

>
>Do you know WHY? Do you know what happened to stop those surpluses?


Yep, Bush squandered them.

>You should, if you're as smart as you think you are.
>And no, it had nothing to do with Bush, as he wasn't elected before
>this happened.
>>


The surpluses were during the last 2 years of Clinton.

>>Retard, look to the beam in your eye first.

>

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What's new S4 Auto owners getting for fuel economy?? quattroA4cars Audi 15 April 6th 05 07:10 AM
bigger wheels = less fuel economy? The Devil's Advocate© VW water cooled 8 March 20th 05 01:01 AM
Engine type & Fuel Economy Tom Varco Technology 21 March 9th 05 10:28 PM
Failed Smog Check 1981 Trans AM TheSmogTech Technology 0 January 30th 05 05:16 PM
Change in fuel economy with roof racks on A4 Avant? Robert Audi 7 August 7th 04 11:52 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.