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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
Magnulus > wrote: > >"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message ... >> Not all Hondas have VVT, and it isn't appropriate for all engines. >> Honda uses it for increasing power without sacrificing economy; > > 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. > >> Which I'm sure they've patented out the wazoo. And which is unlikely >> to improve economy all that much. > > Every little bit of efficiency adds up. No, in fact, it doesn't. >> The _real_ bottom line is that we've reached a point of diminishing >returns, >> where every improvement in economy means significant sacrifices in >> size, power, and/or increased cost. > > More improvement in efficiency won't necessarily jack up cost, not if it >involves re-engineering from the ground up. "Re-engineering from the ground up" is about as expensive as you can get. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
Magnulus > wrote: > >"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message ... >> Not all Hondas have VVT, and it isn't appropriate for all engines. >> Honda uses it for increasing power without sacrificing economy; > > 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. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
"Lloyd Parker" > wrote in message ... > So cite instances of people needing new battery packs and having to pay for > them. I've read about cases on car forums on the internet- at least 3. You aren't going to find much talk of replacing battery packs because few people own these cars, and fewer still have put that high mileage on their cars. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
And if you are selling utter crap like most American automakers, you
might as well start from scratch. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> >Reams and reams of data collected by Federal and individual-state EPAs > >show that the worst polluters are in the 4-to-14-year-old age group, so > >that's where I/M programs focus. No matter how many times you parrot > >it, Lloyd, it simply is not the case that cars older than <fill in the > >blank> years are necessarily gross polluters, while cars newer than > ><fill in the blank> are necessarily clean. > > No, but we don't know since the old cars are not required to be inspected. Plenty of old cars have been extensively tested as a part of the research on the topic. Many of them have even been tested without their drivers being made to stop and wait for the test, or even being made aware of the test (e.g. Don Stedman's work in Colorado) > >As a percentage of the on-road fleet, vanishingly few cars older than > >25 years remain in existence, and only a small fraction of those are > >driven on a daily basis. Most such cars are kept as collector vehicles > >and are fastidiously maintained. > I see so many 70s Chevys spewing smoke as they gasp their way down the > road. How many is "so many"? Can you express "so many" in scientific notation for us, please? No? OK, second preference: Tell us how many 1979 and earlier Chevrolets you see *and* how many 2004 Hondas you see. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Magnulus wrote:
> > "Lloyd Parker" > wrote: > > Since they're warranted for 8 years, I doubt this is a problem yet. > > It's around 100,000 miles, whichever comes FIRST. If the car is over > that, they stop warranting them. > > It's not surprising so many Priuses have hard mileage put on them. Alot > of people are buying them to drive in HOV lanes. Those kinds of commuters > are probably going to put on more miles. Yeah, but they're easier miles than stop-and-go miles. -- Cheers, Bev ========================================= "Welcome to Hell, here's your accordion." |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Magnulus wrote:
> > "The Real Bev" > wrote: > > You think anybody in power cares about those potholes? Yeah, right. > > That's why higher fuel taxes should only be spent on two things: > > 1) better roads- road improvement. Add more roads, add different > intersection types, resurfacing, etc. > > 2) grants to local areas for public transportation projects > > I don't see how either one of these are wastes of money. If anything it > will make the roads better to drive for everybody. Public transportation > will get the slugs off the road and better roads will make driving better > and faster. There's a big difference between "should" and "will". -- Cheers, Bev ========================================= "Welcome to Hell, here's your accordion." |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 12:01 AM |
Engine type & Fuel Economy | Tom Varco | Technology | 21 | March 9th 05 09:28 PM |
Failed Smog Check 1981 Trans AM | TheSmogTech | Technology | 0 | January 30th 05 04:16 PM |
Change in fuel economy with roof racks on A4 Avant? | Robert | Audi | 7 | August 7th 04 11:52 AM |