fuel economy in car commercials

In article >,
(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.

Wisconsin inspects vehicles back to model year 1968.
The statistics for older vehicles is exactly as Daniel describes.


> >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.
>
> Not in this part of Georgia, I assure you.

Does "this part of Georgia" have an air quality problem?

> >
> >I and others have been pointing you at EPA's data on this for *years* now
> >in various Usenet forums. That you persist in plugging your ears and going
> >"LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA!" does not make you any more
> >correct on the matter now than you were five years ago.
> >
> >DS
> Perhaps that's because I see so many 70s Chevys spewing smoke as they gasp
> their way down the road.

Then work to change the requirements for emissions tests.

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.

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.

"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.

And if you are selling utter crap like most American automakers, you
might as well start from scratch.

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.

"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.

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."

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."

(Matthew Russotto) writes:

>In article >,
>Magnulus > wrote:

>>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.

Not necessarily. You can spend an infinite amount of time and money
trying to "fix" something that doesn't work. e.g. BBD.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!