Toyota Prius

[dmccarty]

I am just shocked at the poor MPG in todays car vs back in the late 80s and early 90s. I had a boss driving 100 miles round trip and she had a Honda CR5, I think that is what it was, that was getting 50 MPG. Cars have gone up in weight because of safety equipment and options, and I suppose pollution control might have cost some MPG but danged we have have little itty bitty cars today and we are talking 30 MPG! Woo Hoo!

Then there is the price of the vehicles. A new Ford F350, like I own now, will cost over $55K! I looked at the new Jeep Cherokee with a diesel and the estimates are that the car will cost around $55-60K! Its a wee little itty bitty thing. We could SLEEP in the Cherokee we had as a kid. If the Jeep is really going to cost this much money, I think Jeep has a big problem. I just looked at the Mercedes SUV and their prices were about 10 grand CHEAPER with a diesel. The diesel gets 24 and 33 MPG vs their gasser at 19 and 26. There did not seem to be much difference in prices in the vehicles for gas vs diesel. The Jeep diesel is a V6 and the Merc is a 4 banger with the Jeep having a bit more HP and torque but $10K worth.

My F350 gets 21-22 MPG most of the year, and depending on temps, it might slip to 19-20 in the winter. The truck can haul five people and a whole bunch of stuff. The little vehicles are easier to park, get a 30% better MPG but that is all.

For the prices on these itty, bitty, vehicles we should be getting 110 MPG! :laughing::laughing::laughing:

Just hit 180,000 miles on the F350. I sure hope it makes it to at least 360,000 miles in another 11 years. Course, a new F350 will be over $100K at that point! :shocked:

Later,
Dan

 

[txdon]

Good argument and very correct. Look before you leap.

Also, another good argument ( that I'm surprised that HS has not brought up) Prius owners will probably drive more miles because there is not an immediate economic disadvantage and the total amount of fuel gallons consumed will probably be the same. I know I made several 30 and 60 mile trips to town that I justified by saying "It's just a gallon of gas....". If I had a gas hog I would combine the trips more.

 

[aczlan]

I looked at the new Jeep Cherokee with a diesel and the estimates are that the car will cost around $55-60K! Its a wee little itty bitty thing. We could SLEEP in the Cherokee we had as a kid. If the Jeep is really going to cost this much money, I think Jeep has a big problem. I just looked at the Mercedes SUV and their prices were about 10 grand CHEAPER with a diesel. The diesel gets 24 and 33 MPG vs their gasser at 19 and 26. There did not seem to be much difference in prices in the vehicles for gas vs diesel. The Jeep diesel is a V6 and the Merc is a 4 banger with the Jeep having a bit more HP and torque but $10K worth.

It would be interesting to see the difference in actual sale prices vs list prices on those machines...

Aaron Z

 

[brain55]

I am just shocked at the poor MPG in todays car vs back in the late 80s and early 90s. I had a boss driving 100 miles round trip and she had a Honda CR5, I think that is what it was, that was getting 50 MPG. Cars have gone up in weight because of safety equipment and options, and I suppose pollution control might have cost some MPG but danged we have have little itty bitty cars today and we are talking 30 MPG! Woo Hoo!

Then there is the price of the vehicles. A new Ford F350, like I own now, will cost over $55K! I looked at the new Jeep Cherokee with a diesel and the estimates are that the car will cost around $55-60K! Its a wee little itty bitty thing. We could SLEEP in the Cherokee we had as a kid. If the Jeep is really going to cost this much money, I think Jeep has a big problem. I just looked at the Mercedes SUV and their prices were about 10 grand CHEAPER with a diesel. The diesel gets 24 and 33 MPG vs their gasser at 19 and 26. There did not seem to be much difference in prices in the vehicles for gas vs diesel. The Jeep diesel is a V6 and the Merc is a 4 banger with the Jeep having a bit more HP and torque but $10K worth.

My F350 gets 21-22 MPG most of the year, and depending on temps, it might slip to 19-20 in the winter. The truck can haul five people and a whole bunch of stuff. The little vehicles are easier to park, get a 30% better MPG but that is all.

For the prices on these itty, bitty, vehicles we should be getting 110 MPG! :laughing::laughing::laughing:

Just hit 180,000 miles on the F350. I sure hope it makes it to at least 360,000 miles in another 11 years. Course, a new F350 will be over $100K at that point! :shocked:

Later,
Dan

I've been trying to make this point too. I bougt a 1989 Geo Metro in December of '88. It had the 1.0 liter throttle body injected 3 cyl. Great little car, it averaged 41 mpg in town and 49 mpg on the hwy it wasn't a big car but two people and bicycles and luggage in the hatchback with the rear seays folded down wasn't uncomfortable. It didn't feel under powered until you put 4 people in it on the mountains. My point is, here we are 25 years later and look at the Smart car, half the size no luggage capacity same 1.0l, 3 cyl, but has lower epa mileage ratings than I was getting in the Metro. Something is wrong with this picture. With the engineering advances in the last 25 years that car should be getting 80 mpg without trying.

 

[houstonscott]

I am just shocked at the poor MPG in todays car vs back in the late 80s and early 90s. I had a boss driving 100 miles round trip and she had a Honda CR5, I think that is what it was, that was getting 50 MPG. Cars have gone up in weight because of safety equipment and options, and I suppose pollution control might have cost some MPG but danged we have have little itty bitty cars today and we are talking 30 MPG! Woo Hoo! Then there is the price of the vehicles. A new Ford F350, like I own now, will cost over $55K! I looked at the new Jeep Cherokee with a diesel and the estimates are that the car will cost around $55-60K! Its a wee little itty bitty thing. We could SLEEP in the Cherokee we had as a kid. If the Jeep is really going to cost this much money, I think Jeep has a big problem. I just looked at the Mercedes SUV and their prices were about 10 grand CHEAPER with a diesel. The diesel gets 24 and 33 MPG vs their gasser at 19 and 26. There did not seem to be much difference in prices in the vehicles for gas vs diesel. The Jeep diesel is a V6 and the Merc is a 4 banger with the Jeep having a bit more HP and torque but $10K worth. My F350 gets 21-22 MPG most of the year, and depending on temps, it might slip to 19-20 in the winter. The truck can haul five people and a whole bunch of stuff. The little vehicles are easier to park, get a 30% better MPG but that is all. For the prices on these itty, bitty, vehicles we should be getting 110 MPG! :laughing::laughing::laughing: Just hit 180,000 miles on the F350. I sure hope it makes it to at least 360,000 miles in another 11 years. Course, a new F350 will be over $100K at that point! :shocked: Later, Dan

Very true, trucks of the 70's got about 8mpg maybe 10mpg going down hill. My Toyota LC got 4-6mpg and had a 16 gallon tank. Today my suburban seats 9 and all their luggage and will easily do 20mpg on a highway trip, and never does below 17mpg. You would need three or four Prius's to move it all, and if you put the canoe on top and pull the 13ft whaler, the numbers get even better, bottom line is if you move gear and three people the suburban is more efficient. Yeah, who would think a 1500cc engine would get good mileage. LOL Truth is a VW polo with a similar sized TDi get 100 mpg. So much for hybrids. HS

 

[Loren49]

http://www.autonews.com/article/201....-demand-offsets-slump-in-japan#axzz2l25KgrT2

Hybrids accounted for 14 percent of Toyota's total vehicle sales last year and the company expects the category to help it maintain a lead in global car sales over General Motors Co. and Volkswagen AG. Led by the Prius, the world's best-selling hybrid vehicle, sales of vehicles powered by electricity and gasoline reached 5 million units through March 31, the automaker said in a statement today.

"We expect hybrids to eventually become the majority in markets that are conscious about the environment, Takeshi Uchiyamada, Toyota vice chairman, said today, without giving a timeframe. Uchiyamada was chief engineer for the first-generation Prius, introduced in 1997.

The carmaker plans to introduce 18 new hybrid models, including model changes, from this year to 2015, according to the statement.



Read more: http://www.autonews.com/article/201....-demand-offsets-slump-in-japan#ixzz2l261I0WM
Follow us: @Automotive_News on Twitter | AutoNews on Facebook
---------------------------------

Time will tell. And to repeat, Governments at times look at the long term possibilities and therefore try to encourage development of new technologies and new ways of doing old things (like travel)

Loren

 

[MossRoad]

I am just shocked at the poor MPG in todays car vs back in the late 80s and early 90s. I had a boss driving 100 miles round trip and she had a Honda CR5, I think that is what it was, that was getting 50 MPG. Cars have gone up in weight because of safety equipment and options, and I suppose pollution control might have cost some MPG but danged we have have little itty bitty cars today and we are talking 30 MPG! Woo Hoo!

Then there is the price of the vehicles. A new Ford F350, like I own now, will cost over $55K! I looked at the new Jeep Cherokee with a diesel and the estimates are that the car will cost around $55-60K! Its a wee little itty bitty thing. We could SLEEP in the Cherokee we had as a kid. If the Jeep is really going to cost this much money, I think Jeep has a big problem. I just looked at the Mercedes SUV and their prices were about 10 grand CHEAPER with a diesel. The diesel gets 24 and 33 MPG vs their gasser at 19 and 26. There did not seem to be much difference in prices in the vehicles for gas vs diesel. The Jeep diesel is a V6 and the Merc is a 4 banger with the Jeep having a bit more HP and torque but $10K worth.

My F350 gets 21-22 MPG most of the year, and depending on temps, it might slip to 19-20 in the winter. The truck can haul five people and a whole bunch of stuff. The little vehicles are easier to park, get a 30% better MPG but that is all.

For the prices on these itty, bitty, vehicles we should be getting 110 MPG! :laughing::laughing::laughing:

Just hit 180,000 miles on the F350. I sure hope it makes it to at least 360,000 miles in another 11 years. Course, a new F350 will be over $100K at that point! :shocked:

Later,
Dan

You ever see the safety ratings of those high mileage cars in the 80s and 90s? They are not much more than a beer can with wheels. That's why they got high mileage.... no structure to speak of.

 

[MossRoad]

It would be interesting to see the difference in actual sale prices vs list prices on those machines...

Aaron Z

And compare them to today's dollars, too.

 

[MossRoad]

I've been trying to make this point too. I bougt a 1989 Geo Metro in December of '88. It had the 1.0 liter throttle body injected 3 cyl. Great little car, it averaged 41 mpg in town and 49 mpg on the hwy it wasn't a big car but two people and bicycles and luggage in the hatchback with the rear seays folded down wasn't uncomfortable. It didn't feel under powered until you put 4 people in it on the mountains. My point is, here we are 25 years later and look at the Smart car, half the size no luggage capacity same 1.0l, 3 cyl, but has lower epa mileage ratings than I was getting in the Metro. Something is wrong with this picture. With the engineering advances in the last 25 years that car should be getting 80 mpg without trying.

And the Smart For Two car required high octane gas, too. No one seems to notice that. Your savings go out the door. But again, I'll mention that Geo Metro was a death trap. The newer cars have a lot higher survivability. That's why they weigh more. And don't forget tighter emissions controls, too, mean less mileage.

 

[troutsqueezer]

Trout Diva痴 Overly Dramatic Guidelines for Handling Trout Part 5 | White River Trout Diva Blog

Yeah, TroutKiller, you president of Prius club or something. HS

Oh... you were thinking that squeezing trout referred to a fish! :thumbsup:

I would never belong to a club that would have me as a member.

 

[MossRoad]

Very true, trucks of the 70's got about 8mpg maybe 10mpg going down hill. My Toyota LC got 4-6mpg and had a 16 gallon tank. Today my suburban seats 9 and all their luggage and will easily do 20mpg on a highway trip, and never does below 17mpg. You would need three or four Prius's to move it all, and if you put the canoe on top and pull the 13ft whaler, the numbers get even better, bottom line is if you move gear and three people the suburban is more efficient. Yeah, who would think a 1500cc engine would get good mileage. LOL Truth is a VW polo with a similar sized TDi get 100 mpg. So much for hybrids. HS

Your new truck gets better mileage due to fuel injection and overdrive. That's it. Not rocket science. And I doubt you can fit 9 people and all their luggage in a Suburban. There isn't that much room behind the 3rd seat. I know because I own one. You cannot fit 9 suitcases behind that seat. Nope. NO ONE buys a Prius to replace a Suburban.

 

[MossRoad]

Oh... you were thinking that squeezing trout referred to a fish! :thumbsup:

I would never belong to a club that would have me as a member.

Again, you are cracking me up! :laughing:

 

[houstonscott]

Oh... you were thinking that squeezing trout referred to a fish! :thumbsup: I would never belong to a club that would have me as a member.

yeah, I am a fly fisherman, I assumed you were too, with that name. But as any good catch and release guy knows squeezing is a no no. It kills fish. You don't live far from some of the best trout waters. HS

 

[houstonscott]

Your new truck gets better mileage due to fuel injection and overdrive. That's it. Not rocket science. And I doubt you can fit 9 people and all their luggage in a Suburban. There isn't that much room behind the 3rd seat. I know because I own one. You cannot fit 9 suitcases behind that seat. Nope. NO ONE buys a Prius to replace a Suburban.

what I'm saying is while the suburban with three on board roles past the Prius with one, it's the suburban that's getting better mileage, or efficiency. It's not just the number on the sticker, you have to be smarter than that! HS

 

[txdon]

One thing I did not like about the Prius was that it bottomed out on my center high roads with 4 adults in it. I had to keep the center of the road boxed bladed down. Oh, wait, that means without the Prius less seat time is needed.:confused2:

 

[DarkBlack]

what I'm saying is while the suburban with three on board roles past the Prius with one, it's the suburban that's getting better mileage, or efficiency. It's not just the number on the sticker, you have to be smarter than that! HS

Sorry I'm late to the party.
Can you explain again/better your logic of why the suburbon with 3 people is more efficient than the prius. I gotta get a beer first to wrap my head around that one!

 

[aczlan]

Sorry I'm late to the party.
Can you explain again/better your logic of why the suburbon with 3 people is more efficient than the prius. I gotta get a beer first to wrap my head around that one!

The formula is: gallons per mile/people in car
A Suburban getting 20 MPG with 3 people is using 0.016667 gallons per person per mile, ((1/20)/3)=0.016666667
A Suburban getting 20 MPG with 6 people is using 0.0083333333 gallons per person per mile, ((1/20)/3)=0.0083333333
A 15 passenger van getting 15 MPG with 15 people is using 0.004444444444 gallons per person per mile), ((1/15)/15)=0.004444444444
A Prius getting 50 MPG with 1 person is using 0.016667 gallons per person per mile, ((1/50)/1)=0.02
A Prius getting 50 MPG with 4 people is using 0.005 gallons per person per mile, ((1/50)/4)=0.005

So as a way to efficiently move people, a Prius getting 50MPG carrying 4 people is less efficient than a 15 passenger van getting 15 MPG with 15 people on board. With 5 people, the Prius is slightly more efficient than the van (0.004 vs 0.004444)

Aaron Z

 

[txdon]

Sorry I'm late to the party.
Can you explain again/better your logic of why the suburbon with 3 people is more efficient than the prius. I gotta get a beer first to wrap my head around that one!

Go ahead, get another beer.....that there's a lot of math....

 

[houstonscott]

The formula is: gallons per mile/people in car A Suburban getting 20 MPG with 3 people is using 0.016667 gallons per person per mile, ((1/20)/3)=0.016666667 A Suburban getting 20 MPG with 6 people is using 0.0083333333 gallons per person per mile, ((1/20)/3)=0.0083333333 A 15 passenger van getting 15 MPG with 15 people is using 0.004444444444 gallons per person per mile), ((1/15)/15)=0.004444444444 A Prius getting 50 MPG with 1 person is using 0.016667 gallons per person per mile, ((1/50)/1)=0.02 A Prius getting 50 MPG with 4 people is using 0.005 gallons per person per mile, ((1/50)/4)=0.005 So as a way to efficiently move people, a Prius getting 50MPG carrying 4 people is less efficient than a 15 passenger van getting 15 MPG with 15 people on board. With 5 people, the Prius is slightly more efficient than the van (0.004 vs 0.004444) Aaron Z

You get it! Nice job, sometimes you have to draw cartoons on TBN. I have had to ride in the back of a Prius, not fun even for a few miles, it's really just two seats, a first car for kids, a starter for some who has to pinch pennies, not a desirable ride what so ever. Yuk. HS

 

[troutsqueezer]

You get it! Nice job, sometimes you have to draw cartoons on TBN. I have had to ride in the back of a Prius, not fun even for a few miles, it's really just two seats, a first car for kids, a starter for some who has to pinch pennies, not a desirable ride what so ever. Yuk. HS

News flash: Prius interior room is nearly the same as the Camry, that's why it's classified as a mid-size sedan. Pretty expensive car for a starter, too.

That's some pretty fuzzy math there. By that logic, I'll just sell the Prius and buy a bus because I'll really save money on fuel then. :confused3: