N1120A
Posts: 26555
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Wed Aug 15, 2007 4:29 am

Quoting UPS707 (Reply 10):

And I believe the EPA as much as I believe the manufacturer when it comes to accurate gas mileage

The problem with the EPA figures is that they favor the manufacturer

Quoting UPS707 (Reply 10):
just don't necessarily expect those numbers when you buy and get behind the wheel.

But a reasonably accurate estimate would be nice.

Quoting UPS707 (Reply 10):
but the truck and the Tribute are just rebadged Fords.

Actually, the Escape is the rebadged Tribute, and the Tribute has always been considered the better vehicle

Quoting UPS707 (Reply 10):
Yes, my 6 is built in Dearborn, but then again, my Tacomas were built in Fremont, CA, so really, what is an American car anyway???

That is a very good point.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 93):

Any yet, many fuel efficient diesel models are not allowed to be imported into the United States.

Actually, they are allowed into the US, just not California, which is the market that really means something to the car makers given that the state has more than 10% of the population and by far the most cars.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 93):

Do keep in mind that CAFE figures apply to ALL CAR/TRUCK/SUV MANUFACTURERS not just the so-called domestic Big Three

I am very well aware of that

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 93):
would have to start cranking out/importing more fuel efficient models (including diesels & hybrids).

Which would be great.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 93):

Since most of BWM's gasoline-powered models post lower ratings (mind you, most upper-end BMW owners don't care about fuel economy); BMW of North America will either apply the gas-guzzler tax onto more models and/or pay additional penalty fines to the U.S. Government.

The gas guzzler tax doesn't apply until the car goes under 20 combined MPG. As far as CAFE fines go, they aren't high enough

Quoting Superfly (Reply 94):

That is simply false. Either he tampered with it or isn't being honest about those figures.

Neither is the case. Those cars wear out

Quoting Superfly (Reply 96):
Hybrids are nothing more than hype and gives it's buyers the illusion that they are doing something good for the environment.

Now that isn't exactly true. One big thing that hybrids do is put out very little in the way of emissions, which is very good for the environment. Also, they are, even with their limitations, generally more efficient than comparable gasoline only cars.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Superfly
Posts: 37705
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Wed Aug 15, 2007 4:54 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 100):
One big thing that hybrids do is put out very little in the way of emissions, which is very good for the environment.

All the plastic they use, batteries can't be good for the environment, especially disposal of those old batteries.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 100):
Also, they are, even with their limitations, generally more efficient than comparable gasoline only cars.

Marginally better, not significantly batter. The diesel cars still get better. Until the hybrids are getting triple digit miles per gallon, I am not convinced that they are worth it.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 100):
Neither is the case. Those cars wear out

That is the first and only time I've heard of such. Now if he is racing up & down Laurel Canyon Bl. with his foot to the floor all the time, then yes, he'd get about 14MPG.
Bring back the Concorde
 
N1120A
Posts: 26555
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Wed Aug 15, 2007 5:17 am

Quoting Superfly (Reply 101):

All the plastic they use, batteries can't be good for the environment, especially disposal of those old batteries.

The batteries used are meant for long life and maximal recycling. Still, I would much rather have a BMW 525d with 3 pedals than a Prius with that POS CVT.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 101):

Marginally better, not significantly batter.

In reality, significantly better in most cases.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 101):
Until the hybrids are getting triple digit miles per gallon, I am not convinced that they are worth it.

Why? If they are getting 40-50, that is still better than almost every other car on the road in the US

Quoting Superfly (Reply 101):

That is the first and only time I've heard of such. Now if he is racing up & down Laurel Canyon Bl. with his foot to the floor all the time, then yes, he'd get about 14MPG.

Nope, he is a bit of a feather foot actually. This happens frequently with LT1 and LS1 engines. As they get older, their performance and mileage go down.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Superfly
Posts: 37705
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Wed Aug 15, 2007 5:23 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 102):
Why? If they are getting 40-50, that is still better than almost every other car on the road in the US

That is the same as what diesels have been getting for over 40 years.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 102):
Nope, he is a bit of a feather foot actually. This happens frequently with LT1 and LS1 engines. As they get older, their performance and mileage go down.

Umm LOT767-300ER, did you want to enlighten our friend N1120A.  Smile
Bring back the Concorde
 
N231YE
Posts: 2620
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:24 am

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Wed Aug 15, 2007 5:41 am

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 93):
If it weren't for hybrids, even Toyota would fall short of meeting CAFE standards... particularly its truck division.

 checkmark  Unfortunately, that is one of the true meanings behind some manufacturers' hybrids, is that they were meant to allow the manufacturers to make even bigger, more gas-guzzling vehicles by their leverage on CAFE.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 96):
Hybrids are nothing more than hype and gives it's buyers the illusion that they are doing something good for the environment.

Yes, and no. As stated, above, some drive it because they think they're special. Others like me choose the less-prolific hybrids, and drive "under the radar" (or hype), and just enjoy the benefits.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 96):
The equivalent sized Volkswagen, Audi, Isuzu and Escorts and Chevettes with diesel engines that are now 25-30 years old get better mileage. Not sure what the big deal is about these new hybrids that get the same mileage as existing vehicles.

But those older vehicles were also lighter, had less safety features, and thus significantly less safer. Let's not forget that many of these vehicles had weak engines with terrible acceleration.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 100):
Now that isn't exactly true. One big thing that hybrids do is put out very little in the way of emissions, which is very good for the environment. Also, they are, even with their limitations, generally more efficient than comparable gasoline only cars.

Exactly. One BIG misconception here, is that hybrid cars were developed for their mileage. Wrong. The basis of hybrid car development was their ultra low emissions-before the "hype" took off.

Quoting UPS707 (Reply 97):
Am I the only one thinking of a South Park episode here??

 smile  I have that episode saved in iTunes.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 101):
All the plastic they use, batteries can't be good for the environment, especially disposal of those old batteries.



Quoting N1120A (Reply 102):
The batteries used are meant for long life and maximal recycling.

Exactly as N1120A stated, Toyota has a strict program in place meant to track down and get as many of these batteries back to be recycled. In fact, either it was Toyota, Honda, or both, were developing their cars (including hybrids) to be almost 100% recyclable or biodegradable including various ways of construction, destruction, design, etc.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 101):
Marginally better, not significantly batter. The diesel cars still get better. Until the hybrids are getting triple digit miles per gallon, I am not convinced that they are worth it.

Not true. Diesels are significantly more polluting than gasoline/petrol cars. However, their awesome mileage means less diesel used, which levels the playing field so to speak. Again, lets not forget that VW had to pull their diesel cars temporarily in order to meet the new, stricter diesel emission standards.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37705
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Wed Aug 15, 2007 5:47 am

Quoting N231YE (Reply 104):
But those older vehicles were also lighter

...and much smaller battery.  Smile

Quoting N231YE (Reply 104):
had less safety features, and thus significantly less safer

Who needs a stinkin' airbag?
Back in my day we wore our seat belts and didn't spend time on the telephone while driving.  old 

Quoting N231YE (Reply 104):
Toyota has a strict program in place meant to track down and get as many of these batteries back to be recycled.

...and the rest becomes toys for tots in poor countries like a lot of old computer monitors.  Yeah sure
Bring back the Concorde
 
aerobalance
Posts: 4312
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:35 am

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Wed Aug 15, 2007 5:58 am

Quoting Superfly (Reply 103):
Quoting N1120A (Reply 102):
Why? If they are getting 40-50, that is still better than almost every other car on the road in the US

That is the same as what diesels have been getting for over 40 years.



Quoting N231YE (Reply 104):
But those older vehicles were also lighter, had less safety features, and thus significantly less safer. Let's not forget that many of these vehicles had weak engines with terrible acceleration.

They were true utter 'tin cans' which had a purpose back then. The manufacturers don't see a market for them anymore.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 105):
...and much smaller battery.

So what do golf courses do with the 6 batteries in each golf cart when they wear out?

Quoting Superfly (Reply 105):
Who needs a stinkin' airbag?

Big brother said so!
"Sing a song, play guitar, make it snappy..."
 
N231YE
Posts: 2620
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:24 am

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Wed Aug 15, 2007 5:59 am

Quoting Superfly (Reply 105):
...and much smaller battery.  

Hey, my Civic Hybrid still has a 12V. Another good thing about hybrids...2 batteries,so if one dies, the other can still start the car.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 105):
Who needs a stinkin' airbag?
Back in my day we wore our seat belts and didn't spend time on the telephone while driving.  

And you listened to 8-tracks, FM radio was today's XM & Sirius radio, and hell, NW was even flying DC-9's back then  wink 

Quoting Superfly (Reply 105):
...and the rest becomes toys for tots in poor countries like a lot of old computer monitors.  

....? Most old computers make their way to a central location (in Oklahoma, I believe (?) ) where they are scrapped and materials recycled.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26555
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:02 am

Quoting Superfly (Reply 103):

That is the same as what diesels have been getting for over 40 years.

Absolutely true, but many of those diesels were underpowered and put out awful emissions.

Quoting N231YE (Reply 104):
The basis of hybrid car development was their ultra low emissions-before the "hype" took off.

Actually, ULEV cars were sold and marketed as such before hybrids were fully developed. The reason Mercedes Benz switched from DOHC, 4 valve per cylinder engines to SOHC, 3 valve per cylinder engines in the mid-1990s was to reduce emissions and get ULEV status from even their V8 engines at the time.

Quoting N231YE (Reply 104):

Exactly. One BIG misconception here, is that hybrid cars were developed for their mileage

Well, not really. Emissions is where they really shine, but mileage has always been what sells the cars.

Quoting N231YE (Reply 104):
Diesels are significantly more polluting than gasoline/petrol cars.

Not particularly. Older diesels definitely put out more hydrocarbon particulate but newer ones sold in Europe are plenty clean.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 105):

Who needs a stinkin' airbag?
Back in my day we wore our seat belts and didn't spend time on the telephone while driving. old

Airbags make cars significantly safer when used as a supplemental restraint to airbags. I remember when wearing a seatbelt was still optional.

Quoting N231YE (Reply 104):

But those older vehicles were also lighter

Vehicle weight is not particularly important anymore in safety.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
ABQ747
Posts: 648
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:22 am

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:02 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 100):
Actually, the Escape is the rebadged Tribute,

Actually, it isn't. Motor Trend said that Ford and Mazda worked together to develop the Escape/Tribute.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 100):
and the Tribute has always been considered the better vehicle

Even though they are the same thing?  Yeah sure
 
N1120A
Posts: 26555
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:06 am

Quoting ABQ747 (Reply 109):

Actually, it isn't. Motor Trend said that Ford and Mazda worked together to develop the Escape/Tribute.

They did work together, like on all cars they offer on the same platform, but Mazda took the lead in the development of the compact SUV platform.

Quoting ABQ747 (Reply 109):

Even though they are the same thing?

The Tribute was always offered with a stiffer suspension for better handling and a higher trim level.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Superfly
Posts: 37705
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:11 am

N1120A:
I still don't trust this new-fangled technology!  mad   dopey   old 
Bring back the Concorde
 
ABQ747
Posts: 648
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:22 am

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:13 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 110):
The Tribute was always offered with a stiffer suspension for better handling and a higher trim level.

I did not know that about the suspension. Ford now offers the Escape Limited, which was not available when the vehicle was first introduced. The Mercury version is also more upscale than the Tribute.
 
N231YE
Posts: 2620
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:24 am

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:13 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 108):
Vehicle weight is not particularly important anymore in safety.

Then why are today's cars in similar capabilities to those twenty years ago more heavier?

Quoting N1120A (Reply 108):
Actually, ULEV cars were sold and marketed as such before hybrids were fully developed. The reason Mercedes Benz switched from DOHC, 4 valve per cylinder engines to SOHC, 3 valve per cylinder engines in the mid-1990s was to reduce emissions and get ULEV status from even their V8 engines at the time.



Quoting N1120A (Reply 108):
Well, not really. Emissions is where they really shine, but mileage has always been what sells the cars.

That is not what I have read. The very first "modern" hybrid, a Buick Skylark, was retrofitted in the midst of the 70's oil crisis, as a way to increase the then piss-poor mileage of cars. After that oil prices subsided, they quietly faded, until half-way around the world, Toyota began development in the late 1980s, for their emissions.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 108):
Not particularly. Older diesels definitely put out more hydrocarbon particulate but newer ones sold in Europe are plenty clean.

Diesels in Europe will actually be more polluting than those in the US, starting in 2008 (?). Oddly enough, I'd expect the opposite from Europe.
 
PHLBOS
Posts: 6520
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 6:38 am

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:15 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 100):
The gas guzzler tax doesn't apply until the car goes under 20 combined MPG. As far as CAFE fines go, they aren't high enough

Under the present standard, you are correct; however, what's not to say that in addition to the CAFE figure going up, the so-called Gas-Guzzler Tax figure won't be raised as well?

What year is your M3?

Having looked through the EPA fuel economy guide http://www.fueleconomy.gov (for 2001-2006 model years), the ratings for the BMW M3 range from 16/22 to 16/24 depending on the transmission... Gas-Guzzler Tax Territory.

Older M3 models had the following EPA ratings (old rating system used):
2000 M Coupe & Roadster (no M3 model listed per say): 19/26 CAFE number 22.5 mpg
1999 M3: 19/26
1997 & 1998 M3: 19/28 to 20/28 CAFE number(s) 23.5 to 24 mpg
1996 M3: 20/28 CAFE number 24 mpg
1995 M3: 19/27 to 19/28 CAFE number(s) 23 to 23.5 mpg
No M3 model(s) listed for 1992-1994
1989-1991 M3: 17/29 CAFE number 23 mpg

Not sure where you got the posted EPA 30 mpg highway figure from (on your earlier post).  confused 

Nonetheless, I find it very interesting that you seem to abvocate (unless I'm reading your posts wrong) tougher/stringent fuel economy standards/EPA ratings/gas guzzler taxes, etc.; and yet you yourself are driving a vehicle that historically falls short of the current 27.5 mpg CAFE standard never mind the proposed higher standard of 35 mpg.
"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
 
Superfly
Posts: 37705
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:22 am

PHLBOS:
Thanks for bringing those facts in to the discussion but the import snobs and so-called environmentalist give a free pass to European and Japanese cars. They'll buy a gas-guzzling BMW or Mercedes without even looking that the mileage yet slash the tires of a Chevrolet 3500 that get the same, if not more mileage and can carry more people.

[Edited 2007-08-14 23:23:58]
Bring back the Concorde
 
N1120A
Posts: 26555
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:30 am

Quoting Superfly (Reply 111):

I still don't trust this new-fangled technology!

LMAO.

Quoting ABQ747 (Reply 112):
The Mercury version is also more upscale than the Tribute.

The Mercury version didn't exist when the vehicles were designed.

Quoting N231YE (Reply 113):

Then why are today's cars in similar capabilities to those twenty years ago more heavier?

More heavier? A major reason for increased weight is the inclusion of larger engines in similarly sized cars.

Quoting N231YE (Reply 113):
Toyota began development in the late 1980s, for their emissions.

Perhaps, but the marketing is on the mileage.

Quoting N231YE (Reply 113):

Diesels in Europe will actually be more polluting than those in the US, starting in 2008 (?). Oddly enough, I'd expect the opposite from Europe.

Actually, European emissions standards long lagged behind US ones, particularly CARB standards. Mileage was always the goal with cars sold in Europe.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 114):

What year is your M3?

1998

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 114):

Under the present standard, you are correct; however, what's not to say that in addition to the CAFE figure going up, the so-called Gas-Guzzler Tax figure won't be raised as well?

That all depends on law makers

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 114):


Not sure where you got the posted EPA 30 mpg highway figure from (on your earlier post).

The EPA figures, for no apparent reason, use regular gasoline, which is a no go according to BMW, and definitely reduces economy. Further, I may have been mistaken in what I read. In any case, that means my car does even better than I expected

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 114):

Nonetheless, I find it very interesting that you seem to abvocate (unless I'm reading your posts wrong) tougher/stringent fuel economy standards/EPA ratings/gas guzzler taxes, etc.; and yet you yourself are driving a vehicle that historically falls short of the current 27.5 mpg CAFE standard never mind the proposed higher standard of 35 mpg.

Yes, I do advocate higher standards despite driving a car that gets lower fuel economy. At prices when I purchased my car and at current prices, I can afford the consumption level, but it bothers me that most people I talk to consider my fuel economy level to be desirable.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
N231YE
Posts: 2620
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:24 am

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:30 am

Quoting Superfly (Reply 115):

Well, I don't do that...but for the record, I want to buy an American car, but the Big 3 are in bed with Big oil.

The Big 3 make 30 mpg+ look so special, while the competition has already hit 40 mpg. Sorry Big 3, but I don't need performance figures and idolizing "I own the road" shoved down my through in a TV commercial every break.

If only GM dropped the 2-mode system into, say, Chevy Cobalt, or the Volt became a reality, and not a Public Relations toy, then I would be happy to trade my HCH to an American-built car  scratchchin 
 
N1120A
Posts: 26555
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:34 am

Quoting N231YE (Reply 117):
I want to buy an American car

Well, you can get a lot of American-made metal with the big H or the Sombrero in a Circle on the hood.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Superfly
Posts: 37705
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:37 am

Quoting N231YE (Reply 117):
the Big 3 are in bed with Big oil.

You might want to take a closer look at allies of our friends in Europe and Asia.

Keep in mind, Toyota, Honda and Mercedes makes plenty of gas-guzzlers that aren't imported here to the USA.
Bring back the Concorde
 
N231YE
Posts: 2620
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:24 am

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:37 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 116):
More heavier? A major reason for increased weight is the inclusion of larger engines in similarly sized cars.

Do you realize one of the debates behind raising CARB standards? It does have it merits...the auto companies in the past have always traded safety (and weight) over engineering more efficient engines when it comes to meeting CAFE requirements.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 116):
Perhaps, but the marketing is on the mileage.

You are correct here. As stated, hybrids, the at least the Prius and Insight, were first known for emissions, then the mileage thing caught on.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 116):
Actually, European emissions standards long lagged behind US ones, particularly CARB standards. Mileage was always the goal with cars sold in Europe.

I didn't know that. But still, in a region where electric trains, clean energy, among other things is touted as being superior to the United States, one would think even their vehicles are cleaner.
 
N231YE
Posts: 2620
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:24 am

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:43 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 118):
Well, you can get a lot of American-made metal with the big H or the Sombrero in a Circle on the hood.

The Ford Escape Hybrid has a Toyota engine in it. And the belt-alternator system (BAS), as found in the Saturn Vue & Aura Green Lines and Chevy Silverado/GMC Sierra are a load of BS. A great way to market "Hybrid," when in reality, they are just a tiny motor/generator and battery combo that squeezes out a few mpgs, nothing spectacular.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 119):

I'm talking here in the United States. Granted, the others are just as bad, however, the Americans are reluctant to offer anything in the 40mpg+ range.
 
CaptOveur
Posts: 6064
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 3:13 am

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:43 am

Quoting N231YE (Reply 104):
Exactly. One BIG misconception here, is that hybrid cars were developed for their mileage. Wrong. The basis of hybrid car development was their ultra low emissions-before the "hype" took off.

But you can't market emissions- you CAN market mileage.

It doesn't matter what you can build, it only matters what you can sell. A lesson GM, Ford and Dodge never learned.
Things were better when it was two guys in a dorm room.
 
UPS707
Posts: 307
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 3:58 am

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:44 am

Quoting ABQ747 (Reply 109):
Quoting N1120A (Reply 100):
and the Tribute has always been considered the better vehicle

Even though they are the same thing?  



Quoting ABQ747 (Reply 112):

I did not know that about the suspension. Ford now offers the Escape Limited, which was not available when the vehicle was first introduced. The Mercury version is also more upscale than the Tribute.

The Mazda was considered to be better than the Escape although the Escape was the better seller by far. That doesn't mean they can't both be steaming piles when it comes to reliability... To have a tranny go out at 61k is just not acceptable in this day and age. And if you read the Tribscape forums, there are many documented cases of this happening between 58-62k miles, so it wasn't just ours being a lemon. We went with the Mazda because it had the "zoomzoom" rather than the Ford's utilitarian stance, but bottom line, we still had the Taurus 3.0l mated to the same tranny and it just wasn't up to the job in the 01-02 Tribscapes.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26555
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:30 am

Quoting N231YE (Reply 120):

Do you realize one of the debates behind raising CARB standards?

Yes. An incredibly weak argument too

Quoting N231YE (Reply 120):
It does have it merits...the auto companies in the past have always traded safety (and weight) over engineering more efficient engines when it comes to meeting CAFE requirements.

With all the mandated safety features in cars, weight is one of the least important factors at this point. Further, cars are plenty safe in Europe, where roads are statistically safer despite higher speed limits (if any).

Quoting N231YE (Reply 120):

You are correct here. As stated, hybrids, the at least the Prius and Insight, were first known for emissions, then the mileage thing caught on.

Not particularly. From the very start, they were marketing them for their mileage. Anyone else remember Honda's contest to see what magazine could best combine speed and mileage?

Quoting N231YE (Reply 120):

I didn't know that. But still, in a region where electric trains, clean energy, among other things is touted as being superior to the United States, one would think even their vehicles are cleaner.

That has been a big part of it. Since they have so much in their favor, car emissions were always less important.

Quoting N231YE (Reply 121):

The Ford Escape Hybrid has a Toyota engine in it.

Talk about a significantly poor marketing job. That thing should be selling like hot cakes.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
LOT767-300ER
Posts: 8526
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2001 12:57 pm

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:41 am

Quoting N231YE (Reply 121):
The Ford Escape Hybrid has a Toyota engine in it

No it does not. The companies have a patent sharing program with licenses because Fords engine is similar to Toyotas and uses SOME of the hybrid parts from Toyota. On the flipside, Toyota uses Ford's diesels and direct-inject engine tech.
Under no circumstance is there a pure Toyota engine in an Escape/Mariner engine bay.

Quoting UPS707 (Reply 123):
We went with the Mazda because it had the "zoomzoom" rather than the Ford's utilitarian stance, but bottom line, we still had the Taurus 3.0l mated to the same tranny and it just wasn't up to the job in the 01-02 Tribscapes.

Are you lying or just spitting up BS because it sounds convenient?

The 2001-2007 Escape/Tribute has a Ford CD4E (Mazda LA4AEL) transmission which was never used on the Taurus. The Taurus had a AX4N from 2000-2007 and also a AX4S pre-2000. The Ford AXOD transmissions were never built or used for 4WD/AWD SUVs such as a Tribute or Escape.

I suggest you get to know your facts before you come here and give us some craptasitc BS about transmissions.

You ought to know better judging from the pics in your profile.

[Edited 2007-08-15 00:44:22]
 
N231YE
Posts: 2620
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:24 am

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:44 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 124):
With all the mandated safety features in cars, weight is one of the least important factors at this point. Further, cars are plenty safe in Europe, where roads are statistically safer despite higher speed limits (if any).

Nowadays...that's true. In fact, the thought of the industry then was that a stiffer, heavier, frame yielded a safer car. Engineers learned that wasn't the case, and now cars specified crumble zones. However, as mentioned, in an attempt to meet CAFE standards, the auto manufacturers did in fact remove safety features and and "lightened" their cars rather than improve engine technology.

But those lessons still keep that door open. How do we know that the auto companies won't start removing safety equipment and "cheapening" the frame to make a car lighter to meet a 35mpg CAFE? Although, we do have cheaper and more technologically advanced equipment...such as composites, fiberglass, etc...

Quoting N1120A (Reply 124):
Not particularly. From the very start, they were marketing them for their mileage. Anyone else remember Honda's contest to see what magazine could best combine speed and mileage?

Maybe...but it is still emissions that initially brought hybrid to the market.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 124):
That has been a big part of it. Since they have so much in their favor, car emissions were always less important.

   Valid point.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 124):
Talk about a significantly poor marketing job. That thing should be selling like hot cakes.



Quoting CaptOveur (Reply 122):
But you can't market emissions- you CAN market mileage.

It doesn't matter what you can build, it only matters what you can sell. A lesson GM, Ford and Dodge never learned.

   Marketing is everything. Even though the American Big 3's quality has improved, so much, they have surpassed long-time holders, the fact that the competition has more effective marketing has hurt them.

Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 125):
No it does not. The companies have a patent sharing program with licenses because Fords engine is similar to Toyotas and uses SOME of the hybrid parts from Toyota. On the flipside, Toyota uses Ford's diesels and direct-inject engine tech.
Under no circumstance is there a pure Toyota engine in an Escape/Mariner engine bay.

My correction. The Toyota Hybrid Synergy Drive is licensed to Ford. The point still holds...Ford can't develop their own technology, they must borrow it.

[Edited 2007-08-15 00:47:31]
 
LOT767-300ER
Posts: 8526
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2001 12:57 pm

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:50 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 124):
in Europe, where roads are statistically safer despite higher speed limits (if any).

Actually, that is not the case. USA would fall somewhere probably in the top 25% of safest countries if indeed it was in Europe per 1 billion KMs travelled. Unfair to use statistics per population because everyone in the USA drives so that is the fairest measure http://www.cemt.org/irtad/IRTADPUBLIC/we2.html
 
N1120A
Posts: 26555
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:52 am

Quoting N231YE (Reply 126):
Maybe...but it is still emissions that initially brought hybrid to the market.

Absolutely not. They may have started as an emissions experiment, but were brought to market on a platform of low consumption.

Quoting N231YE (Reply 126):
Although, we do have cheaper and more technologically advanced equipment...such as composites, fiberglass, etc..

Fiberglass has been used to build cars for more than half a century. This isn't new.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
LOT767-300ER
Posts: 8526
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2001 12:57 pm

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:53 am

Quoting N231YE (Reply 126):
My correction. The Toyota Hybrid Synergy Drive is licensed to Ford. The point still holds...Ford can't develop their own technology, they must borrow it.

They could but why do so when its cheaper? Are you saying that Toyota cant develop a Diesel or a Direct Inject engine because it licenses from Ford or BMW cant make an automatic transmission because it uses General Motors transmissions?

I havent heard such a ridiculous statement in a long time.

[Edited 2007-08-15 00:54:48]
 
N231YE
Posts: 2620
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:24 am

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Wed Aug 15, 2007 7:54 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 128):
Fiberglass has been used to build cars for more than half a century. This isn't new.

Not as extensively as today.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 128):
Absolutely not. They may have started as an emissions experiment, but were brought to market on a platform of low consumption.

You may be correct in that they started in the USA under low fuel consumption, but in Japan, the Toyota HSD was initially developed for emissions.
 
N231YE
Posts: 2620
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:24 am

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:07 am

Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 129):
They could but why do so when its cheaper? Are you saying that Toyota cant develop a Diesel or a Direct Inject engine because it licenses from Ford or BMW cant make an automatic transmission because it uses General Motors transmissions?

Again, valid point. But it is disheartening to know that Ford, a company that once promised 100,000 hybrids on the road by 2010 then backed out, can't come up with their own system.

Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 129):
I havent heard such a ridiculous statement in a long time.

I don't want to get nasty with you over this: you are forgetting that the billions of dollars given to them (from my and everybody else's tax money) on developing vehicles to reduce oil dependency, clean fuels, etc, yet as stated, they borrow other's technology. And about diesels? Why aren't they here in the USA yet if they have them?
 
LOT767-300ER
Posts: 8526
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2001 12:57 pm

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:16 am

Quoting N231YE (Reply 131):
I don't want to get nasty with you over this: you are forgetting that the billions of dollars given to them (from my and everybody else's tax money) on developing vehicles to reduce oil dependency, clean fuels, etc, yet as stated, they borrow other's technology. And about diesels? Why aren't they here in the USA yet if they have them?

Diesels arent in the USA for obvious reasons. New diesel emissions laws and Americans "fear" of that kind of fuel. Its not that the technology does not exist, its that its expensive to make (and uses a crapload of petroleum to do it) and its not yet that practical.

Quoting N231YE (Reply 131):
Again, valid point. But it is disheartening to know that Ford, a company that once promised 100,000 hybrids on the road by 2010 then backed out, can't come up with their own system.

They did. Obviously you are not getting the point. The Ford system was developed independently of Toyota. Toyota was the FIRST one to patent it therefore Ford had to license some of the parts. Toyota even had a press release that stated that Ford does NOT use their developed hybrid system. Infact, Aisin which is a subsidiary by 23% of Toyota developed the hybrid transmission and parts and then sells that to Ford, GM, Nissan etc. while the same parts used for Toyota are developed in-house.

[Edited 2007-08-15 01:18:30]
 
N231YE
Posts: 2620
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:24 am

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:30 am

Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 132):
They did. Obviously you are not getting the point. The Ford system was developed independently of Toyota. Toyota was the FIRST one to patent it therefore Ford had to license some of the parts. Toyota even had a press release that stated that Ford does NOT use their developed hybrid system. Infact, Aisin which is a subsidiary by 23% of Toyota developed the hybrid transmission and parts and then sells that to Ford, GM, Nissan etc. while the same parts used for Toyota are developed in-house.

Point received...but I have never heard of this statement or patent. I have always read that Ford borowwed the technology from Toyota.

---------------------------------------------

Anyways, I must go now (instead of having my lazy ass sitting in front of a PC  silly  ), but I appreciate your responses and everyone else involved. I have at least learned a little, and I hope everyone else did too.

Since I own a Honda Civic Hybrid, if anybody has any questions, or wants me to take photos or give a technical breakdown of the engine/battery/cabin, etc., drop me a line...

N231YE
 
PHLBOS
Posts: 6520
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 6:38 am

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:34 am

Let me see if I have this straight; first you state that Europe has more stringent emission controls than the U.S.:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 79):
Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 22):
Do the across the pond models have the same amount of emission controls (which can be both a power & fuel economy robber) as those sold in the States?

In many cases, they have stronger controls than in the US.

Then, in a more recent post; you appear to be stating the opposite:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 116):
Quoting N231YE (Reply 113):

Diesels in Europe will actually be more polluting than those in the US, starting in 2008 (?). Oddly enough, I'd expect the opposite from Europe.

Actually, European emissions standards long lagged behind US ones, particularly CARB standards. Mileage was always the goal with cars sold in Europe.

to further add:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 124):
Quoting N231YE (Reply 120):

I didn't know that. But still, in a region where electric trains, clean energy, among other things is touted as being superior to the United States, one would think even their vehicles are cleaner.

That has been a big part of it. Since they have so much in their favor, car emissions were always less important.

   Okay, which is it?

Moving right along.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 119):
Quoting N231YE (Reply 117):
the Big 3 are in bed with Big oil.

You might want to take a closer look at allies of our friends in Europe and Asia.

Keep in mind, Toyota, Honda and Mercedes makes plenty of gas-guzzlers that aren't imported here to the USA.



Quoting N231YE (Reply 121):
I'm talking here in the United States. Granted, the others are just as bad, however, the Americans are reluctant to offer anything in the 40mpg+ range.

From the fore-mentioned EPA Fuel Economy Guide (2007 Model Year edition) http://http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/FEG2007intro.pdf :

Non-Hybrid (since the original intent of this thread was focusing on fuel efficient gasoline-powered cars) Fuel Economy leaders per vehicle class:

2-Seater Cars
Mazda MX-5 25/30 man, 22/30 auto. CAFE 27.5 & 26 respectively

Minicompact Cars
Mini Cooper 32/40 man., 30/37 auto. CAFE 36 & 33.5 respectively

Subcompact Cars
Toyota Yaris 34/40 man., 34/39 auto, CAFE 37 & 36.5 respectively

Compact Cars
Toyota Corolla 32/41 man. CAFE 36.5

Midsize Cars
Nissan Versa 30/34 man. CAFE 32
(personally, I would NOT consider either this (which is about the size of a Sentra) or the hybrid Prius to be a mid-size car)

Large Cars
Hyundai Sonata 24/34 man., 24/33 auto. CAFE 29 & 28.5 respectively
(personally, I would NOT consider the Sonata to be a large car)

Small Station Wagons
Honda Fit 33/38 man., 31/38 auto, CAFE 35.5 & 34.5 respectively

Midsize Station Wagons
Ford Focus 27/37 man., 27/34 auto. CAFE 32 & 30.5 respectively
(personally, I would NOT consider the Focus (the smallest vehicle in the Ford line) to be a midsize)
BTW the Focus wagon is history for 2008.

With all that said, only 3 of the listed economy per class champs get an EPA highway rating of 40 mpg or higher. It's also worth noting that all three needed a manual transmission in order to achieve such. Which brings another question into play here: of the given models sold (let's use the Toyota Corolla for example), how many are actually sold with the more fuel efficient manual transmission? Back in the '70s and early '80s; the ratio of manuals vs. automatics sold (on model that offered both) was definitely higher.

[Edited 2007-08-15 01:38:24]
"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
 
kaddyuk
Posts: 3697
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 1:04 am

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:23 am

Quoting MCOflyer (Reply 5):
I couldn't fit in the backseat.

Do you frequently travel in the back seat of your car??
Whoever said "laughter is the best medicine" never had Gonorrhea
 
User avatar
Jetsgo
Posts: 2743
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 6:31 am

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Wed Aug 15, 2007 9:58 am

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 134):
Midsize Cars
Nissan Versa



Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 134):
Large Cars
Hyundai Sonata



Oh wow. That is great. A Versa for midsize? A Sonata for large? I knew the government was inefficient and completely out of touch, but wow.

[Edited 2007-08-15 02:59:19]
Marine Corps Aviation, The Last To Let You Down!
 
UPS707
Posts: 307
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 3:58 am

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:42 am

Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 125):
The 2001-2007 Escape/Tribute has a Ford CD4E (Mazda LA4AEL) transmission which was never used on the Taurus. The Taurus had a AX4N from 2000-2007 and also a AX4S pre-2000. The Ford AXOD transmissions were never built or used for 4WD/AWD SUVs such as a Tribute or Escape.

Well... if you're correct, then I'll retract the part about the Taurus tranny. It's still a steaming pile in those early cars whatever designation you put on it. Nice to see you don't hold back on the tone you use with people whether you've responded to them before or not. There are ways to point out mistakes without being a jackass about it... but I guess you were too busy researching cars to figure that one out.
 
User avatar
Jetsgo
Posts: 2743
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2003 6:31 am

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:57 am

Quoting UPS707 (Reply 137):
There are ways to point out mistakes without being a jackass about it

It's LOT, just look about the forums. Yes he is a jackass, but that is just who he is. At least he is "fair" about it, not bullying a select few or anything.  Wink
Marine Corps Aviation, The Last To Let You Down!
 
LOT767-300ER
Posts: 8526
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2001 12:57 pm

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Wed Aug 15, 2007 4:42 pm

Quoting N231YE (Reply 133):
Point received...but I have never heard of this statement or patent. I have always read that Ford borowwed the technology from Toyota.


Good article: http://mixedpower.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=717

Quoting UPS707 (Reply 137):
Well... if you're correct, then I'll retract the part about the Taurus tranny. It's still a steaming pile in those early cars whatever designation you put on it. Nice to see you don't hold back on the tone you use with people whether you've responded to them before or not. There are ways to point out mistakes without being a jackass about it... but I guess you were too busy researching cars to figure that one out.

Let me point out a few things. You claimed to have the same transmission in 2 different cars and called them a steaming pile of crap. I didnt just "stumble" upon your mistake while browsing google mate...that would be a inter-planetary coincidence, I know enough about cars that I can tell that you dont know what you said in that sentence just by skimming it.

I dont need to "recheck" if im correct because anyone who knows diddly squat about Fords and transmission can tell you that a AX4S/N transmission is about as likely to stand the test of an Escape as a Ford IB4 (think of a 30 year old Fiesta) would stand the test when put in an Expedition. Ill give the benefit of the doubt because both of the tranny are 4 speed mounted the same.

Secondly, I tell it like it is. I wouldnt really care if you accidentally said "This Blazer has a GM 5L40E and its a slow shifting tranny" instead of the correct 4L60E but you automatically tell us something is crap and make an assumption on it...but you dont know what that something is. Its sort of like ILS telling us his interior is just great in his BMW.

Thirdly, I dont care if I know you 1 year or 1 day when im pointing out straight up facts. Youre not my girlfriend so im not going to talk to you like your my cupcake. I disagree with alot of people about cars (probably more than anyone on this forum) and can be friends with them without a problem and I say that with N1120A and Superfly as my godsend witnesses 

2:40am, and Im going fishing tomorrow so that means I go knockout and stop my tirade. Not because its late, because ive already had 8 Carlsbergs and half a shot of Spirytus. 

[Edited 2007-08-15 09:44:34]
 
UPS707
Posts: 307
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 3:58 am

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:36 pm

OK... Got it now..... You're right, the rest of the world is wrong... and no need to show common courtesy unless you're getting some.  Big grin

Enjoy your fishing and don't forget to criticize the fish for biting the hook wrong  Wink
 
N1120A
Posts: 26555
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Thu Aug 16, 2007 9:36 am

Quoting N231YE (Reply 130):

Not as extensively as today.

Which explains nothing

Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 129):
BMW cant make an automatic transmission because it uses General Motors transmissions?

Well, the vast majority of their automatics are BMW sourced.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 134):
Let me see if I have this straight; first you state that Europe has more stringent emission controls than the U.S.:

Now yes, but for quite a long time, European emissions fell behind CARB emissions.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
LOT767-300ER
Posts: 8526
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2001 12:57 pm

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Thu Aug 16, 2007 1:13 pm

Quoting UPS707 (Reply 140):
OK... Got it now..... You're right, the rest of the world is wrong... and no need to show common courtesy unless you're getting some.

Ye shall earn the respect, you were actually on a righteous path because the Taurus transmission is a POS.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 141):
Well, the vast majority of their automatics are BMW sourced.

You know what Im talking about, and if you dont heres another BMW borrow. The majority of BMW suspensions (less the new X5) are American patents and/or inventions...read: Independent/MacPherson struts.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26555
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Thu Aug 16, 2007 1:38 pm

Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 142):
The majority of BMW suspensions (less the new X5) are American patents and/or inventions...read: Independent/MacPherson struts.

Very true, though BMW is the company that truly developed the MacPherson strut into more than just a cheap, stable suspension component. BMW built that set up into the best handling road cars ever.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Fri Aug 17, 2007 4:08 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 143):
Very true, though BMW is the company that truly developed the MacPherson strut into more than just a cheap, stable suspension component. BMW built that set up into the best handling road cars ever.

Did they also perfect the electric hair dryer as well? I've heard they invented the radio too.
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
Superfly
Posts: 37705
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Fri Aug 17, 2007 4:56 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 143):
BMW built that set up into the best handling road cars ever.

....and that really comes in handy driving around cones on an obsticle course.  yes 
Now in real world driving such as potholes, train tracks and sitting in traffic I'd rather be in a Buick, Lincoln, Mercury, Cadillac or Chrysler.
Bring back the Concorde
 
N231YE
Posts: 2620
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:24 am

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Fri Aug 17, 2007 5:48 am

Quoting LOT767-300ER (Reply 139):
Good article: http://mixedpower.com/modules.php?na...d=717

Thanks for the article. Much appreciated.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 141):
Which explains nothing

 confused 

Quoting Superfly (Reply 145):
Buick, Lincoln, Mercury, Cadillac or Chrysler.

Which years?  smile  I'll take my mom's old '89 Buick Riviera. Why did GM kill the Riviera?  frown 
 
Superfly
Posts: 37705
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Fri Aug 17, 2007 6:02 am

Quoting N231YE (Reply 146):
Why did GM kill the Riviera?

Because management at GM are/were a bunch of morons making bad decisions left & right in terms of what vehicles to market, which vehicles to keep, which vehicles to kill, etc....
I have a bad feeling those people have moved to Ford as they have been making some dumb decisions recently.
Bring back the Concorde
 
LOT767-300ER
Posts: 8526
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2001 12:57 pm

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Fri Aug 17, 2007 10:11 am

Quoting Superfly (Reply 147):
Because management at GM are/were a bunch of morons making bad decisions left & right in terms of what vehicles to market, which vehicles to keep, which vehicles to kill, etc....

I agree with that. Its so sad that GM cant even offer a real muscle car anymore (and lets not start calling the C6 that or the new G8)
 
WunalaYann
Posts: 2128
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 12:55 am

RE: Non-Hybrid Fuel Efficient Cars

Sun Aug 19, 2007 5:30 pm

As a general comment regarding fuel economy, the figures shown by EPA and automakers are supposed to reflect average driving behaviours... Fuel consumption can really be "à la carte", depending on one's driving style.

One can easily chop off a litre/100 km by adopting a smoother, less aggressive driving style. It is particularly true with manual transmissions. By shifting up earlier in the rev range, you can really cut down on consumption, especially if the engine is cold.

Auto transmissions (at least not the latest versions with six or seven gears and calculating power exceeding that of Apollo IX) tend to shave off the highs and lows among average drivers. Basically, you will not be able to go too far up or down on the consumption chart, even if you adopt radically different driving styles.

Whereas with a manual, if you decide to drive at 70kph in second gear, you will get familiar with your petrol station very quickly...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], GDB, THS214, tommy1808, TTailedTiger and 65 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos