"Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote
> But if you pay a 1000 dollars more to save this $20 a
> month
> it sounds silly.

You are changing the location of the goalposts. :-)

 

"AZ Nomad" <aznomad.3@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message news:slrng7mst1.ejm.aznomad.3@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.***.net...
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:28:41 -0700, Elle <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote:
>>"Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote
>>> Lets say you compare a car making 30mpg to a car making
>>> 35mpg.
>>> 12000/30 is 400 gallons. 12000/35 is 343 gallons.
>>> Difference
>>> is 57 gallons. With todays price less than $5 per gallons
>>> it
>>> is 57*5 = 285 dollars PER YEAR. 23 dollars per month...
>
>>~$20/month is something a lot of people do mind. That's a
>>nice lunch somewhere once a month. There's no point in
>>paying it, if it can be avoided. Twenty bucks here, twenty
>>there each month adds up.
>
> Save it all up and you might be able to afford a new battery when the time
> comes. The payback period for most hybrids is greater than the life of the
> car. You'll have more money in your pocket if you simply get a standard
> car. Better yet, get a one year old standard engine car. The difference
> in cost will be more like $150/month.

And when buying an old car you really does not have a way testing
how good is this particular car on mpg. It might require some
money spent to get to the desired target mpg values - if it costs
couple hundreds to replace sensors or make some tuning up than
it again defeats the purpose of saving these 5-10 bucks a month
which the mileage improvement can save you. Tricky subject... :-)

Also - with an old car, a single expensive unexpected repair can
kill all your pre-calculated "profits" you expect, so choosing
right car is extra tricky and is more in the hands of luck/fate.

 

On 2008-07-14, Pszemol <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote:
>
> That is for me a lot of money for such an old car...
> So there is still some hope for my 95 camry with 246k miles ;-)
> Camrmax priced mine for $750 :-)

It depends on the car...

>
> I think fuel price for an average driver is kind of overrated.
> It is not rational, it is just emotional - sticker shock effect.
> Think about it - on average one can make - what? - 12000 a year?

That depends on you. I average, over the past 10 years, about 20000
miles per year...

>
> Lets say you compare a car making 30mpg to a car making 35mpg.
> 12000/30 is 400 gallons. 12000/35 is 343 gallons. Difference
> is 57 gallons. With todays price less than $5 per gallons it
> is 57*5 = 285 dollars PER YEAR. 23 dollars per month...

So, let's say 20000/30 = 667 gallons, 20000/35 = 571 Gallons.
Difference is 96 Gallons. 96*5 = $480 per year, or $40/month.

> Is it really such a big deal to make a car purchase decisions based
> mainly or solely on fuel consumption? I think sometimes we apply
> too much value to higher mpg and we are ready to pay much too much
> for a car with lower consumption compared to what the car is able
> to save us on fuel cost...

It's not all about money. Some people also feel a responsibility to
conserve resources (clearly I am not one, since my car isn't nearly
that good on fuel)...

>
> The same applies to buying toyota prius and comparing it to - let's
> say - toyota corolla or camry, but camry looks much bigger car...
> The purchase price difference has to be compared to the amount
> it is saved on gas between these two cars.

Not necessarily. Only if that is your criteria...

>
> Of course one can speculate on future fuel prices - with the fuel
> price per gallon, le'ts say $8, the situation would look different.
> But we are still not there, yet :-)

Even $40/month is a substancial savings for some folks...


--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X

 

"Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote in message news:hbLek.18675$3q7.10561@newsfe15.lga...
> "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote
>> But if you pay a 1000 dollars more to save this $20 a
>> month it sounds silly.
>
> You are changing the location of the goalposts. :-)

Am I?

The goal is the same and has never moved: to get the car which
will cost the least amount of money it is ever possible. High
expected mpg is only one of many parts to the main equation.

Some people forget about it and are so hypnotized with mpg
that they are ready to pay more money for a car with not much
higher mpg, so not justify the price increase. At some point
they pay more for the car than they are able to save on gas
money and in the process they sacrifice car performance and
the joy of driving a nice car.

The same goes with improving the gas mileage on the car we own.
If we can bump the mileage +5mpg but have to spend $500 to do it,
is is worth it? I am afraid, not.

There was a guy here or some other newsgroup moding his honda
or nissan to get the extreme gas mileage - he has removed from
his car EVERYTHING beside his driver sit, including spare wheel.
Don't you think this is crazy? :-) One flat tire and towing
would kill all his gas savings...

So it is good to keep in touch with the bigger picture to
not get lost in the blind higher gas mileage chase... :-)

 

"Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote
> "Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote
>> "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote
>>> But if you pay a 1000 dollars more to save this $20 a
>>> month it sounds silly.
>>
>> You are changing the location of the goalposts. :-)
>
> Am I?

I did not pay a $1000 more.

 

"Joe" <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> wrote in message news:slrng7n37k.pts.joe@barada.griffincs.local...
> On 2008-07-14, Pszemol <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote:
>>
>> That is for me a lot of money for such an old car...
>> So there is still some hope for my 95 camry with 246k miles ;-)
>> Camrmax priced mine for $750 :-)
>
> It depends on the car...
>
>>
>> I think fuel price for an average driver is kind of overrated.
>> It is not rational, it is just emotional - sticker shock effect.
>> Think about it - on average one can make - what? - 12000 a year?
>
> That depends on you. I average, over the past 10 years, about 20000
> miles per year...
>
>>
>> Lets say you compare a car making 30mpg to a car making 35mpg.
>> 12000/30 is 400 gallons. 12000/35 is 343 gallons. Difference
>> is 57 gallons. With todays price less than $5 per gallons it
>> is 57*5 = 285 dollars PER YEAR. 23 dollars per month...
>
> So, let's say 20000/30 = 667 gallons, 20000/35 = 571 Gallons.
> Difference is 96 Gallons. 96*5 = $480 per year, or $40/month.
>
>> Is it really such a big deal to make a car purchase decisions based
>> mainly or solely on fuel consumption? I think sometimes we apply
>> too much value to higher mpg and we are ready to pay much too much
>> for a car with lower consumption compared to what the car is able
>> to save us on fuel cost...
>
> It's not all about money. Some people also feel a responsibility to
> conserve resources (clearly I am not one, since my car isn't nearly
> that good on fuel)...
>
>>
>> The same applies to buying toyota prius and comparing it to - let's
>> say - toyota corolla or camry, but camry looks much bigger car...
>> The purchase price difference has to be compared to the amount
>> it is saved on gas between these two cars.
>
> Not necessarily. Only if that is your criteria...
>
>>
>> Of course one can speculate on future fuel prices - with the fuel
>> price per gallon, le'ts say $8, the situation would look different.
>> But we are still not there, yet :-)
>
> Even $40/month is a substancial savings for some folks...

Of course!
You are correct - all depends on your particular car and you kind of
driving - I gave just two simple examples ilustrating how simple the
math really is - it is good to realize how much you are really saving on
a car with higher gas mileage because the math is really simple
and most of folks out there imagine the savings to be enourmous
when switching from a car which makes 35 to a hybrid and drive
only 10-12k miles a year. Just do the math and make an educated
decision without guessing or wrongly assuming huge savings...

Similar math you can do to justify buying a foreign car requiring premium
gas. Premium from regular is usually only 20-30 cents apart per gallon so
it is relativelly easy to calculate how much more or less you will spend on
gas buying this passat GTX, or audi A6 or you rather stay with honda
accord which is perfectly ok consuming regular unleaded. :-)

 

"Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote in message news:j9Mek.20390$oY2.11993@newsfe21.lga...
> "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote
>> "Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote
>>> "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote
>>>> But if you pay a 1000 dollars more to save this $20 a
>>>> month it sounds silly.
>>>
>>> You are changing the location of the goalposts. :-)
>>
>> Am I?
>
> I did not pay a $1000 more.

More than what?

I was not talking about you but in general about car choosing process.

You look at the one car (civic 91 with 27 mpg city) and another
(civic 93 with 29 mpg city) and you know that maximum you can save
in IDEAL, LABOLATORY conditions is 2mpg. How much these savings are
worth to you it depends on how much miles you make per year...
That's all.

And this mileage applies to new cars - cars with high mileage will
require a lot of work to reach that original, factory levels.
So for used cars I do not think comparison of factory values makes
any sense at all in terms of comarison. You can probably find out
there 91 civic which burns much less fuel than a random 93 civic.

How much fuel will your burn? You will see, soon...
I wish you good luck!

 

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:51:06 -0500, Pszemol <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote:
>"AZ Nomad" <aznomad.3@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message news:slrng7mst1.ejm.aznomad.3@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.***.net...
>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:28:41 -0700, Elle <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote:
>>>"Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote
>>>> Lets say you compare a car making 30mpg to a car making
>>>> 35mpg.
>>>> 12000/30 is 400 gallons. 12000/35 is 343 gallons.
>>>> Difference
>>>> is 57 gallons. With todays price less than $5 per gallons
>>>> it
>>>> is 57*5 = 285 dollars PER YEAR. 23 dollars per month...
>>
>>>~$20/month is something a lot of people do mind. That's a
>>>nice lunch somewhere once a month. There's no point in
>>>paying it, if it can be avoided. Twenty bucks here, twenty
>>>there each month adds up.
>>
>> Save it all up and you might be able to afford a new battery when the time
>> comes. The payback period for most hybrids is greater than the life of the
>> car. You'll have more money in your pocket if you simply get a standard
>> car. Better yet, get a one year old standard engine car. The difference
>> in cost will be more like $150/month.

>And when buying an old car you really does not have a way testing
>how good is this particular car on mpg. It might require some
>money spent to get to the desired target mpg values - if it costs
>couple hundreds to replace sensors or make some tuning up than
>it again defeats the purpose of saving these 5-10 bucks a month
>which the mileage improvement can save you. Tricky subject... :-)

>Also - with an old car, a single expensive unexpected repair can
>kill all your pre-calculated "profits" you expect, so choosing
>right car is extra tricky and is more in the hands of luck/fate.

I was talking about a year old car, not a twenty old junker.

 

"AZ Nomad" <aznomad.3@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message news:slrng7n6j1.qgb.aznomad.3@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.***.net...
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:51:06 -0500, Pszemol <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote:
>>"AZ Nomad" <aznomad.3@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message news:slrng7mst1.ejm.aznomad.3@ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.***.net...
>>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:28:41 -0700, Elle <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote:
>>>>"Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote
>>>>> Lets say you compare a car making 30mpg to a car making
>>>>> 35mpg.
>>>>> 12000/30 is 400 gallons. 12000/35 is 343 gallons.
>>>>> Difference
>>>>> is 57 gallons. With todays price less than $5 per gallons
>>>>> it
>>>>> is 57*5 = 285 dollars PER YEAR. 23 dollars per month...
>>>
>>>>~$20/month is something a lot of people do mind. That's a
>>>>nice lunch somewhere once a month. There's no point in
>>>>paying it, if it can be avoided. Twenty bucks here, twenty
>>>>there each month adds up.
>>>
>>> Save it all up and you might be able to afford a new battery when the time
>>> comes. The payback period for most hybrids is greater than the life of the
>>> car. You'll have more money in your pocket if you simply get a standard
>>> car. Better yet, get a one year old standard engine car. The difference
>>> in cost will be more like $150/month.
>
>>And when buying an old car you really does not have a way testing
>>how good is this particular car on mpg. It might require some
>>money spent to get to the desired target mpg values - if it costs
>>couple hundreds to replace sensors or make some tuning up than
>>it again defeats the purpose of saving these 5-10 bucks a month
>>which the mileage improvement can save you. Tricky subject... :-)
>
>>Also - with an old car, a single expensive unexpected repair can
>>kill all your pre-calculated "profits" you expect, so choosing
>>right car is extra tricky and is more in the hands of luck/fate.
>
> I was talking about a year old car, not a twenty old junker.

I know :-) You were talknig about one year old... :-)))
But we were talking here in this thread about the sense in
making mpg comparisons when buying almost 20 years old junker
(93 civic).

 

"Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote
> I was not talking about you but in general about car
> choosing process.

Use the word "one" in place of "you," then.

> cars with high mileage will require a lot of work to reach
> that original, factory levels.

Nonsense. My 91 Civic's mileage actually improved with age
and is better than the EPA's stated values. I watch it like
a hawk for the last five years, and it has not changed. You
are not the least bit up to date on what old cars can do
these days.

 

"Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote in message newsYPek.20419$oY2.5871@newsfe21.lga...
> "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote
>> I was not talking about you but in general about car
>> choosing process.
>
> Use the word "one" in place of "you," then.

:-)

>> cars with high mileage will require a lot of work to reach
>> that original, factory levels.
>
> Nonsense. My 91 Civic's mileage actually improved with age
> and is better than the EPA's stated values. I watch it like
> a hawk for the last five years, and it has not changed. You
> are not the least bit up to date on what old cars can do
> these days.

How can you explain old car with leaky cylinders and
not perfect compression, dirty/worn out fuel injectors
etc, etc, using up less fuel than when they were new?

How exactly do you measure your gas mileage and what
is the mathematical error/uncertainity of this measurement?

 

"Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote
> How can you explain old car with leaky cylinders and
> not perfect compression, dirty/worn out fuel injectors
> etc, etc, using up less fuel than when they were new?

Engine rings do not fail nearly as soon as they used to,
that's all. Without googling, I'd say technology has
improved additives to gas and engine oil, along with engine
materials, so engines last longer. You can google and find
more on why engines last longer these days. Even American
manufacturers' cars are lasting longer.

I have not read of fuel injector problems here, though
people have replaced them without any change in performance.
Tegger did a report a while back on what he saw when he
replaced his fuel injectors. Google the archives.

Seems like the only time we read here of a Honda with poor
compression is when the car has been driven hard. It's rare
to hear of someone's engine giving out here, unless it's due
to a failed timing belt.

> How exactly do you measure your gas mileage and what
> is the mathematical error/uncertainity of this
> measurement?

Trip odometer set to zero at every fillup. Fill to one
click. Divide miles by gallons. Average over many fillups,
or a few.

MPG often falls off for many people simply due to poor basic
maintenance habits like not changing out the plug wires,
plugs, distributor cap, PCV valve, air filter, etc. Also,
failing to use OEM for these parts (air filter excepted) can
be detrimental to MPG, IMO.

 

"Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote in message news:3qQek.20420$oY2.13104@newsfe21.lga...
> "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote
>> How can you explain old car with leaky cylinders and
>> not perfect compression, dirty/worn out fuel injectors
>> etc, etc, using up less fuel than when they were new?
>
> Engine rings do not fail nearly as soon as they used to,
> that's all. Without googling, I'd say technology has
> improved additives to gas and engine oil, along with engine
> materials, so engines last longer. You can google and find
> more on why engines last longer these days. Even American
> manufacturers' cars are lasting longer.

I am not saying they last shorter, I am just saying
they consume little more than when they were new
and all was clean, matching perfectly and in order.

I simply cannot compute the argument that the car
with 185 thousand miles on the odometer can consume
less fuel than when it had - let's say - 10 thousand and
everything else was brand new and in perfect adjustment.

> Trip odometer set to zero at every fillup. Fill to one
> click. Divide miles by gallons. Average over many fillups,
> or a few.

This is very unreliable method and you have many
sources of error factored to your calculations!

> MPG often falls off for many people simply due to poor basic
> maintenance habits like not changing out the plug wires,
> plugs, distributor cap, PCV valve, air filter, etc. Also,
> failing to use OEM for these parts (air filter excepted) can
> be detrimental to MPG, IMO.

I see I am unable to convince you... that is ok, too :-)

 

"Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote
> I simply cannot compute the argument that the car
> with 185 thousand miles on the odometer can consume
> less fuel than when it had - let's say - 10 thousand and
> everything else was brand new and in perfect adjustment.

Then you are not acquainted with changes in technology. Just
the use of unleaded fuel in the last 30 years has altered
engine life dramatically.

>> Trip odometer set to zero at every fillup. Fill to one
>> click. Divide miles by gallons. Average over many
>> fillups, or a few.
>
> This is very unreliable method and you have many
> sources of error factored to your calculations!

Nonsense, but thank you for convincing me you are a bullshit
artist.

 

"Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote in message news:tIQek.20424$oY2.3806@newsfe21.lga...
> "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote
>> I simply cannot compute the argument that the car
>> with 185 thousand miles on the odometer can consume
>> less fuel than when it had - let's say - 10 thousand and
>> everything else was brand new and in perfect adjustment.
>
> Then you are not acquainted with changes in technology. Just
> the use of unleaded fuel in the last 30 years has altered
> engine life dramatically.

Sure, and car after 200 thousand miles consumes less fuel
than the same car when it was brand new... of course :-)

>>> Trip odometer set to zero at every fillup. Fill to one
>>> click. Divide miles by gallons. Average over many
>>> fillups, or a few.
>>
>> This is very unreliable method and you have many
>> sources of error factored to your calculations!
>
> Nonsense, but thank you for convincing me you are a bullshit
> artist.

Here we go with name calling game... How mature is it? :-)

You simply do not realize where are the sources of BIG errors
in your method. For example, starting at your shut-off nozzle,
it will shut-off in very random place near the top of the tank.
It will depend on the brand of the dispenser, velocity of the
fuel in the hose (how strong is the submersible on the site)
even the same nozzles will differ in the shut-off reaction time.
Shut off time will even depend on how deep you put nozzle in...
It will also depend on the particular fuel was delivered that
day on the site you refuel... If the gasoline happens to be
specially foamy that day, it may actuate the release mechanism
in the nozzle prematurely, with the result that you end up with
less than a full tank of gas. If you stop fueling in the middle
and let the foam settle, then fuel to the top it will be different.

Mixing city and highway milleage is also a huge factor in error
estimation. Ambient air temperature, weather condition (rain),
holiday period and less cars on the road, less stops&go.
Averaging can only help a little.

Well, good luck with your car! :-)