My wife test drove the Accord and Civic hybrids and the Prius. She went
with the accord because she did not want to give up so many creature
comforts. The Toyota hybrid SUV gets mediocre gas mileage too at a high
sticker price. That fancy interior in the Acura will never pay for itself
either. Hybrid is just one more feature. If you pay for it in the Accord
you are rewarded with a little more power and better gas mileage.


"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-1804060818550001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...
> In article <k571g.7291$JY5.5544@trnddc01>, John Horner
> <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> IMO Honda completely missed the boat on this one by going for a
>> "performance hybrid". Nobody needs even higher performance than the V-6
>> Accord already offers, and the price of the Hybrid Accord is a show
>> stopper. Why pay the price on an Acura TL to get a Honda sedan?
>>
>> Hybrids should be about great fuel economy, and the Accord hybrid real
>> world economy is little better than the 4 cylinder Accord.
>>
>> IMO Honda would do much better selling a high economy 1.8 L turbocharged
>> version of the Accord instead of the silly V-6 hybrid. With the new
>> focus on fuel economy we are going to see more use of smaller engines
>> with turbochargers. Even Honda is about to get into the turbo act with
>> the new Acura RDX.
>>
>> John
>
> John,
> I agree with you. The new Honda Fit will get 33 mpg in the city and 38
> miles on the highway. It's my opinion that lots of people will buy the
> Honda Fit or Toyota Yaris (for about $15,000 per car) instead of
> overpriced Hybrids. The cost of a Toyata Prius is about $23,000 per car.
> Do you agree?
> Jason
>
> --
> NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
> We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
> We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
>
>
>

 

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 22:47:28 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Jason wrote:
>
>>
>> John,
>> I agree with you. The new Honda Fit will get 33 mpg in the city and 38
>> miles on the highway. It's my opinion that lots of people will buy the
>> Honda Fit or Toyota Yaris (for about $15,000 per car) instead of
>> overpriced Hybrids. The cost of a Toyata Prius is about $23,000 per car.
>> Do you agree?
>> Jason
>>
>
>Yes, for a commuter vehicle something like the Fit makes sense, though
>the safety aspect concerns me.

What safety Aspect. and for that matter, who's safety?

>
>In general I think that hybrid technology as currently implemented
>results in too much cost and too much added complexity for too little
>benefit.

too true. They're for show only. Its the automotive equivilent of
recycling drinks cans.

>
>A small high tech turbo-diesel can get the job done better!

too true,

>
>John

 

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 22:47:28 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Jason wrote:
>
>>
>> John,
>> I agree with you. The new Honda Fit will get 33 mpg in the city and 38
>> miles on the highway. It's my opinion that lots of people will buy the
>> Honda Fit or Toyota Yaris (for about $15,000 per car) instead of
>> overpriced Hybrids. The cost of a Toyata Prius is about $23,000 per car.
>> Do you agree?
>> Jason
>>
>
>Yes, for a commuter vehicle something like the Fit makes sense, though
>the safety aspect concerns me.

What safety Aspect. and for that matter, who's safety?

>
>In general I think that hybrid technology as currently implemented
>results in too much cost and too much added complexity for too little
>benefit.

too true. They're for show only. Its the automotive equivilent of
recycling drinks cans.

>
>A small high tech turbo-diesel can get the job done better!

too true,

>
>John

 

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 22:47:28 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Jason wrote:
>
>>
>> John,
>> I agree with you. The new Honda Fit will get 33 mpg in the city and 38
>> miles on the highway. It's my opinion that lots of people will buy the
>> Honda Fit or Toyota Yaris (for about $15,000 per car) instead of
>> overpriced Hybrids. The cost of a Toyata Prius is about $23,000 per car.
>> Do you agree?
>> Jason
>>
>
>Yes, for a commuter vehicle something like the Fit makes sense, though
>the safety aspect concerns me.

What safety Aspect. and for that matter, who's safety?

>
>In general I think that hybrid technology as currently implemented
>results in too much cost and too much added complexity for too little
>benefit.

too true. They're for show only. Its the automotive equivilent of
recycling drinks cans.

>
>A small high tech turbo-diesel can get the job done better!

too true,

>
>John

 

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 17:01:06 -0700, "Michael Pardee"
<michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:

>"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:40e1g.2073$sh.1533@trnddc08...
>> A small high tech turbo-diesel can get the job done better!
>>
>> John
>
>There is certainly something to be said for turbo-diesels. My new work truck
>is a Ford with the Cummins 6L TDi. It has shortcomings common to diesels and
>most marked in TDs: it has to be driven gently when cold to protect the
>engine, it is noisy and smoky (mostly smoky during warm-up), and even when
>warm merging into traffic makes me wish I had four feet - one to hold the
>accelerator down, one to let the clutch up, and two to do the Fred
>Flintstone thing.

Thats why he said a high-tech one. The cummins and other crap in US
domestic trucks are OLD designs, at least 10 years behind whats
available in europe, and filtering into the US. Friend's husband has
the 7.something cummins in an F250. says the same thing as you. Its
pretty much the same engine as all through the 80's and 90s.

> But the advantages are more important. It gets right at
>twice the fuel economy of the old gasser (at least on the highway... dunno
>about in town), yielding twice the range with the same size tank - important
>when crossing the largest indian reservation in the US at odd hours. On the
>highway, with only a slight turbo lag, the power is phenomenal... as I would
>expect with more than 20 lbs boost. And off-road it crawls along much better
>than the gasser did, as long as I don't let the turbo come in.
>
>Mike
>

 

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 17:01:06 -0700, "Michael Pardee"
<michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:

>"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:40e1g.2073$sh.1533@trnddc08...
>> A small high tech turbo-diesel can get the job done better!
>>
>> John
>
>There is certainly something to be said for turbo-diesels. My new work truck
>is a Ford with the Cummins 6L TDi. It has shortcomings common to diesels and
>most marked in TDs: it has to be driven gently when cold to protect the
>engine, it is noisy and smoky (mostly smoky during warm-up), and even when
>warm merging into traffic makes me wish I had four feet - one to hold the
>accelerator down, one to let the clutch up, and two to do the Fred
>Flintstone thing.

Thats why he said a high-tech one. The cummins and other crap in US
domestic trucks are OLD designs, at least 10 years behind whats
available in europe, and filtering into the US. Friend's husband has
the 7.something cummins in an F250. says the same thing as you. Its
pretty much the same engine as all through the 80's and 90s.

> But the advantages are more important. It gets right at
>twice the fuel economy of the old gasser (at least on the highway... dunno
>about in town), yielding twice the range with the same size tank - important
>when crossing the largest indian reservation in the US at odd hours. On the
>highway, with only a slight turbo lag, the power is phenomenal... as I would
>expect with more than 20 lbs boost. And off-road it crawls along much better
>than the gasser did, as long as I don't let the turbo come in.
>
>Mike
>

 

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 17:01:06 -0700, "Michael Pardee"
<michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:

>"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:40e1g.2073$sh.1533@trnddc08...
>> A small high tech turbo-diesel can get the job done better!
>>
>> John
>
>There is certainly something to be said for turbo-diesels. My new work truck
>is a Ford with the Cummins 6L TDi. It has shortcomings common to diesels and
>most marked in TDs: it has to be driven gently when cold to protect the
>engine, it is noisy and smoky (mostly smoky during warm-up), and even when
>warm merging into traffic makes me wish I had four feet - one to hold the
>accelerator down, one to let the clutch up, and two to do the Fred
>Flintstone thing.

Thats why he said a high-tech one. The cummins and other crap in US
domestic trucks are OLD designs, at least 10 years behind whats
available in europe, and filtering into the US. Friend's husband has
the 7.something cummins in an F250. says the same thing as you. Its
pretty much the same engine as all through the 80's and 90s.

> But the advantages are more important. It gets right at
>twice the fuel economy of the old gasser (at least on the highway... dunno
>about in town), yielding twice the range with the same size tank - important
>when crossing the largest indian reservation in the US at odd hours. On the
>highway, with only a slight turbo lag, the power is phenomenal... as I would
>expect with more than 20 lbs boost. And off-road it crawls along much better
>than the gasser did, as long as I don't let the turbo come in.
>
>Mike
>

 

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 16:50:48 -0700, in alt.autos.honda you wrote:

>"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:jason-1804060818550001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...
>> John,
>> I agree with you. The new Honda Fit will get 33 mpg in the city and 38
>> miles on the highway. It's my opinion that lots of people will buy the
>> Honda Fit or Toyota Yaris (for about $15,000 per car) instead of
>> overpriced Hybrids. The cost of a Toyata Prius is about $23,000 per car.
>> Do you agree?
>> Jason
>>
>OTOH, anybody who gets only 33/38 in a hybrid complains bitterly -
>especially that city rating. If a Prius gets below 40 in any weather short
>of snowy roads there is something wrong - our first generation has *never*
>dropped below 40, in town or on the highway (round trip where applicable).
>Combine that with the improved performance of hybrids, especially
>off-the-line, plus the spectacularly smooth power delivery of Toyota's
>system, and it's easy to see why cheap cars are cheap. I wouldn't buy an
>economy car if I can afford better.

You're not paying for better physics, or golden engines. cheap cars
are cheap because they don't pack in the luxuries. I've been in plenty
of cheap cars with smooth power delivery. i've been in expensive cars
with terrible power delivery (Jaguar s-type diesel for starters, any
USDM diesel except the sprinter, and a buick I rented back in 03
spring to mind.)

Friend had a bottom of the range [but new] ford fiesta, power delivery
was a lot smoother than in my [then] 8yo volvo, despite the volvo
costing about 3.5x more when new (this was in 98)

cost and smoothness are two different things. The price between my 360
and his fiesta was not in smoothness, but in other areas, like how I
could get in my boot almost everything he could get in his car with
the rear seat down too, i had more power, RWD to his FWD, and heaters,
wipers and other severe weather gear everywhere (oh, and I be hit by
another car at 40-50mph, and still be able to tow them home, very
important that!)

>
>Mike
>

 

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 16:50:48 -0700, in alt.autos.honda you wrote:

>"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:jason-1804060818550001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...
>> John,
>> I agree with you. The new Honda Fit will get 33 mpg in the city and 38
>> miles on the highway. It's my opinion that lots of people will buy the
>> Honda Fit or Toyota Yaris (for about $15,000 per car) instead of
>> overpriced Hybrids. The cost of a Toyata Prius is about $23,000 per car.
>> Do you agree?
>> Jason
>>
>OTOH, anybody who gets only 33/38 in a hybrid complains bitterly -
>especially that city rating. If a Prius gets below 40 in any weather short
>of snowy roads there is something wrong - our first generation has *never*
>dropped below 40, in town or on the highway (round trip where applicable).
>Combine that with the improved performance of hybrids, especially
>off-the-line, plus the spectacularly smooth power delivery of Toyota's
>system, and it's easy to see why cheap cars are cheap. I wouldn't buy an
>economy car if I can afford better.

You're not paying for better physics, or golden engines. cheap cars
are cheap because they don't pack in the luxuries. I've been in plenty
of cheap cars with smooth power delivery. i've been in expensive cars
with terrible power delivery (Jaguar s-type diesel for starters, any
USDM diesel except the sprinter, and a buick I rented back in 03
spring to mind.)

Friend had a bottom of the range [but new] ford fiesta, power delivery
was a lot smoother than in my [then] 8yo volvo, despite the volvo
costing about 3.5x more when new (this was in 98)

cost and smoothness are two different things. The price between my 360
and his fiesta was not in smoothness, but in other areas, like how I
could get in my boot almost everything he could get in his car with
the rear seat down too, i had more power, RWD to his FWD, and heaters,
wipers and other severe weather gear everywhere (oh, and I be hit by
another car at 40-50mph, and still be able to tow them home, very
important that!)

>
>Mike
>

 

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 16:50:48 -0700, in alt.autos.honda you wrote:

>"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:jason-1804060818550001@66-52-22-49.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net...
>> John,
>> I agree with you. The new Honda Fit will get 33 mpg in the city and 38
>> miles on the highway. It's my opinion that lots of people will buy the
>> Honda Fit or Toyota Yaris (for about $15,000 per car) instead of
>> overpriced Hybrids. The cost of a Toyata Prius is about $23,000 per car.
>> Do you agree?
>> Jason
>>
>OTOH, anybody who gets only 33/38 in a hybrid complains bitterly -
>especially that city rating. If a Prius gets below 40 in any weather short
>of snowy roads there is something wrong - our first generation has *never*
>dropped below 40, in town or on the highway (round trip where applicable).
>Combine that with the improved performance of hybrids, especially
>off-the-line, plus the spectacularly smooth power delivery of Toyota's
>system, and it's easy to see why cheap cars are cheap. I wouldn't buy an
>economy car if I can afford better.

You're not paying for better physics, or golden engines. cheap cars
are cheap because they don't pack in the luxuries. I've been in plenty
of cheap cars with smooth power delivery. i've been in expensive cars
with terrible power delivery (Jaguar s-type diesel for starters, any
USDM diesel except the sprinter, and a buick I rented back in 03
spring to mind.)

Friend had a bottom of the range [but new] ford fiesta, power delivery
was a lot smoother than in my [then] 8yo volvo, despite the volvo
costing about 3.5x more when new (this was in 98)

cost and smoothness are two different things. The price between my 360
and his fiesta was not in smoothness, but in other areas, like how I
could get in my boot almost everything he could get in his car with
the rear seat down too, i had more power, RWD to his FWD, and heaters,
wipers and other severe weather gear everywhere (oh, and I be hit by
another car at 40-50mph, and still be able to tow them home, very
important that!)

>
>Mike
>

 

flobert wrote:

>>Yes, for a commuter vehicle something like the Fit makes sense, though
>>the safety aspect concerns me.
>
>
> What safety Aspect. and for that matter, who's safety?
>

My concern is the safety of the occupant when impacted by the monster
trucks so many folks consider sensible commuter vehicles.

All other things being equal, smaller and lighter is a disadvantage to
the occupants in a crash.

John

 

flobert wrote:

>>Yes, for a commuter vehicle something like the Fit makes sense, though
>>the safety aspect concerns me.
>
>
> What safety Aspect. and for that matter, who's safety?
>

My concern is the safety of the occupant when impacted by the monster
trucks so many folks consider sensible commuter vehicles.

All other things being equal, smaller and lighter is a disadvantage to
the occupants in a crash.

John

 

flobert wrote:

>>Yes, for a commuter vehicle something like the Fit makes sense, though
>>the safety aspect concerns me.
>
>
> What safety Aspect. and for that matter, who's safety?
>

My concern is the safety of the occupant when impacted by the monster
trucks so many folks consider sensible commuter vehicles.

All other things being equal, smaller and lighter is a disadvantage to
the occupants in a crash.

John

 

"flobert" <nomail@here.NOT> wrote in message
news:867b425qbsr3t7gn8dr7kl4tjhmppqii0s@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 17:01:06 -0700, "Michael Pardee"
> <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:
>
>>"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:40e1g.2073$sh.1533@trnddc08...
>>> A small high tech turbo-diesel can get the job done better!
>>>
>>> John
>>
>>There is certainly something to be said for turbo-diesels. My new work
>>truck
>>is a Ford with the Cummins 6L TDi. It has shortcomings common to diesels
>>and
>>most marked in TDs: it has to be driven gently when cold to protect the
>>engine, it is noisy and smoky (mostly smoky during warm-up), and even when
>>warm merging into traffic makes me wish I had four feet - one to hold the
>>accelerator down, one to let the clutch up, and two to do the Fred
>>Flintstone thing.
>
> Thats why he said a high-tech one. The cummins and other crap in US
> domestic trucks are OLD designs, at least 10 years behind whats
> available in europe, and filtering into the US. Friend's husband has
> the 7.something cummins in an F250. says the same thing as you. Its
> pretty much the same engine as all through the 80's and 90s.
>
I hear that all the time, but my Swedish friend tells me the diesels in
Europe are the exact same way. Certainly the turbo lag will be identical -
you can't get 20 psi boost from thin air.

Mike

 

"flobert" <nomail@here.NOT> wrote in message
news:867b425qbsr3t7gn8dr7kl4tjhmppqii0s@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 17:01:06 -0700, "Michael Pardee"
> <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:
>
>>"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:40e1g.2073$sh.1533@trnddc08...
>>> A small high tech turbo-diesel can get the job done better!
>>>
>>> John
>>
>>There is certainly something to be said for turbo-diesels. My new work
>>truck
>>is a Ford with the Cummins 6L TDi. It has shortcomings common to diesels
>>and
>>most marked in TDs: it has to be driven gently when cold to protect the
>>engine, it is noisy and smoky (mostly smoky during warm-up), and even when
>>warm merging into traffic makes me wish I had four feet - one to hold the
>>accelerator down, one to let the clutch up, and two to do the Fred
>>Flintstone thing.
>
> Thats why he said a high-tech one. The cummins and other crap in US
> domestic trucks are OLD designs, at least 10 years behind whats
> available in europe, and filtering into the US. Friend's husband has
> the 7.something cummins in an F250. says the same thing as you. Its
> pretty much the same engine as all through the 80's and 90s.
>
I hear that all the time, but my Swedish friend tells me the diesels in
Europe are the exact same way. Certainly the turbo lag will be identical -
you can't get 20 psi boost from thin air.

Mike