But 46 %??????
"Gordon McGrew" <RgEmMcOgVrEew@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:dpdg521r5odhb7bbclsvrhj6c5fmaogvdm@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 02 May 2006 13:43:52 GMT, "edb" <edb352@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>Honda claims its hybrid Civic sedan gets 48 mpg in the city. Consumer
>>Reports found it only gets 26 mpg -- a 46 percent difference.
>>
>>For more infl go to:
>>http://www.wesh.com/painatthepump/9141621/detail.html
>>
>
> The CR city milage test is pretty brutal. It can easily be as far
> below typical city milage as the EPA is high. Not to say that the CR
> test isn't realistic, it is just realistic of the worst case scenario.
>
>

 

Why do people defend the auto industry that has ripped them off for years?
"Steve, but not the Australian Steve" <Steve@www.com> wrote in message
news:xj06g.14928$P65.11700@southeast.rr.com...
>
> "Eric" <say.no@spam.now> wrote in message
> news:445875F4.629F7A86@spam.now...
>> From the article...
>>
>> "Honda claims its hybrid Civic sedan gets 48 mpg in the city. Consumer
>> Reports found it only gets 26 mpg -- a 46 percent difference."
>>
>> My '88 Honda Civic with 244K mi gets a very real world 37 mpg. What I
>> find
>> extraordinary is that even cars, such as hybrids, engineered with the
>> "latest and greatest" technology still are not that much better. It
>> makes
>> me wonder what have car manufacturers been doing for the last 18 years?
>>
>> Eric
>
>
> IIRC, Honda Civics and the CRX HF used to be advertised as getting close
> to 60 mpg in the mid-late 80's.
>
> As far as what happened, safety features add weight. The market demands
> comfort and comfort features add weight.
>

 

Why do people defend the auto industry that has ripped them off for years?
"Steve, but not the Australian Steve" <Steve@www.com> wrote in message
news:xj06g.14928$P65.11700@southeast.rr.com...
>
> "Eric" <say.no@spam.now> wrote in message
> news:445875F4.629F7A86@spam.now...
>> From the article...
>>
>> "Honda claims its hybrid Civic sedan gets 48 mpg in the city. Consumer
>> Reports found it only gets 26 mpg -- a 46 percent difference."
>>
>> My '88 Honda Civic with 244K mi gets a very real world 37 mpg. What I
>> find
>> extraordinary is that even cars, such as hybrids, engineered with the
>> "latest and greatest" technology still are not that much better. It
>> makes
>> me wonder what have car manufacturers been doing for the last 18 years?
>>
>> Eric
>
>
> IIRC, Honda Civics and the CRX HF used to be advertised as getting close
> to 60 mpg in the mid-late 80's.
>
> As far as what happened, safety features add weight. The market demands
> comfort and comfort features add weight.
>

 

Why do people defend the auto industry that has ripped them off for years?
"Steve, but not the Australian Steve" <Steve@www.com> wrote in message
news:xj06g.14928$P65.11700@southeast.rr.com...
>
> "Eric" <say.no@spam.now> wrote in message
> news:445875F4.629F7A86@spam.now...
>> From the article...
>>
>> "Honda claims its hybrid Civic sedan gets 48 mpg in the city. Consumer
>> Reports found it only gets 26 mpg -- a 46 percent difference."
>>
>> My '88 Honda Civic with 244K mi gets a very real world 37 mpg. What I
>> find
>> extraordinary is that even cars, such as hybrids, engineered with the
>> "latest and greatest" technology still are not that much better. It
>> makes
>> me wonder what have car manufacturers been doing for the last 18 years?
>>
>> Eric
>
>
> IIRC, Honda Civics and the CRX HF used to be advertised as getting close
> to 60 mpg in the mid-late 80's.
>
> As far as what happened, safety features add weight. The market demands
> comfort and comfort features add weight.
>

 

46 perceent is a lot of variables.
"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
news:6vidnaAU6L1WOMXZRVn-og@sedona.net...
> "Eric" <say.no@spam.now> wrote in message
> news:445875F4.629F7A86@spam.now...
>> edb wrote:
>>>
>>> Honda claims its hybrid Civic sedan gets 48 mpg in the city. Consumer
>>> Reports found it only gets 26 mpg -- a 46 percent difference.
>>>
>>> For more infl go to:
>>> http://www.wesh.com/painatthepump/9141621/detail.html
>>
>> From the article...
>>
>> "Honda claims its hybrid Civic sedan gets 48 mpg in the city. Consumer
>> Reports found it only gets 26 mpg -- a 46 percent difference."
>>
>> My '88 Honda Civic with 244K mi gets a very real world 37 mpg. What I
>> find
>> extraordinary is that even cars, such as hybrids, engineered with the
>> "latest and greatest" technology still are not that much better. It
>> makes
>> me wonder what have car manufacturers been doing for the last 18 years?
>>
>> Eric
>
> This gets into the question of "what kind of service?" If it's 37 mpg on a
> flat 65 mph highway, that's decent. If it's on a 75 mph freeway, that's
> pretty good indeed. If it's in town, that's phenomenal for a conventional
> gasoline power train and awful for a hybrid. If it's on snow covered
> roads, mysterious men in black trench coats will come to learn your
> secret.
>
> Nobody ever took "your mileage may vary" seriously until their mileage
> varied ;-)
>
> Mike
>

 

46 perceent is a lot of variables.
"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
news:6vidnaAU6L1WOMXZRVn-og@sedona.net...
> "Eric" <say.no@spam.now> wrote in message
> news:445875F4.629F7A86@spam.now...
>> edb wrote:
>>>
>>> Honda claims its hybrid Civic sedan gets 48 mpg in the city. Consumer
>>> Reports found it only gets 26 mpg -- a 46 percent difference.
>>>
>>> For more infl go to:
>>> http://www.wesh.com/painatthepump/9141621/detail.html
>>
>> From the article...
>>
>> "Honda claims its hybrid Civic sedan gets 48 mpg in the city. Consumer
>> Reports found it only gets 26 mpg -- a 46 percent difference."
>>
>> My '88 Honda Civic with 244K mi gets a very real world 37 mpg. What I
>> find
>> extraordinary is that even cars, such as hybrids, engineered with the
>> "latest and greatest" technology still are not that much better. It
>> makes
>> me wonder what have car manufacturers been doing for the last 18 years?
>>
>> Eric
>
> This gets into the question of "what kind of service?" If it's 37 mpg on a
> flat 65 mph highway, that's decent. If it's on a 75 mph freeway, that's
> pretty good indeed. If it's in town, that's phenomenal for a conventional
> gasoline power train and awful for a hybrid. If it's on snow covered
> roads, mysterious men in black trench coats will come to learn your
> secret.
>
> Nobody ever took "your mileage may vary" seriously until their mileage
> varied ;-)
>
> Mike
>

 

46 perceent is a lot of variables.
"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
news:6vidnaAU6L1WOMXZRVn-og@sedona.net...
> "Eric" <say.no@spam.now> wrote in message
> news:445875F4.629F7A86@spam.now...
>> edb wrote:
>>>
>>> Honda claims its hybrid Civic sedan gets 48 mpg in the city. Consumer
>>> Reports found it only gets 26 mpg -- a 46 percent difference.
>>>
>>> For more infl go to:
>>> http://www.wesh.com/painatthepump/9141621/detail.html
>>
>> From the article...
>>
>> "Honda claims its hybrid Civic sedan gets 48 mpg in the city. Consumer
>> Reports found it only gets 26 mpg -- a 46 percent difference."
>>
>> My '88 Honda Civic with 244K mi gets a very real world 37 mpg. What I
>> find
>> extraordinary is that even cars, such as hybrids, engineered with the
>> "latest and greatest" technology still are not that much better. It
>> makes
>> me wonder what have car manufacturers been doing for the last 18 years?
>>
>> Eric
>
> This gets into the question of "what kind of service?" If it's 37 mpg on a
> flat 65 mph highway, that's decent. If it's on a 75 mph freeway, that's
> pretty good indeed. If it's in town, that's phenomenal for a conventional
> gasoline power train and awful for a hybrid. If it's on snow covered
> roads, mysterious men in black trench coats will come to learn your
> secret.
>
> Nobody ever took "your mileage may vary" seriously until their mileage
> varied ;-)
>
> Mike
>

 

"Steve, but not the Australian Steve" wrote:
>
> "flobert" <nomail@here.NOT> wrote in message
> news:mive52hgftj8a6hknalpvb4a14v7nj5iih@4ax.com...
> > Wow, its a real secret. i knew about it before I even moved to the Us.
> >
> > I can't wait for whats going to be a horror story when gas rices in
> > the US actually become high (as in, more in line with the rest of the
> > world - doubling the price should get it there).
> >
> > Maybe then we'll see less of the ugly land-liners with their huge lazy
> > engines, and slushboxes.
>
> Actually, the US is about in the middle. CNN reported some countries
> (albeit oil producing ones) are below $1.00
> http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/19/news...bal_gasprices/.
>
>


Higher gas prices in foreign countries reflect high taxes to support
social programs whereas the lower prices indicate government subsidies
to domestic consumer(s).

A more interesting (or telling) figure is the amount that it takes to
extract a barrel of crude from the ground which is ridiculously low in
the mid east. Extraction from the Alberta tar sands is somewhat higher
as is that of the deep offshore wells.

Finally, comparing US prices to those of other countries is one of
apples and oranges. We are not them and they are not us...

JT

 

"Steve, but not the Australian Steve" wrote:
>
> "flobert" <nomail@here.NOT> wrote in message
> news:mive52hgftj8a6hknalpvb4a14v7nj5iih@4ax.com...
> > Wow, its a real secret. i knew about it before I even moved to the Us.
> >
> > I can't wait for whats going to be a horror story when gas rices in
> > the US actually become high (as in, more in line with the rest of the
> > world - doubling the price should get it there).
> >
> > Maybe then we'll see less of the ugly land-liners with their huge lazy
> > engines, and slushboxes.
>
> Actually, the US is about in the middle. CNN reported some countries
> (albeit oil producing ones) are below $1.00
> http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/19/news...bal_gasprices/.
>
>


Higher gas prices in foreign countries reflect high taxes to support
social programs whereas the lower prices indicate government subsidies
to domestic consumer(s).

A more interesting (or telling) figure is the amount that it takes to
extract a barrel of crude from the ground which is ridiculously low in
the mid east. Extraction from the Alberta tar sands is somewhat higher
as is that of the deep offshore wells.

Finally, comparing US prices to those of other countries is one of
apples and oranges. We are not them and they are not us...

JT

 

"Steve, but not the Australian Steve" wrote:
>
> "flobert" <nomail@here.NOT> wrote in message
> news:mive52hgftj8a6hknalpvb4a14v7nj5iih@4ax.com...
> > Wow, its a real secret. i knew about it before I even moved to the Us.
> >
> > I can't wait for whats going to be a horror story when gas rices in
> > the US actually become high (as in, more in line with the rest of the
> > world - doubling the price should get it there).
> >
> > Maybe then we'll see less of the ugly land-liners with their huge lazy
> > engines, and slushboxes.
>
> Actually, the US is about in the middle. CNN reported some countries
> (albeit oil producing ones) are below $1.00
> http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/19/news...bal_gasprices/.
>
>


Higher gas prices in foreign countries reflect high taxes to support
social programs whereas the lower prices indicate government subsidies
to domestic consumer(s).

A more interesting (or telling) figure is the amount that it takes to
extract a barrel of crude from the ground which is ridiculously low in
the mid east. Extraction from the Alberta tar sands is somewhat higher
as is that of the deep offshore wells.

Finally, comparing US prices to those of other countries is one of
apples and oranges. We are not them and they are not us...

JT

 

"Steve, but not the Australian Steve" wrote:
>
> "Eric" <say.no@spam.now> wrote in message news:445875F4.629F7A86@spam.now...
> > From the article...
> >
> > "Honda claims its hybrid Civic sedan gets 48 mpg in the city. Consumer
> > Reports found it only gets 26 mpg -- a 46 percent difference."
> >
> > My '88 Honda Civic with 244K mi gets a very real world 37 mpg. What I
> > find
> > extraordinary is that even cars, such as hybrids, engineered with the
> > "latest and greatest" technology still are not that much better. It makes
> > me wonder what have car manufacturers been doing for the last 18 years?
> >
> > Eric
>
> IIRC, Honda Civics and the CRX HF used to be advertised as getting close to
> 60 mpg in the mid-late 80's.
>
> As far as what happened, safety features add weight. The market demands
> comfort and comfort features add weight.



And crappy modern gas yields less in the way of mileage.

But stand by... My 1983 Civic FE project is about to go on the road
later this week. (The car is finished but I'm waiting for a set of
165x80x15 tires). *That* car reportedly was in the range of 42 mpg city
and 54 mpg highway. I expect 10-15% less based on the cars mileage
(110K) and the effects of modern fuels.

I should be posting some results in a week or so.

JT

 

"Steve, but not the Australian Steve" wrote:
>
> "Eric" <say.no@spam.now> wrote in message news:445875F4.629F7A86@spam.now...
> > From the article...
> >
> > "Honda claims its hybrid Civic sedan gets 48 mpg in the city. Consumer
> > Reports found it only gets 26 mpg -- a 46 percent difference."
> >
> > My '88 Honda Civic with 244K mi gets a very real world 37 mpg. What I
> > find
> > extraordinary is that even cars, such as hybrids, engineered with the
> > "latest and greatest" technology still are not that much better. It makes
> > me wonder what have car manufacturers been doing for the last 18 years?
> >
> > Eric
>
> IIRC, Honda Civics and the CRX HF used to be advertised as getting close to
> 60 mpg in the mid-late 80's.
>
> As far as what happened, safety features add weight. The market demands
> comfort and comfort features add weight.



And crappy modern gas yields less in the way of mileage.

But stand by... My 1983 Civic FE project is about to go on the road
later this week. (The car is finished but I'm waiting for a set of
165x80x15 tires). *That* car reportedly was in the range of 42 mpg city
and 54 mpg highway. I expect 10-15% less based on the cars mileage
(110K) and the effects of modern fuels.

I should be posting some results in a week or so.

JT

 

"Steve, but not the Australian Steve" wrote:
>
> "Eric" <say.no@spam.now> wrote in message news:445875F4.629F7A86@spam.now...
> > From the article...
> >
> > "Honda claims its hybrid Civic sedan gets 48 mpg in the city. Consumer
> > Reports found it only gets 26 mpg -- a 46 percent difference."
> >
> > My '88 Honda Civic with 244K mi gets a very real world 37 mpg. What I
> > find
> > extraordinary is that even cars, such as hybrids, engineered with the
> > "latest and greatest" technology still are not that much better. It makes
> > me wonder what have car manufacturers been doing for the last 18 years?
> >
> > Eric
>
> IIRC, Honda Civics and the CRX HF used to be advertised as getting close to
> 60 mpg in the mid-late 80's.
>
> As far as what happened, safety features add weight. The market demands
> comfort and comfort features add weight.



And crappy modern gas yields less in the way of mileage.

But stand by... My 1983 Civic FE project is about to go on the road
later this week. (The car is finished but I'm waiting for a set of
165x80x15 tires). *That* car reportedly was in the range of 42 mpg city
and 54 mpg highway. I expect 10-15% less based on the cars mileage
(110K) and the effects of modern fuels.

I should be posting some results in a week or so.

JT

 

On Wed, 03 May 2006 14:48:15 GMT, "edb" <edb352@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

>Really, 46 percent less than advertised amounts to a lot of variables.

The point is, Honda must use the EPA figures. They have no choice.

Consumer Reports knows this. Their test was designed to be extreme and
it provides valuable information about just how far off the EPA
figures can be.

The reporter who used the CR information seemed to be trying to make a
case that Honda was concealing information about real-world fuel
consumption by using the EPA estimates as part of a marketing
strategy. I do not think that case can be made. Honda may be pleased
the EPA estimates are so high for their cars, but pleased or not, they
are required by law to report them.

I'm done.

Elliot Richmond
Itinerant Curmudgeon

 

On Wed, 03 May 2006 14:48:15 GMT, "edb" <edb352@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

>Really, 46 percent less than advertised amounts to a lot of variables.

The point is, Honda must use the EPA figures. They have no choice.

Consumer Reports knows this. Their test was designed to be extreme and
it provides valuable information about just how far off the EPA
figures can be.

The reporter who used the CR information seemed to be trying to make a
case that Honda was concealing information about real-world fuel
consumption by using the EPA estimates as part of a marketing
strategy. I do not think that case can be made. Honda may be pleased
the EPA estimates are so high for their cars, but pleased or not, they
are required by law to report them.

I'm done.

Elliot Richmond
Itinerant Curmudgeon