Does fuel economy matter to you at all?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Ducked
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: Ducked
That's a clear collateral benefit. You save your own fuel, and you slow everyone else down, saving their fuel as well.


I think you have just inadvertently described why there are so many Prius haters out there. There is nothing wrong with driving a fuel efficient vehicle at the speed limit, in order to save a bit of fuel. But it can be a danger if they are trying to force others to drive at the same pace, by blocking them in behind them....

We have this happen all the time in Arizona. Which is one of the few states that don't put up signs on limited access highways telling drivers to, "Keep To Right Except To Pass", or, "Slower Traffic Keep To Right". As a result you often wind up with three or more cars running under the limit, 3 or 4 abreast, all running blocker for everyone else. This causes a lot of accidents, by promoting a lot of unnecessary lane changing to get around them. You have the right to save fuel if you so desire. You DO NOT have the right to force others to do the same by blocking them in behind you. Creating what is basically an obstacle for everyone else to drive around.



Well, I wouldn't do that. I get too much trouble from trucks aggressively tailgating me in the slow lane to want to go looking for trouble by indulging in fast lane vigilantism, plus I don't want to do the speed limit anyway.

But now you mention it, don't US citizens have the right to uphold the law? No citizens arrest provision?

All the "defensive ammo" jive on here at least suggests a right to self-defense, and a case (moral if not legal) could be made here for self defence via protection of the shared environment.


In some states, its the LAW to keep out of the fast/passing lane. Wouldn't it be interesting if citizens had a right to uphold the law or initiate citizens arrest in these cases to???

You wouldn't "have the moral high ground" in these states, you would just be a busybody inflicting your will on others.

Just food for thought.

Cheers
 
Nope, I care more about everything else instead. Brand, looks, ease of maintenance, what kind of tech it uses (whether it uses DI vs port, turbo).

But obviously good fuel mileage is icing on the cake that I would always prefer.

I think with the category of cars I usually buy (Japanese sub-compacts), I don't have to specifically look for good fuel mileage because it's usually always there.
 
Originally Posted By: SOHCman
Originally Posted By: Ducked
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: Ducked
That's a clear collateral benefit. You save your own fuel, and you slow everyone else down, saving their fuel as well.


I think you have just inadvertently described why there are so many Prius haters out there. There is nothing wrong with driving a fuel efficient vehicle at the speed limit, in order to save a bit of fuel. But it can be a danger if they are trying to force others to drive at the same pace, by blocking them in behind them....

We have this happen all the time in Arizona. Which is one of the few states that don't put up signs on limited access highways telling drivers to, "Keep To Right Except To Pass", or, "Slower Traffic Keep To Right". As a result you often wind up with three or more cars running under the limit, 3 or 4 abreast, all running blocker for everyone else. This causes a lot of accidents, by promoting a lot of unnecessary lane changing to get around them. You have the right to save fuel if you so desire. You DO NOT have the right to force others to do the same by blocking them in behind you. Creating what is basically an obstacle for everyone else to drive around.



Well, I wouldn't do that. I get too much trouble from trucks aggressively tailgating me in the slow lane to want to go looking for trouble by indulging in fast lane vigilantism, plus I don't want to do the speed limit anyway.

But now you mention it, don't US citizens have the right to uphold the law? No citizens arrest provision?

All the "defensive ammo" jive on here at least suggests a right to self-defense, and a case (moral if not legal) could be made here for self defence via protection of the shared environment.


In some states, its the LAW to keep out of the fast/passing lane. Wouldn't it be interesting if citizens had a right to uphold the law or initiate citizens arrest in these cases to???

You wouldn't "have the moral high ground" in these states, you would just be a busybody inflicting your will on others.

Just food for thought.

Cheers


Law and morality are not the same thing.

Thus, it'd be quite possible to hold "The Moral High Ground" while, or by, breaking the law. Lots of historical examples, such as the US Civil Rights Movement.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I care about fuel economy. Now, we did trade in a Subaru Crosstrek that got over 30 mpg for an Escalade that gets about half the mileage, but we needed a (much) bigger vehicle. The Escalade with its lousy mpg is basically a necessary evil. Once the kids are grown and we don't need such a big vehicle anymore, I'm going to try to convince the wife to sell it for something smaller with better mileage. (She's really taken a liking to it though, so it might be difficult convincing her.)

Most days I commute to work in the Accord because it gets the best mpg, which still isn't fantastic at about 25 mpg. But it's paid for, insurance is dirt cheap and the yearly taxes are dirt cheap (antique plates
cool.gif
). There's no way I'd save money by driving a newer car with better mpg. Plus I just plain love the car and don't want to get rid of it.
 
Originally Posted By: Ducked
Law and morality are not the same thing.
Thus, it'd be quite possible to hold "The Moral High Ground" while, or by, breaking the law. Lots of historical examples, such as the US Civil Rights Movement.



I have the moral high ground to slow others down by driving slow is holding the morale high ground?

One could compare such a stance toward the other drivers as totalitarian or even sociopathic. Morality is relative after all, who are you to enforce bizarre standards on others? Especially when it breaks actual law.

No offense, I honestly want to know.

Your civil rights example is invalid, because that was a just cause to give people MORE freedom, MORE equal treatment/rights under the law. Your behavior takes it away from others at your personal whim.

Cheers.
 
Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix
I've seen plenty of manic Prius drivers going well over the speed limit, and even weaving in & out of traffic.

Almost always with a Uber placard on the windshield or the Lyft Amp on the dash too. Although ironically, I've almost gotten nailed for speeding in the Prius.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: MCompact
... from now on a new DD has to have better acceleration than its predecessor.


Excellent rule to follow!!!


I've been following the more hp than the last car rule for a while. Technically at one point I had a turbo that made 146hp and then the next car was 170hp but 0-60 was slower because those multivalve horsepowers were slower than turbo horsepowers or so it seemed, probably because the car was heavier. Now I'm up to 268 so it's going to be hard going forward to get one with even more hp as the trend seems to be away from V6's and back to turbo 4's.

I remember "racing" a Prius once. My car had 200hp so it was easy for it to get up to speed. The stretch was a long section of road where there was a light every few hundred feet. I'd get it up to about 50 or so then coast to the next stop light. The Prius and I were neck and neck and the light so I'd just give it gas and take off, then after hitting 50, I'd coast and I'd see her catch up to me and then pull ahead a little bit before coming to the next light. Sorta funny as it was clear she was trying to drive it hard, but it was too slow.
 
Originally Posted By: SOHCman
Originally Posted By: Ducked
Law and morality are not the same thing.
Thus, it'd be quite possible to hold "The Moral High Ground" while, or by, breaking the law. Lots of historical examples, such as the US Civil Rights Movement.



So **** them, I have the moral high ground to slow others down by driving slow is holding the morale high ground?

One could compare such a stance toward the other drivers as totalitarian or even sociopathic. Morality is relative after all, who are you to enforce bizarre standards on others? Especially when it breaks actual law.

No offense, I honestly want to know.

Your civil rights example is invalid, because that was a just cause to give people MORE freedom, MORE equal treatment/rights under the law. Your behavior takes it away from others at your personal whim.

Cheers.


Whats with this "your behaviour" jive? I've already said I don't do this, though I can see there is a case for doing it.

READ

THE

WURDZ

I slow traffic when a single lane means they can't pass me and I dont want to push my ancient 3-cyl over 100 and possibly risk blowing the head gasket again. If that annoys some Porsche pilot with the standard issue sense of entitlement that's a collateral benefit, but its not my objective.

In the slow lane I get trucks riding my back bumper when they could easily pass me. Nothing much I can do about that either, except slow down, which I'm not always brave enough to do.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Ducked
But now you mention it, don't US citizens have the right to uphold the law? No citizens arrest provision? All the "defensive ammo" jive on here at least suggests a right to self-defense, and a case (moral if not legal) could be made here for self defence via protection of the shared environment.


Let me get this straight. Now you want to compare tree huggers running blocker on the freeway to save gas, with concealed carry to defend your life?
 
Originally Posted By: Ducked
I slow traffic when a single lane means they can't pass me and I dont want to push my ancient 3-cyl over 100 and possibly risk blowing the head gasket again.


Again? You would be better served to stop whining about, "moral high ground", and "environmental self defense", and buy a car that can keep up with traffic without coming apart.
 
Originally Posted By: Ducked


You're not making sense. That's a clear collateral benefit. You save your own fuel, and you slow everyone else down, saving their fuel as well.



This is incredibly naive. Just because you are saving fuel, does not mean others will be at the same speed. My 1er gets the best FE at 120 km/hr. By blocking, you are first, breaking the law, and second being a ****.
 
Yes, I care about MPG. Sounds funny since I drive a full size truck. Yet when I went shopping, I chose the engine that delivered the best fuel mileage in the platform I bought. And it delivers over 30% better fuel mileage than what it replaced. Two other larger, less economical, but more powerful choices in the same brand, and multiple other brands.
 
I don't think many are against improving fuel economy. But many are against having to spend more for a car where you don't recoup the added costs in fuel savings.

Car A costs 25K and gets 25 MPG -- Driven 15K miles/year. Uses 600 gallons of fuel/year @ $2.50/gallon that's $1500

Car B costs 35K and gets 35 MPG -- Drive the same 15K miles/year, uses 428.5 gallons of fuel/year @ $2.50/gallon, that's $1071/year.

By saving only $431/year i fuel costs, it's going to take me 20+ years to save the $10K more the more fuel efficient car costs.

What I'm saying is it is possible the more fuel efficient car costs more to operate because the technology is more expensive than a car with lower fuel economy.

Now if fuel is $8-10/gallon, you can make it work. If both cars cost the same, you can make it work. But it is possible that hybrids, diesels and others are not worth the higher costs in the current market.

It's not that people are against higher fuel economy. They are against the higher costs, either fiscal or other to achieve that economy.

Make a pickup truck or SUV that you can buy for $30k that gets 40 MPG and people will knock down the doors of the dealerships to buy them.

Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
Yes, it matters -- I would rather spend less to get from point A to B than spend more.

That's why I cannot understand people who are against improving fuel economy.
 
Another example of the previous post .

We bought a used 2012 Nissan Leaf . Best I could tell , the cost of electricity was about 1/2 the cost of gas for our little red Chevy Sonic . With gas priced aroun $ 2 .

Was that savings enough to justify the cost of the Leaf ? No .
 
Originally Posted By: javacontour
I don't think many are against improving fuel economy. But many are against having to spend more for a car where you don't recoup the added costs in fuel savings. Car A costs 25K and gets 25 MPG -- Driven 15K miles/year. Uses 600 gallons of fuel/year @ $2.50/gallon that's $1500. Car B costs 35K and gets 35 MPG -- Drive the same 15K miles/year, uses 428.5 gallons of fuel/year @ $2.50/gallon, that's $1071/year. By saving only $431/year i fuel costs, it's going to take me 20+ years to save the $10K more the more fuel efficient car costs.

What I'm saying is it is possible the more fuel efficient car costs more to operate because the technology is more expensive than a car with lower fuel economy. Now if fuel is $8-10/gallon, you can make it work. If both cars cost the same, you can make it work. But it is possible that hybrids, diesels and others are not worth the higher costs in the current market. It's not that people are against higher fuel economy. They are against the higher costs, either fiscal or other to achieve that economy. Make a pickup truck or SUV that you can buy for $30k that gets 40 MPG and people will knock down the doors of the dealerships to buy them.


Correct. It's total false economy. This is particularly true with Diesels. Very few people who buy Diesel trucks need them for their increased towing capacity. The remainder like to tout their fuel economy over a similar powered gasoline vehicle. But when you factor in their increased cost, complexity, (DEF systems), added increased repair cost over the life of the vehicle, along with the fact Diesel fuel cost more today most everywhere, it is all but impossible to offset the added purchase and maintenance cost. This is why in spite of increased diesel technology, they only account for less than 3% of the vehicles on the road in this country. They are basically sold for the, "cool factor". And these Hybrids aren't much better in the added cost and complexity vs. fuel savings category either.

The fact is most people don't keep their Diesels or Hybrid vehicles long enough to offset ANY fuel savings. When compared to the huge financial bath they're taking on all the depreciation. Used Diesels and Hybrid vehicles are worth much less than gasoline vehicles when traded in out of warranty.
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
Correct. It's total false economy. This is particularly true with Diesels. Very few people who buy Diesel trucks need them for their increased towing capacity. The remainder like to tout their fuel economy over a similar powered gasoline vehicle. But when you factor in their increased cost, complexity, (DEF systems), added increased repair cost over the life of the vehicle, along with the fact Diesel fuel cost more today most everywhere, it is all but impossible to offset the added purchase and maintenance cost. This is why in spite of increased diesel technology, they only account for less than 3% of the vehicles on the road in this country. They are basically sold for the, "cool factor". And these Hybrids aren't much better in the added cost and complexity vs. fuel savings category either.

The fact is ...


Awesome, this is where we see facts and data over rhetoric...

So, what's the facts and data thanks Bill ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

pezzy84
Rental car review - 2025 Toyota Camry SE Hybrid - middling fuel economy
Replies
19
Views
14K
RhondaHonda
C
Engine Swap Advice
3 4 5
Replies
89
Views
3K
Shannonwilkerson
D
Towing and gear selection
Replies
12
Views
449
BrendanC
robertfixit
e85 ethanol gas in 08 Pontiac Vibe
Replies
12
Views
302
robertfixit
C
First car for son: 3800 Buick vs Crown Vic vs Camry 2.2L....need advice
3 4 5
Replies
83
Views
3K
Starving Electrician
Back
Top Bottom