10th Apr 2006, 18:42

Sorry, but EPA figures do NOT take into account FOUR passengers aboard, so therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE for a Neon to get 41 mpg or even 44 mpg with four passengers aboard. After all, we are talking about adding upwards of six hundred extra pounds or more.

Or are you now telling us the 44mpg Neon figure was with four jockeys or anorexic supermodels aboard?

And EPA figures are GROSSLY optimistic and always have been. It is very very rare when someone is able to beat them.

12th Apr 2006, 13:10

Maybe you missed this, but I addressed this, it was on a trip to Arizona, and there were three people in the car, PLUS all our luggage, approximately the same as four people. It's kind of sad that a $3000 economy car would get mileage very close to the Prius, which was thousands and thousands more, and whats even funnier, if you look at the Geo Metro reviews, people are getting 45MPG easy! Personally, I would never drive one of those ugly things, I like bigger rigs, but that proves the point that you don't have to pay a premium price for good gas mileage.

12th Apr 2006, 18:56

It's clear that the person arguing against the 44 mpg Neon is an opinionated kid who has no idea where those estimates come from, and nothing you say will convince him that a Neon could get 44 mpg. Oh yes, he knows it all and nobody will tell him otherwise. It's annoying, but on the other hand, who cares.

12th Apr 2006, 22:50

Actually, there are many cars that can push the 40 mpg mark. My 3.4 V6 averages 38 mpg with 3 passengers on a regular basis (highway). My 5 speed Cavalier could do about 42 mpg, so I cave no problem believing a Neon can do the same. When factoring in the price difference between a hybrid and other small cars out there, one would have to travel quite a lot of mileage to warranty the extra expense, let alone unproven long term reliability: how much do replacement electric drive parts cost?

13th Apr 2006, 09:00

Yeah, I'm a "kid". Please.

Sorry, but given the Neon isn't even rated over 40 mpg with ONE passenger aboard I sincerely doubt it will reach 44 mpg with FOUR people aboard.

But, then again, I use logic and reason when discussing cars, not blind patriotism and unfounded anti-hybrid (read: Anti-Japanese) rhetoric.

And, of course, I'm still waiting for you people to produce ONE single automobile that gets 41 mpg with FOUR people aboard, is not a hybrid, and is sold in all 50 states.

13th Apr 2006, 17:27

I've never seen anyone so obdurate and obtuse. If you went for a ride with the person in their Neon, and witnessed it get 44 mpg, I suppose you'd deny it because the all-powerful EPA ESTIMATE is lower than that. Estimate: do you understand the meaning of that word? Are you that stupid and blindly opinionated? You are wasting everyone's time who came here to read about the Toyota Prius with your stupid, pointless bickering. The guy already said his Neon got 44 mpg, and he told you the circumstances in which it achieved that. If you choose not to believe it, then deal with it on your own time. How I wish that this site had a moderator that would delete your stupid, useless comments.

13th Apr 2006, 17:35

Sorry, but we have given PLENTY of evidence of how a regular economy car is a better investment then a hybrid, and even the 38 MPG rating on a Neon compared to the 41 gotten in the Prius, is NOT NEARLY enough difference to justify the huge difference in price and questionable future reliability. It sounds to me like some hybrid supporters are extremely close-minded if they don't see the merit in what has been said, and will blindly act as if the Toyota Prius is the second coming. I am sure that nobody here is anti-Japanese, I certainly am not, I just like the look of American vehicles better. But I suppose that is a sin.

13th Apr 2006, 19:36

No one here has given any "evidence" as to why a regular economy car is a better investment than a hybrid. Now, I'm not fully trusting of hybrids either, only because I don't think that they have been around long enough to see all of the potential problems with them. Although I do have faith in Toyota quality, I will wait to see how hybrids fare over time before I consider buying one. But most of you guys arguing here are missing the major point here. A regular economy car still uses nothing but OIL as fuel, whether it's diesel or gasoline. The idea is that a hybrid eliminates use of oil, the target being to HOPEFULLY phase it out altogether as a fuel for vehicles. If, in 8 or 10 years, the hybrids on the road today are still running fine, then I will accept that they are the way of the future.

13th Apr 2006, 20:41

The reason why diesel cars are not for sale in California has to do with the simple refusal of the US and Canada to impose diesel fuel that is sulphur free. Something that has been standard in Europe for almost 10 years will finally come in 2007. Then it will be possible to bring the modern TDI engines from Europe which come equipped with particle filters. With these filters, the cars will pass California emission standards and finally the old fashioned 100 hp diesel will sail into the sunset. In a very general way it is to note that current hybrid vehicles are built for city driving rather than highway driving. If you drive mostly city, you're fine with consumption, if you go on a highway consumption is like any regular car because the electrical engine only runs at low speeds.

Regarding the tires, the state of disrepair in which North American roads are is not helping any tire to survive too long, whether it be bicycle, low-resistance or ultra-large SUV rubber doesn't matter. In Europe you never see as much blown out tires as in North America.

14th Apr 2006, 06:16

I looked at a Prius and was impressed. I like what I saw, even though I've never been a Toyota person, and I also am really attracted to the idea of the hybrid for one of the reasons stated: reduction of gasoline use. However, that is an intangible apart from the economic reality. I did the calculations, and found that for the 13,000 miles/year that I drive, using a documented overall average of 15.5 mpg for my vehicles, assuming 55 mpg for the Prius (which is probably high), and a $23,400 price (from Kelly Blue Book), it would take 12.5 years for it to pay for itself on my gasoline savings assuming that premium (which I use) is $3.00/gallon. Assuming that premium is $3.50/gallon knocks that down to a little over 10 years. I even gave the car another break by assuming I would use the 20-cent cheaper regular gasoline in it. By comparison, a Ford Focus with a high mpg estimate of 34 mpg, with a $13,800 price, would take 9.4 years to pay for itself in gas savings. If premium were $3.50/gallon, that time is knocked down to just over 8 years. Of course that is only a comparison on one aspect, and surely both cars would need some sort of repair before that time, which would push that "break even" time even farther back. So economically, that is proof that a conventional high mpg vehicle is theoretically a better buy. However, that doesn't address the intangible, political motivation of buying a vehicle because it has an electric engine, which I still find attractive.