9th Jun 2006, 10:58
EPA MPG rating has been changed over the years. EPA rating from 20 years ago cannot be compared to newer rating given more recently, especially highway MPG. The Prius, if driven at legal highway speed (55-65mph) will achieve 51 mpg from my personal experience with my 2006 Prius. The city driving, on the other hand, does not routinely achieve 60 mpg. This is an artificially high mpg due to EPA test method. The EPA test allows the city test to proceed with full hybrid battery and A/C not running. This is unrealistic in real world driving. Diesel cars have good mileage, but they still pollute more because of the higher CO2 exhaust from diesel, in addition to the sulfur and carbon soot. Diesels also is inherently noisier because of its higher compression ratio.
12th Jun 2006, 08:30
To th commenter who thinks our money would be better spent buying an old, used, high-mileage subcompact vehicle instead of paying $1000s for a new vehicle with good gas mileage (not limited to hybrids, apparently), there are some flaws with your suggestion.
1. People don't just buy new cars for fuel economy. They buy them for expected maintenance security. They buy them for specific needs such as interior space and amenities. THey buy them because they are less polluting than older vehicles - have you driven behind cars from the 80s and older? The exhaust is noxious!
2. People can't just go out and order an 85 civic. It takes some luck and knowledge of cars to be able to buy an older vehicle and know you are not getting a piece of junk. I can't look under a hood and tell the condition of a car.
3. You obviously don't live in the rust belt. I would likely be using the Fred Flintstone system of propulsion with a vehicle that old on our heavily-salted, pot-holed roads.
4. THose of us who can buy new/newer cars should leave the older $500 cars to the poor. Maybe then, they can get better jobs because they have a way to commute. On the other hand, if you really want to save money, WALK. Bonus, there will be no emissions at all unless you've had beans the night before!
22nd Jun 2006, 10:13
To the June 12th Commentator.
You've made some good and interesting points. I thank you for your counter-argument.
I didn't necessarily say it would be a old high mileage vehicle. I've seen plenty of 150K kms (or below) cars that are over 20 years old. And it IS possible to get a no-rust, low-mileage 10-25 year old car.
1. "expected maintenance security" on new cars?? Have you checked Consumer Reports lately? Judging by the 2006 Car edition with reports going back to 1997, I can safely say that most American made cars (unless they are American-Japanese joint venture cars or trucks like the new Saturn Vue with a Honda V6 engine and transmission) still have average to far below average reliability. (below average reliability goes to the early Dodge Neons and Ford Windstars --- among others --- of the American auto world.) (although, I must say that American car reliability HAS improved since the early 90's and 80's. Heck, even the Taurus has improved, especially the 2000-present era, compared to its late 80's model.) However, that's not to say that all Asian auto makers have great reliability, either. Just look at 1985-2000 Hyundai or 2000-2002 Kia.
The only makes you can really count on in this day and age are Honda and Toyota and possibly Nissan or Mazda. And even THEY are reporting a slight reliability downslide!
2. I'm not sure about down in the States, but up here in Canada, or Western Canada anyway, we have a "safety certificate" or "Certificate of Inspection" (and some provinces like B. C and Ontario have emissions tests as well). Before a vehicle bought by a buyer can be registered and insured with their local insurance company, it has to be checked by a certified mechanic at certain locations, and gets a check list of what needs to be done or replaced to get it road worthy. (things that are checked include brakes, exhaust, suspension, etc.) So, if passed, that obviously helps the buyer. However, It does not check the engine or transmission. Still, it would be wise to get those checked by a trusted mechanic, too, of course.
3. I'm not exactly sure where this "rust belt" is that you speak of, but up here in South-Central Canada, while we use sand instead of salt on our roads, our (older) cars still rust thanks to our cold, snowy winters. (ie. -35 degrees Celsius).
4. Good point. The poor need cars. I rarely drive, instead I walk, use my bicycle, or (rarely) take the bus, to go almost everywhere I want to go. (except in the winter, of course --- I use our van then.)
Thanks for your time.
23rd Jun 2006, 21:26
"this is why it has an econo unfriendly automatic gearbox"
The Prius has a CVT, not a conventional automatic transmission. Big difference...
10th Jul 2006, 20:11
I keep seeing Prius' (what's the plural for Prius?) around being used as taxi's. I think that is a smart idea. Beats using a Caprice or Crown Victoria that might get 19mpg city at the most.
9th Oct 2006, 23:49
I own a 2006 Prius. 1700 miles on it so far and, according to my gas receipts and the car's display computer, am achieving an average of 54 mpg, equally combined city and highway driving.
My reasons for buying a Prius were: 1:practically no emissions (I'm trying to reduce the air pollution our grandkids will have to breathe),2: I can drive solo in the California carpool lanes, saving me +20 minutes commute-time. 3: very good gas mileage, 4: very practical hatchback, 5: Toyota's fit and finish, (much nicer compared to the Honda Civic Hybrid) and 6: the $3500 tax credit.
My only complaint is the seats are a bit hard on my bony butt, but a soft cushion solved that problem!
16th Mar 2007, 07:10
'while I use a Suzuki GSXR 1300 hayabusa as a daily driver'
A Hayabusa owner with a Prius! Have you got mutiple-personalities? In terms of modes of transport they couldn't be more different.
16th Mar 2007, 09:16
What are you talking about? The Prius is NOT a luxury vehicle and was NEVER sold as one. And how did it not live up to its promises?
Yes, it doesn't get 60 mpg, but my friend is averaging 47 mpg in his. His car is very very comfortable, has leather, and enough room for four people. This car is NOT small and has tons of room inside. In fact, I keep joking with my friend's wife that the back seats should have fold down tables a la Jaguar/Rolls Royce because there is so much legroom in the back.
You either don't own this car or were never the target market for it.
8th Jun 2006, 17:04
I went to the fueleconomy.gov site and it says a 1985 Chevrolet Chevette. 4 cyl. 1.8L, Man (5) diesel gets 39 City and 46 HWY. Yes, I know these are estimates. But I just wanted to point out that a simple, older, small car can still get pretty good gas mileage. So maybe spending $500 - $1000 on a 85 Chevette 5 speed diesel (with lower insurance costs as well) is better than spending $20,000 - $40,000 on a modern compact car (not to mention high insurance rates), just to get within that 30-45 MPG range.