The beginnings of Eco modding. (What car should I get?)

[roosterk0031]

Cool data, but I expect it's somewhat skewed by the people that generally own a certain car. Lets take the Volt for example, the average volt owner is different than the average Focus/Cruze/Elantra driver.

And the exposure is per vehicle registered, not per mile driven. Most Leafs aren't driven nearly as many miles per year as a Prius or most any other car. Odd that they are roll over prone.

Is the Subaru Impreza inherently dangerous, or are some of it's drivers risk takers having the highest single car crash death rate at almost 2x the closest competitor. (in small 4 doors anyway).

[Isaac Zackary]

AWD and 4WD vehicles actually tend to get much worse drivers. Take a look at the difference between the 2WD and 4WD Suburbans or Toyota Siennas.

Around here you don't hardly see a 2WD car off the road. And actually I myself got stuck more driving 4WD vehicles in the past than in 2WD. AWD and 4WD make you not feel the danger as much. A 2WD reminds you that the road is slick on ice, snow and mud, so affects your perception of the how you should drive.

Actually I prefer a FWD for this reason. I do not want a RWD nor an AWD for these reasons.

[niky]

Both that list and the chart previously shown are definitely skewed by driver demographics. Note the number of deaths per million when counting rollovers in a Charger... a Charger is NOT easier to rollover than a Prius when driven in the same manner. It's just that drivers are more likely to drive in a manner inducing a rollover.

There's also no reason for a Camry to be safer than a Maxima. But Maxima drivers are more likely to drive less safely than the Camry driver.

Just as Camry drivers are more likely to experience SUA... for much the same reason. Demographics.

-

That said... worries over safety are overblown... given the death rate is in single or low double digits per million for the better cars... and those rates are affected by demographics, anyway... you're very unlikely to lose the car collision lottery in whatever you choose to buy.

[Isaac Zackary]

Originally Posted by niky

Both that list and the chart previously shown are definitely skewed by driver demographics. Note the number of deaths per million when counting rollovers in a Charger... a Charger is NOT easier to rollover than a Prius when driven in the same manner. It's just that drivers are more likely to drive in a manner inducing a rollover.

There's also no reason for a Camry to be safer than a Maxima. But Maxima drivers are more likely to drive less safely than the Camry driver.

Just as Camry drivers are more likely to experience SUA... for much the same reason. Demographics.

-

That said... worries over safety are overblown... given the death rate is in single or low double digits per million for the better cars... and those rates are affected by demographics, anyway... you're very unlikely to lose the car collision lottery in whatever you choose to buy.

Yes, I agree. I do believe that going from a 1985 VW to anything built within the past 10 years has to be an improvement in safety. I'd hate to get killed in a Prius. But I'd hate to get killed in a Charger too. I'm not sure that sending my wife in a 292hp RWD car over snow covered passes with a 1,000ft precipice on one side would be smart.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by Isaac Zackary

AWD and 4WD vehicles actually tend to get much worse drivers. Take a look at the difference between the 2WD and 4WD Suburbans or Toyota Siennas.

Around here you don't hardly see a 2WD car off the road. And actually I myself got stuck more driving 4WD vehicles in the past than in 2WD. AWD and 4WD make you not feel the danger as much. A 2WD reminds you that the road is slick on ice, snow and mud, so affects your perception of the how you should drive.

I'm not totally unfavorable to 4WD or AWD, but they're substantially different. 4WD is usually part-time and must be used only in low-grip situations such as snow or mud, while AWD applies to full-time systems better suited to paved roads. But anyway, in fact AWD might lead the driver to misjudge the risky circumstances, and eventually figure them out only when it becomes too late.

[slowmover]

The questions which underlie “safety” are the thing. Good luck finding the definitions. Exclusions or inclusions make it or break it. Pickup-based vehicles have a high rollover propensity. It’s built-in. While rollovers are but 3% of accidents, they are 25% of fatalities. Serious injuries (life-changing) ARE NOT included because so many of them can’t easily be quantified and/or show up much later.

Safety is first stability. Second, it is steering & handling. Third is braking. (Basics).

Do Prius crowd the Interstate? Hardly. Their numbers are generated within metro regions. Suburb to suburb work commuters. 9-5 people.

Etc

Profit drives what you’ll mainly find. Collusion between those entities making a profit determine results in advance. It’s childs play.

A Charger is mainly an example. So find another fleet car currently in production to compare. Not fleet? No accurate comparison. And take the original Mercedes’s model off of which it’s based to also compare. Go drive examples.

OP, you wish to base a car purchase on whatever grounds, but I’ve always had to skew data to more accurately reflect my costs. Plug in real data from your records of the past decade (you have those, right?).

Last year you drove X-miles with Y-gallons at Z-cost. Your fuel expenditure in cents-per-mile was?

Your isolated volunteer miles cost (with any deductions) was?

The associated costs of ownership? (Depreciation is always ignored). The higher annual tires & brakes cost? All on a per miles basis. You’ve taken on a high subsidy cost. What is it for the details of car ownership? It’s a helluva lot more than just fuel.

Do these before you finish with the rest. Even if guesstimates.

To circle back to accident statistics, you’ll find that those living rural and accumulating 30-40,000-miles annually are in a greater risk category. Poor roads, poor lighting, inattentive drivers, etc. It’s a basic that the more miles annually, the higher risk of injury. The eye-popper is WHERE the miles are run.

Being gun-shot or in a car wreck. Avoid those two and you’ll live a long life. Nothing else short of war else is even close for mortality. Obese, chain-smoker with an asbestos-removal job is better than the single incident of being shot or in a wreck.

Thus:

Independent suspension, rack & pinion steering, 4-whl disc, and low center of gravity with 120” wheelbase and 4,000-lb curb weight is the highway standard. Deviate too much and one has missed the mark.

Fuel economy is more about how well you use it. What’s the spread from city to highway at present? I can do 12% with my four-ton pickup; zero stunt driving; above 20-mpg all miles. 24-Highway, 21-City. (This isn’t “best”, it’s average).

The “best” vehicle isn’t the one with lowest fuel burn, it’s the one that otherwise best suits conditions. Number of passengers, and percent that is rural highway miles. Fit the vehicle to the job.

Your fuel cost is discipline-dependent as the chief factor, once accurate vehicle specification is summarized. . Not otherwise.

.

[Isaac Zackary]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

I'm not totally unfavorable to 4WD or AWD, but they're substantially different. 4WD is usually part-time and must be used only in low-grip situations such as snow or mud, while AWD applies to full-time systems better suited to paved roads. But anyway, in fact AWD might lead the driver to misjudge the risky circumstances, and eventually figure them out only when it becomes too late.

Ya, I see where they have a place. But I know flat landers that live where they might get a dusting of snow every 10 years and therefore truly believe that they need an AWD (or 4WD) when I've lived in one of the snowiest and steepest parts of the world and can tell you that snow tires are a whole lot more effective and a whole lot cheaper.

Originally Posted by slowmover

OP, you wish to base a car purchase on whatever grounds, but I’ve always had to skew data to more accurately reflect my costs. Plug in real data from your records of the past decade (you have those, right?).

Last year you drove X-miles with Y-gallons at Z-cost. Your fuel expenditure in cents-per-mile was?

Your isolated volunteer miles cost (with any deductions) was?

The associated costs of ownership? (Depreciation is always ignored). The higher annual tires & brakes cost? All on a per miles basis. You’ve taken on a high subsidy cost. What is it for the details of car ownership? It’s a helluva lot more than just fuel.

Do these before you finish with the rest. Even if guesstimates.

Just guesstimating from off the top of my head.

I bought the car 7 years ago for $600. It replaced a car I had for 4 years that had cost me $250. I do believe that depreciation is irrelevant in my case with these cars, but something that I will experience with my next car.

In the 7 years I've owed this last car I was driving about 12,000-15,000 miles per year until the past year. I would spend around $75 per month or about $900. I'm now driving about double, getting better fuel mileage but also prices have gone up. Now I'm spending around $150 per month. So around $1,800 per year for fuel at the rate I'm going at around 50mpg or so at the price of diesel.

I was changing the oil twice a year, but probably should do it 4 times a year now. I do it myself, I think a jug of synthetic is around $30 and a filter for $10. I mean to change the fuel and air filters every year, although I don't always get around to it for about $10 and $20 each. So far that's $110 per year. I also pack my wheel bearings about once every two years. It's like $5 or $10 for the seals and cotter pins. Still have the original can of grease. I also got a new timing belt and accessory belt a year or so ago for, I'm guessing, $25, that I put on myself.

Now on top of that I replaced the battery once ($200?) and have bought three sets of tires for about $500 per set if I remember right. (Maybe less, I used to buy tires this size brand new for $25 each including installation. Anyhow that's two allseason sets and one winter set.) The winter set I put on a set of rims I picked up for $100. So I have about $1,600 in tires and rims in 7 years and the all-season are just a year old, but the winter tires still have about 75% left on them. I change them back and forth and rotate them myself each season.

I had the car aligned twice. The first job was done wrong, but I didn't ask for my money back. Both times I was charged about $300. So $600 in alignments. But before that I had replaced all the strut cartridges for cheap. I can't remember the price, but $100 for all 4 strut cartridges seems right. I remember it was a whole lot cheaper to replace just the cartridges than the whole strut. I also replaced all the tierod ends once. Um… I guess for about $60. The ball joints and bushings still look fine, never have replaced them. But I did replace a front wheel bearing. I have a press and only paid $60 for the bearing. I also had bought new front discs at the time for around $70 and new pads/shoes and springs all the way around for $40. I had the rear drums checked and turned for $30 if I remember right. And I flushed the brake lines myself a couple times for the price of a couple bottles of brake fluid.

I've installed two block heaters for $30 each. And I've replaced only a couple hoses. I want to say I've spent less than $20 on hoses so far. And I flushed out the radiator with water and added new coolant twice.

I did have an injector line fail. I can't remember the price, but it was under $100 I do believe.

I also replaced the transaxle fluid once and installed new seals at the CV joint flanges. CV joints are the biggest problem. I've changed both axles out at least 3 times for about $100 a pop. I've also changed out a few door handles, both head lights once and a couple other bulbs. I changed the windshield myself twice for about $100 each time. Make that $150 each time with all the glue and stuff.

The car by itself costs about $80 in insurance per month.

Well enough babbling. I figure I spent roughly about $2,500 per year on average, or about 18 cents per mile with the projection of spending close to $5,000 per year at about 18 cents per mile with my new driving needs.

With the price of the car figured in, that raises the total costs per mile by less than 1 cent, unless I sell the car and make that money back.

That's as close as I can guestimate right now.

[Isaac Zackary]

Talking about fleet cars has me going. I'm looking at the Chevy Impala. I noticed there's a 2014 ECO model that's rated to get 35mpg.


Edit: I just noticed there's a Toyota Avalon Hybrid that gets 40mpg. Maybe this is the best car for both worlds? If only the used Avalons didn't go for twice the price of a used Prius.

[Isaac Zackary]

Yes, fuel costs aren't the main cost. But everything does add up too. If the car costs twice as much then that's another cost in itself. If initial costs didn't matter, I'd get a Tesla. Plus if I can't get it for cash then I have to pay interest and full coverage.

Edit:

Anyhow, in all fairness this is what I've come up with so far.

I puta search for the Chevy Impala, Dodge Charger and Toyota Avalon on Autotrader.com. I set the limits to a 3 to 5 year model (2013 to 2015) with less than 75,000 miles. I also set the price to $11,000 or less for my case (wanting to pay cash without debt).

The results showed well over 1,000 Gen 9 Impalas, a couple Gen 10's, a few Dodge Chargers and one Toyota Avalon. Of course none of the hybrid or eco models showed up on the search.

Next I compared these cars to what Consumer Reports says about them. The Gen 9 Impalas are marked for having brake problems. Which makes sense to me since where I work the company uses a fleet of Impalas and the mechanic told me that he was having to change brake parts all the time on the Impalas. The Gen 10 Impalas don't seem to have the brake problem but is rated as an average car overall in 2014 and above average in 2015.

The 2013 and 2015 Chargers are rated overall as "much worse than average," and also are marked for bad brake problems. Oddly the 2014 Charger doesn't seem to have as many problems as the 2013's and 2015's, but is still marked as average in reliability.

The 2013 and 2014 Avalons are rated as a "much better than average" car and the 2015 as "better than average."

So seeing how I live in the mountains and brakes are important, I guess if I want a full sized car I'd have to either shoot for a Gen 10 Impala or spend a bit more and get an Avalon. I also went ahead and plugged in the 40mpg hybrid Avalon without any limits on miles or years or price and found that a dozen or so are under $15,000, but with around 130,000 miles on them. So I either compromise on a lower mileage car but that gets worse fuel economy or one that gets better fuel economy but that has more miles.

[roosterk0031]

I visited CO last summer with the 2015 Rogue, did really well in the mountains, the CVT ramped up RPM to increase engine braking when going down hill, AC on the whole time. Check out it's fuel graph and you'll see the 4 tanks standing above everything else. Getting there and the way back not as impressive, 75-80 mph is not it's optimum speed.

Couple years ago took the Impala down to the Ozarks, most up and down I've driven it, 3 tank average on that trip was 29.1. It doesn't engine brake unless you put it in D.