CNET: your '92 Civic may get far better MPG than a new car, but it still sucks!
 

Stumbled across this one today... It's a doozie...

http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/bto/200...ic_610x142.jpg

Looking beyond miles per gallon (rant)

Worth a read. If only for the sport of finding the holes in his argument. (Yes, it's only an opinion piece.)

In the past few weeks I've noticed more examples of creeping hostility towards the efficiency-minded. Very similar to last summer when gas prices rose. Have prices in the US topped 3 bucks or something?

(And, no, I don't have a persecution complex. STOP BUGGING ME!)

My opinion is that a modern car is much nicer. However nicer isn't necessary.

All reliability and repair-based discussion aside (because it isn't relevant to this discussion) - a 2010 CheapCar is quieter, supposedly safer, handles better in performance driving, and is often faster than a 1985 CheapCar.

But I somehow managed to put 410,000 miles on a 1981 Escort. That was trips to work, trips to school, trips around the country, a trip to frickin Alaska.... Did I have a dozen airbags? Could I do .98G on a skid pad? Did I have a 9 speaker Bose stereo? Nein! Could I maintain 75mph all the way from Phoenix up to Flagstaff? HA! But I went everywhere, didn't die, and got 45+ mpg doing it. The machine did its job - namely moving me and my stuff from where it was to where I wanted it to be. For approaching half a million miles.

It is my opinion that as long as motorcycles are legal to own and drive with their lack of airbags, antistop brakes, dynamic diddlyturd controls and whatever... so should 4 wheeled vehicles without 900lbs of "nice to have, but not necessary" safety equipment. As long as it's still legal to drive a 65 horsepower 1980 slowmobile on the road, it should be legal to sell a brand new version of the exact same thing. Why the hell not? There should be no LEGAL difference whatsoever between restoring a 30 year old "unsafe" car to brand new condition, and building a brand new "unsafe" car.

But I don't like the power junk, at 6 feet tall I still fit in my VX's back seat without issue, I can fit 9 foot steel rod or 8 foot lumber in my VX but not most new cars and the two weeks that I spent mixed with pulling a trailer of stuff around or hauling around 800+ pounds of lead acid batteries I still got 39mpg (that made my civic as heavy as the current day civic), his arument is basically saying that we are getting so well that we can afford to be wasteful, computers do seem to do the same thing with their operating systems, things get more efficient so they find new ways to make them bog down, sure we can make 90mpg passenger cars OR we can add 30 more cup holders, 4 zone A/C, DVD players for each seat that is never used, power sliding doors, 3 sun roofs, it's crazy, I want a car that works and will last 15 years or more.

I prefer simplicity... less to go wrong.

If simplicity is what gets me the best gas mileage, then it's a win-win for me.

There are certain things that I do believe most people would be completely uncomfortable without... such as stereos and the like.

I don't agree that you should never have passengers... that just means those people have to find another way to get somewhere, which actually burns MORE fuel. On that same note, I don't agree that people NEED SUV's for every drive they need to make. In fact, I believe that "modern" cars make people WAY too comfortable, and they likely are paying less attention to what needs to be minded.

As shovel said, it's almost Orwellian that motorcycles, which offer *zero* protection, are street-legal, while cars are expected to pass dozens of safety tests and carry dozens more "features". Virtually any car made in the last 100 years will fare better in an accident (and will do more for its inhabitants) than any motorcycle in existence. It's flat out ridiculous.

Regarding the article, I didn't read it; there's a steady amount of garbage in any capitalistic society that urges people to buy things they don't need simply for the sake of having them. Asking people who value mpg to "look beyond it" is like asking people who tow horses to "look beyond" low-end torque. And yes, gas is going back to $3/gallon. I hope it's above $4 by the end of the year, though I doubt it will be.

The fact that modern cars are much nicer, faster, powerful etc should not be an excuse why they dont get better mileage. All it does is demonstrate that they could but are ill-designed to do so because in the last 20 years no one has really cared to make efficient cars.

Hybrids exist because of the novelty of new technology, but in the US efficiency for the sake of efficiency has all but gone off the scene.

This made me chuckle:

Using his figures:

'92 Civic: 41 mpg / 2200 lbs = 0.019 mpg per lb
'09 Civic: 34 mpg / 2900 lbs = 0.012 mpg per lb

"Pound for pound, I'd say the 2009 engine is more efficient."

Nuh uh!

Amen!
I don't see any 1992 honda civic that got 41mpg highway on the new revised testing cycle. We are using the 2008+ system for both cars, right?
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/compx...Field=Findacar
Pound for pound, the modern Civic is far more efficient no matter which way you look at it.

Nobody's saying a 1980mobile is awesome.

Personally what I'm saying is as long as adults in the so-called land of the free are free to choose to buy a no-safety-features motorcycle, adults are free to choose to drive a 40 year old car with lap belts, adults are free to choose to buy a convertible, adults are free to drive a beat-up car with sloppy worn out suspension and brakes, not to mention free to do a billion other things that are more likely to kill them (like live the kind of lifestyle that makes one obese for example) - then those same supposedly free adults should also be able to choose to buy a brand new car that isn't saddled with a million features they may not need. Tata should be allowed to sell the Nano over here without having to $$$ nerf it up for the US market.

By the same token, consumers who insist on a safer car can go buy one, there are plenty on the market. Consumers who don't want to ride in someone else's less nerfy car are always free to say no thank you to a ride. See how easy that is?

I found modern to be nicer via the steel (unibody gentle), as facts unfolded, an inside anger of facts emerged...along with my knowledge earned from public service of many many machines...
a beeline to subarus last tractor trailer wagon: a 1987 dual range AWD stiff as a spring board carbed subaru, still "playing" with hypermilers on its rally gnarled tread, oversized wheels, original engine, and ready to cross the continent, with 100feet of weld crossing the thresholds of grinding tolerance (unless you got half a day, let the dangles dangle) and probably worlked into that tricky uinibody weight of nearly 3000 pounds...with less than 1.8 liters, I cruise in the 80s to singing alloys on bad tread (it still sings that boxer balance).
To each thier own.

I have made a prediction, it will build a bridge from yesterday to today, fools can no longer play with billions of dollars and peoples lives. If you got an old civic tinkered into wonderful that is stll doing better than opinions, you are truly driving the facts.:thumbup:

Fear-based message hits college campus
 

A couple days ago,the University of North Texas' KNTU Radio,carried a spot which I believe was from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.Basically,they slammed "small fuel-efficient vehicles".The spirit of the piece was that if you owned and drove a high mpg car,you were flirting with death.---------- I don't know if this is a backdoor move to cast an unfavorable light on the new 35-mpg CAFE standards.I thought it interesting that something would be broadcast,unilateraly,with no forum for rebuttal,nor no real context for which the claims were made.--------- Anyone seeing stuff like this in the media?

You should try driving in a India or any other third world country some time. I bet you would love. All the freedom your body can handle.

^ 45,000 people die due to cars right here in this country every year. Not too many other countries can top that. Go USA, right?

^^^Clueless^^^
http://www.factbook.net/images/HMC_deaths_per_pop.gif

http://www.factbook.net/images/Asia_deaths_per_pop.gif

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget...ortation-4.jpg

And keep in mind that all through the 80s and the early part of the 90s we had a national 55mph speed limit. Speed kills? LOL! So please, keep diluting yourself into thinking you are safe in your little 80s death trap.

:confused:

I'm already at 70% water. Maybe I should aim for 80? :O)

But there is. It's called the insurance industry, and it's favorite mouthpiece is the IIHS.

There's no way to win this argument, not in the US at any rate -- what with the baby boomers' babies having babies. Gotta keep all those babies wrapped up nice and safe.

True, though I think the lawsuit industry is retarded - here's why:

It's a fact that convertibles are less safe than minivans from every angle. But you can buy a convertible. Everyone knows that convertibles are less safe than minivans. But they still buy them. Why doesn't anyone sue a convertible manufacturer for not including a roof on the vehicle? Oh yeah, because it's a convertible.

Same with motorcycles, nobody sues harley davidson for not putting a safety cage and 10 airbags on a motorcycle, because it's a motorcycle and motorcycles don't have those things.

AAAAAAND.... nobody should sue the maker of a $3000 car for not making it as safe as a $30,000 sedan. Care to guess why? Oh yeah, it's because much like it is OBVIOUS that a motorcycle is less safe than a minivan, it is OBVIOUS that a $3k car is less safe than a $30k car. Any judge who wouldn't throw out a case on that basis has no business wearing a robe. Anyone unable to understand that a $3k car is less safe than a $30k car has no business piloting a motor vehicle, they should be in a cage at the zoo.

That's pretty cool but really has no bearing on this discussion, there are countless other factors to chaotic motoring in developing nations such as livestock being conveyed down public streets, what appears to be utter indifference to lanes and/or lane marking, numerous different kinds of traffic going different directions in the same space, vehicles being overloaded and/or used for other-than-their-intended-purpose, homebuilt cobblejobs, lack of traffic control devices, lack of traffic enforcement.


All of that makes motoring in a developing nation in any kind of vehicle an entirely different animal from motoring in the US with a de-nerfed vehicle.

Then don't complain about the laws we enforce in this country to protect you from yourself and every other idiot on the road.

With all due respect I don't think we're talking the same language.

Driving a motorcycle in accordance with america's traffic laws endangers no-one but the person who chooses to ride the motorcycle, who as an adult can decide to travel on such a form of vehicle.

Walking around randomly in the road with livestock and a piloting homebuilt semi truck made from seven trabants nailed together, down a dirt road with no lane markings or traffic lights is a menace to everyone regardless of what decision they have made about their own personal safety.

I really cannot make this more plain, either you get it or you're on mars.

Since a Tata Nano (which does not meet us safety requirements FOR ITS OCCUPANTS) is still safer for its occupants than the less-safe-but-yet-legal-in-the-US motorcycle, the Nano should also be legal here, because it does not pose any additional risk whatsoever to non-occupants.

Please, please prove to me that you're intelligent enough to understand this. :thumbup:

The safety argument. although true. is all crap.

If a SUV hits a Civic - the civic is in trouble.. "So lets make them bigger and more safe" leads us to Larger Cars..
Well if a SEMI hits a SUV - is not the SUV in trouble???
If a TRAIN hits a SEMI - is not the SEMI in trouble??

So to make everyone safe - we all need to ride in trains...

WAIT A MINUTE - that would actually work -
: )
Mass Transit answers Both issues ( safety and efficiency)

QED, Doofus. Nice one.

Phil: Yes, that IIHS study got a LOT of media play. Part two was released last week, whch was: not only are small cars deathtraps, they are more expensive to repair in minor fender benders.

Their message seems to be: if you don't die in your small car, you will wish you did when you have to fix it.

The only thing that really stood out to me is a point that I do agree with him on:

Fuel ECONOMY and Fuel EFFICIENCY are completely different things.

RE: Mass transit:

MagLev trains, in such an infrastructure that would take you to central hubs of any area that you'd want to go, and diesel-electric busses which could get you the rest of the way, within blocks. Everyone would have a "briefcase" which contained an electric scooter that ran on a solar panel, with a top speed of "walking with a kick in your step".

Hey, look... modern efficiency...

Huh?
http://www.gwrramng.com/art/motorcyc...car-759819.jpg

Perhaps I can be buried in my hyper-mini,as was "Willie the Wimp and his Cadillac coffin,"( Stevie Ray Vaughn )

It does seem that the only industry info you hear lately is related to economy, small, hybrid, EV, etc (which I personally think is a shift for the better and about time). Maybe this is a social reaction of an ego survival struggle. When was the last time you saw a commercial touting a SUV as a lifestyle improvement? With this economy people are going to start having to prove their self worth with themselves and not with what they can buy.

I don't think many people ever actually did consider the fallacy of possession as a means for determining the worth of a person...

*sigh* .... keep digging.

I have two things to say about this post above me.

First off, it's been edited, and thankfully so. The originally posted words might have been found offensive by more than just the person they were directed toward, and that's probably not a good thing.

Secondly, "shovel" you don't know that that biker wasn't driving "in accordance with america's traffic laws" as you put it.

What if the roles occurred that the biker was actually driving safely, but the Metro pulled out in front of him, in such a manner that he didn't have time to stop?

Maybe a little more objectivity would stop the situation from flaring... just an outsider's opinion.

In all honesty, it probably isn't likely that the bike would have entered the car that far at only 65 MPH (up to 80 MPH, I suppose, depending on what state), but OTOH, the car could have had a damaged door/structure already, as is all too common with Metros. (Chassis damage, that is.) If that's the case, the bike might well have done exactly that at only 65-70 Miles per hour.

To any extent, you can't subjectively determine what exactly happened in that accident, so you can't disparage the person who posted it, even if it was in response to something you said.

You know what offends the hell out of me? Not having the freedom to speak frankly. When we are afraid to "offend" anyone, we are LYING to each other. When I fail to call it how I see it, I am lying to everyone, now THAT is offensive.

Posting a picture of a wreck where nobody knows what happened as an argument is stupid. It doesn't mean anything, it doesn't prove anything, it doesn't indicate anything. I could post a picture of a prius in a wreck, does that make them unsafe? :confused:

Tjts has more posts than me, woo. His argument makes no sense and contains no substance. Posting a stupid irrelevant picture to make some sort of a point? Please. Are we here to learn from each other or just blow happy rainbows up each others' low emissions tailpipe?
- if it's the second one, you can keep this forum. I'm here to be serious about ecomodding and my posts prove it.

^ I put tjts on ignore after I realized he was just an everyday troll; don't take the bait. He's currently in the hypermiling forum calling people luddites for not using the AC.

Life is too short to waste on folks who say stupid things for attention. Let it go.

I'm not saying anything against you personally. I'm saying that you are doing exactly what you're disparaging him for in that previous post. You're giving your perspective of a situation that you can't possibly make sense of, and using it as an argument in your favor, which you even say in this post, "It doesn't mean anything, it doesn't prove anything, it doesn't indicate anything"...

We're (mostly) all pretty serious about why we're here... don't let one person's obvious mockery lead you from your goals. Try to keep civil, and you will be treated as such, is all I'm saying.

Try to look at all of the potential sides of what's going on before responding to it. It should have been pretty obvious that what was posted there was an attempt to elicit a less-than-thoughtful response from you (or others) (I don't like to use the word "Troll"), so why not just overlook it?

To my knowledge, and reasonably so, post counts here mean nothing, other than which of us has more free time than another, or maybe who types faster.

The fact that a person has a higher post count than someone else doesn't create a "status" for that person, nor should it, in any sense, on any forum, so you don't have to worry about being judged here by a low post count.

You are judged here by what you say, and your apparent attitude in saying it. Conviction is a good thing, but it doesn't give anyone a right to be offensive.

I don't think of safety as the chances you survive a high speed crash.

I would much prefer to not get into the crash in the first place.

A car/suv that weighs twice as much has twice the stopping distance and half the maneuverability.
Trucks and SUVs are also much more prone to flip.

Crash testing does not tell you anything about how safe a car is devoid of actual fatality and injury rates per mile.

Same goes for motorcycles. Of course they are dangerous when driven recklessly - and they are alot more likely to, because of the sort of person who buys a bike in the first place.
Its like claiming sports cars are more dangerous than compact cars even though they tend to have more safety features because of not taking driver choices into account.
Ixion FAQ: Aren't motorcycles dangerous?
QQNL14
Having the big steel cage gives people a false sense of security.
Even with air bags and anti lock brakes being mandated years ago, car crashes remain the #1 cause of death of everyone under 40.
All the safety devices do is make people feel safer which means they end up taking more risks

Bingo for the last line in Jacob's post.

Badly paraphrasing Tom Clancy: "He figured [his caution] came from wearing a shirt on his back and not a foot of steel..." in reference to the difference between infantry and tankers.

Same thing on the roads. Give people a "safer", more tank-like automobile. They'll still figure out some way of killing themselves in it. It's just going to take dumber driving.

And for every big car out there, there's something yet bigger that can crush it into a pancake. Whiz-bang safety features or not.

Even worse, they tend to show less concern for other drivers - and cyclists, pedestrians, etc. It's as though they really want to crush all lesser beings beneath their mighty 33-inch treads...

In the spirit of this thread....

... I am sure you can build an SUV that weighs twice as much as a metro on bicycle tires that can out-brake and out-maneuver it.








Disclaimer: Please do not take this post seriously.

Well, sure you could.. the extra weight means the tires get more "dig" on the pavement... so with the big, wide tires that need to be on the 4 ton SUV to handle it, when you hit the brakes or turn quickly, of course it will "dig in" to the pavement and out handle/maneuver your little Metro on bicycle tires.

I know this is possible... car makers have been doing it for years now, haven't they? I mean come on... they grip so well that instead of sliding, they FLIP RIGHT OVER!

Edit: Just in case you didn't catch it, this is a joking reply to the sarcasm direcly above. Sorry for any confusion!