Go Back   EcoModder Forum > Off-Topic > The Lounge
Register Now
 Register Now

Reply  Post New Thread
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 12-13-2009, 10:55 PM   #21 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,209
Thanks: 225
Thanked 808 Times in 592 Posts
Originally Posted by Rainh2o View Post
Believe it or not, one thing I do/did enjoy doing is pulling people out of the ditch when they needed it.
Yeah, I used to enjoy doing that too. (Still do, to some extent.) Except I was usually pulling out ignorant flatlanders who thought a 4WD SUV made them invulnerable - and I was using my '80 Subaru to do the pulling :-)

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

Old 12-13-2009, 11:39 PM   #22 (permalink)
Batman Junior
MetroMPG's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 1000 Islands, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 22,033

Blackfly - '98 Geo Metro
Team Metro
Last 3: 70.09 mpg (US)

MPGiata - '90 Mazda Miata
90 day: 53.56 mpg (US)

Winter beater Metro - '00 Chevrolet Metro
90 day: 61.98 mpg (US)

Fancy Metro - '14 Mitsubishi Mirage top spec
90 day: 58.72 mpg (US)

Even Fancier Metro - '14 Mitsubishi Mirage top spec
90 day: 58.34 mpg (US)
Thanks: 3,669
Thanked 6,487 Times in 3,361 Posts
Originally Posted by Peter B View Post
Anyone besides me think it's stupid that at this late date, with peak oil upon us, that the american car companies are still producing these stupidly huge suv's, pickup trucks, and crossover vehicles that get such horrible fuel economy? Discuss.
BTW, I drive a 1990 Acura Integra that has gotten an average 32 mpg over the last 10 years of driving.
Why start a thread on this premise?

Unless you're driving the most efficient vehicle possible, then your vehicle type is also fair game for ridicule. Maybe all the Metro drivers on the site are wondering the same thing about companies that produce cars like your fuel-sucking, sporty Acura.

I'm not (actually wondering that). Just making a point.

But I'd rather we spent our time talking about what we're individually doing to improve efficiency than wasting time on a topic that's pretty unlikely to change anyone's position on the subject, while very likely to polarize and get people worked up for no good reason.
Latest mods: 3-cylinder Mitsubishi Mirage. EcoMods now in progress...
Ecodriving test:
Manual vs. automatic transmission MPG showdown

has launched a forum for the efficient new Mitsubishi Mirage
www.MetroMPG.com - fuel efficiency info for Geo Metro owners
www.ForkenSwift.com - electric car conversion on a beer budget
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to MetroMPG For This Useful Post:
Cd (12-17-2009)
Old 12-14-2009, 12:04 AM   #23 (permalink)
Frank Lee's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,755

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,582
Thanked 3,541 Times in 2,211 Posts
I can kinda see where he's coming from as Minnesotans offer up a fantastic regional example of rampant egregious wasteful mindless consumption.

  Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2009, 12:48 AM   #24 (permalink)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: maine
Posts: 758

oldscoob - '87 subaru wagon gl/dr
90 day: 47.06 mpg (US)
Thanks: 21
Thanked 18 Times in 14 Posts
I don't think it is ridiculous. You want to talk ridiculous, lets talk fuel injection. the facts would open eyes to alot of unknowing.

fuel injection is to land grid array....

if you can figure that out, I will call it wisdom.

A relative just swapped an expensive v8 bimmer for an extended yukon....
whats the difference?

..and if there was a top ten car list for longevity in fuel mileage....it sure as hellwould have a carburator....and still running.

I seek a v8. I would love to tinker with an older diesel.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2009, 01:50 AM   #25 (permalink)
A madman
brucey's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: WV
Posts: 1,012

Pequod - '17 Subaru Outback
90 day: 22.79 mpg (US)
Thanks: 70
Thanked 179 Times in 96 Posts
Send a message via AIM to brucey
I think theres a place for crossovers and SUV's. Yes, too many people drive them to mcdonalds. But having 2 cars isn't always viable.

I'm even guilty of this somewhat, lugging around AWD and raised ground clearance year around for 4 months of snow.

And at least in America, we want to have our cake and eat it too. It's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it, right?

Until that attitude changes (and I dont think it will) I don't see too much changing. Even when gas was 4$ I still saw every 9/10 SUV's with one person in it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2009, 12:37 AM   #26 (permalink)
Getting BETTER Mileage
Jethro's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Los Alamos, NM
Posts: 108

Lucky No 19 - '11 Ram 1500 Express ST

Venti - '13 Ram 2500 Tradesman
Thanks: 6
Thanked 18 Times in 8 Posts
I am just now to the point in my life where I can afford (honestly) to have multiple vehicles. I am sure (if) I buy this 200sx the truck will be a weekend toy / nasty weather vehicle.
I would love nothing more than to get 30 mpg and be able to spend $300 for a set of tires, instead of $250 EACH.

As it turns out, if you have a need for a vehicle that does great in snow, I don't care how many wheels you turn, if you're plowing snow with your front bumper (AWD cars) you're still not going to get far.

Also, if you enjoy going into the woods IN A VEHICLE, which I do, guess what?
You're going to need some clearance!

I drive my big gas guzzling truck because it fills most of my needs and most of my wants, and does a decent job on the other things like reliability, cheapness to fix etc.

It's DAMN nice to have a big truck on the highway, even if someone IS ridding my rear bumper, I could care less, they are SOL if I brake faster than them. This has been proven time and time again Trailer Hitch vs Radiator... I drive away, they get towed to a shop.

No, I don't need a big truck. I could do what I do with a Dakota or S10. Difference is if I am going to get 13 MPG or 16 MPG, I'd rather have a big comfortable truck (I'm 6'4) with heated leather seats, a real transfer case, and solid front and rear axles.
Guess what, that leaves me at a full size Dodge, or a 3/4 + Ford.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2009, 01:45 AM   #27 (permalink)
needs more cowbell
dcb's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,038

pimp mobile - '81 suzuki gs 250 t
90 day: 96.29 mpg (US)

schnitzel - '01 Volkswagen Golf TDI
90 day: 53.56 mpg (US)
Thanks: 158
Thanked 267 Times in 210 Posts
... kaj mia tanko estas plena

Last edited by dcb; 12-17-2009 at 02:38 AM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2009, 10:43 AM   #28 (permalink)
Moderate your Moderation.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Troy, Pa.
Posts: 8,919

Pasta - '96 Volkswagen Passat TDi
90 day: 45.22 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,369
Thanked 430 Times in 353 Posts
My tank is full?
"ʞɐǝɹɟ ɐ ǝɹ,noʎ uǝɥʍ 'ʇı ʇ,usı 'ʎlǝuol s,ʇı"

  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Christ For This Useful Post:
Cd (12-17-2009)
Old 12-17-2009, 12:06 PM   #29 (permalink)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: South Central AK
Posts: 933

escort - '99 ford escort sport
90 day: 42.38 mpg (US)

scoobaru - '02 Subaru Forester s
90 day: 28.65 mpg (US)
Thanks: 32
Thanked 146 Times in 97 Posts
Hows the mileage on a suburban once you figure in the load? Yes for a person commuting the fuel per mile per pound of payload moved is way better in a metro but load a suburban down with 9 people and 800+ pounds of stuff and the thing comes into it's own.

person 180 lbs (per the FAA +10 lbs cause we are heavier now than when that figure was derived.)
4x180 720 lbs +150 lbs in the back(maybe, this guesstimate is based on the size back there and how much stuff I put in a plane similar to what most people put in a car)
870* lbs of stuff at 45mpg* 39,150 pound miles per gallon

9x180 1620 plus another 800 lbs of stuff
2820* at 15mpg* 42,300 pound miles moved per gallon

I may be being generous with millage numbers given how loaded each vehicle in the comparison is. I pulled the payload of the suburban off the interweb for a 99 model

If you had 2800 pounds of stuff you would need 3+ metros to do the work of one suburban. With the suburban you are only moving 1 driver or not making the back trip as well. On the other hand if you are not loading the suburban down you are not getting anywhere near efficient.

To say that a large rig is not the right answer does not quite get to the crux of the issue. So what if someone is not being efficient by driving an suv, they are already paying the price at the pump. Gas prices going up will reduce the demand for inefficient rigs so will a the increase in "global care" or what ever newspeak buzz word of the day they come up with for not being a jerk. Frankly I don't much want someone dictating what type of vehicle I need to drive I can look at the issues and make that decision for my self as can most anyone else. If I make a poor choice then so be it.

Learn from the mistakes of others, that way when you mess up you can do so in new and interesting ways.

One mile of road will take you one mile, one mile of runway can take you around the world.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2009, 12:34 PM   #30 (permalink)
needs more cowbell
dcb's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,038

pimp mobile - '81 suzuki gs 250 t
90 day: 96.29 mpg (US)

schnitzel - '01 Volkswagen Golf TDI
90 day: 53.56 mpg (US)
Thanks: 158
Thanked 267 Times in 210 Posts
I have to say my utility trailer is an insanely cost effective way to move stuff by comparison.

To use up resources based solely on their immediate monetary cost is classic tragedy of the commons.

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread

Thread Tools

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com