Slashdot Mirror

but if you are simply interested in making money, go sell cars or something.

Or you could go undercover as a car salesman for months at a time and find out that they get screwed over at their jobs too.

solve( 13200+1.69(miles/{34,40}) = 19500+1.69(miles/57), miles )

Keep that in mind next time that you're shopping for hybrids. They'll save you a buttload of money with respect to a big ol' SUV, but it takes a long time to catch up to a less expensive compact.

By the way, I love driving my car... and it doesn't look goofy. :)

_1_ - .31Cd for the newer, more aerodynamic 240sx...

_2_ - .34 or .35 Cd for the 1997 model.

_3_ - .30 Cd for the 1991 240SX SE

_4_ - .29 Cd for 2003 350Z Track Model!

So now, you still claim your old 240sx has .26 Cd?

I think there's some emotional attachment here...

This article will change your mind a little about these hybrids:

2004 Toyota Prius

Notes:
1. Average *combined* city/highway mpg is 55!
2. 0-60 in 10s! Not bad at all.

There is no way your 240sx has a Cd of .26. No chance.

As for looks, the Honda Civic Hybrid looks nearly identical to a Honda Civic, so it's just "a car". The Prius, however, does have its own look because it is its own unique model. I happen to think it's ugly, but I really like the things Edmunds.com had to say about it in their first review

And speaking of the look of the Insight, it's really just a modern take on the CRX. They're strikingly similar in appearance.

Edmunds has more info

Uh, not to respond to your nit-picking with facts, but the Prius costs $21000 and the Camry costs $20,000-$26,000

And, well, I'd say that it's an easy bet that any of the electric cars out there will get far over 100 mpg. Put a gallon of gas in a can in the trunk, drive it around forever without ever opening it.

Uh, not to respond to your nit-picking with facts, but the Prius costs $21000 and the Camry costs $20,000-$26,000

And, well, I'd say that it's an easy bet that any of the electric cars out there will get far over 100 mpg. Put a gallon of gas in a can in the trunk, drive it around forever without ever opening it.

i doubt you have to double clutch to change gears because you don't have a synchromesh gearbox

Double-clutch downshifting to match engine revs while decelerating is a beautiful thing when done properly.

Heel and toe downshifting is a bit more complex.

I too have felt the frustration of car shopping. You goto a dealership and they don't have the color you want, or the options, and the car they do have is 5000$ more expensive because it has a bunch of useless crap.

I've been told the best advice is to goto carsdirect.com, or call the fleet manager at your dealership. He can order you the exact car you want, and while it's true they're not clearing inventory, they are still making a sale they wouldn't have otherwise.

If you want to read an intersting and scary store about car salesmen, click here :)

Sure, sellers always had credit reports, but that was usually used for finance rates and (I believe) is illegal to explicitely insert false info into the credit report. But now we're getting into greyer areas that are possibly more prone to fudging and obscuring and outright lying.

The California DMV recommends a three second cushion in front. Young Drivers (Canada's largest driving school) says a minimum of two seconds in good weather, three or more otherwise. On the highway, you cover three hundred feet in about three seconds.

Even at the best of times, your reaction time is going to be a minimum of about one second--usually it's closer to at least 1.5 seconds. Worse, if you're starting to snooze and drift into oncoming traffic then three hundred feet puts you only a second and a half away from the other guy.

If you come up on a stationary vehicle on the road--stalled, say, at night--braking from a mile a minute to zero at one gee (good luck braking that hard, by the way) costs you a hundred and fifty feet...plus reaction time.

Nope, three hundred feet isn't too far to be able to look ahead. Obviously, if you're only doing ten miles per hour in a parking lot, the system isn't going to use all of that long-distance information.

Link to chart of stopping distances under realistic conditions of braking ability and reaction time.

Make/Model: City / Highway / Observed

Chevy TrailBlazer: 16 / 20 / 14.6

Dodge Durango SLT: 13 / 17 / 12.7

Ford Explorer Eddie Bauer: 16 / 20 / 16

Honda Passport EX-L: 16 / 20 / 14.8

Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo: 16 / 21 / 15.4

Mitsubishi Montero Sport Limited: 16 / 20 / 15.7

Nissan Pathfinder LE: 15 / 19 / 14.1

Toyota 4Runner SR5 Highlander: 17 / 19 / 17.4

My source is Edmunds.

In other words, unless you are driving the über-huge Lincoln Navigator (17 MPG), or one of those Ethanol-only vehicles (which typically get about 5 MPG less), you are probably getting something like 20-25 MPG on the highway. Even "big trucks" like the Ford F-150 usually get 20 MPG, depending on the configuration.

I don't really see that this is the case, the cars I've listed aren't the low end versions, but they are not monster trucks either.

Unfortunately these cars don't have enough "muscles" as compared to the "more traditional" gas-only cars.

Check out the concept Honda Dualnote. Hybrid, 400 HP, and 40mpg gas mileage. Sweet! Unfortunately, it doesn't sound like it will ever make it to production.

Not this escape which gets 23/28 MPG using less than 522 gallons on 12000 miles in the city...

Too bad they haven't gotten the hybrid escape in yet, its promised 40 MPG urban beats the non-hybrid civic (all right, the hybrid civic beats that again at 46 MPG urban). So then any non-hybrid car will be labeled gas guzzler?

This little luxury sedan uses more gas than the escape I linked to. There are more like that.

So what if the average MPG of SUVs is worse, that doesn't make the guzzling little cadillac better than the 4cyl escape.

The 11/21 MPG for the viper is pretty close to the 13/17 of the Hummer H2, but that's not even that much lower than 14/18 of the age-old Suburban, which chassis was used for the hummer, and which got 13/17 itself seven years and longer ago, but didn't get such a reaction then... What is so new now?

Not this escape which gets 23/28 MPG using less than 522 gallons on 12000 miles in the city...

Too bad they haven't gotten the hybrid escape in yet, its promised 40 MPG urban beats the non-hybrid civic (all right, the hybrid civic beats that again at 46 MPG urban). So then any non-hybrid car will be labeled gas guzzler?

This little luxury sedan uses more gas than the escape I linked to. There are more like that.

So what if the average MPG of SUVs is worse, that doesn't make the guzzling little cadillac better than the 4cyl escape.

The 11/21 MPG for the viper is pretty close to the 13/17 of the Hummer H2, but that's not even that much lower than 14/18 of the age-old Suburban, which chassis was used for the hummer, and which got 13/17 itself seven years and longer ago, but didn't get such a reaction then... What is so new now?

Not this escape which gets 23/28 MPG using less than 522 gallons on 12000 miles in the city...

Too bad they haven't gotten the hybrid escape in yet, its promised 40 MPG urban beats the non-hybrid civic (all right, the hybrid civic beats that again at 46 MPG urban). So then any non-hybrid car will be labeled gas guzzler?

This little luxury sedan uses more gas than the escape I linked to. There are more like that.

So what if the average MPG of SUVs is worse, that doesn't make the guzzling little cadillac better than the 4cyl escape.

The 11/21 MPG for the viper is pretty close to the 13/17 of the Hummer H2, but that's not even that much lower than 14/18 of the age-old Suburban, which chassis was used for the hummer, and which got 13/17 itself seven years and longer ago, but didn't get such a reaction then... What is so new now?

Not this escape which gets 23/28 MPG using less than 522 gallons on 12000 miles in the city...

Too bad they haven't gotten the hybrid escape in yet, its promised 40 MPG urban beats the non-hybrid civic (all right, the hybrid civic beats that again at 46 MPG urban). So then any non-hybrid car will be labeled gas guzzler?

This little luxury sedan uses more gas than the escape I linked to. There are more like that.

So what if the average MPG of SUVs is worse, that doesn't make the guzzling little cadillac better than the 4cyl escape.

The 11/21 MPG for the viper is pretty close to the 13/17 of the Hummer H2, but that's not even that much lower than 14/18 of the age-old Suburban, which chassis was used for the hummer, and which got 13/17 itself seven years and longer ago, but didn't get such a reaction then... What is so new now?

"But its gets 27, which I think is mediocre to bad, globally speaking, but its way better than an SUV."

Not always: For example this one gets 28mpg...

"Way more fun to drive"

That is subjective and I'm sure not eveybody will agree with you.

"we're going to blow up my Nissan Pathfinder." "a tribute to gas guzzlers, a dying trend (we hope)"

Emphasis mine. So he's basically protesting his own SUV, maybe even after putting 100k miles on it in just three years. Talk about hypocrisy.

The people protesting gas guzzlers should also protest people that don't move closer to work to reduce their long daily commutes. The "M" in MPG stands for miles you know...

Plus why all the focus on SUVs as a whole? Let's look at the facts: Sure, there are some SUVs out there that are plain rediculous, but there are a lot of Sport sedans, minivans and pickup trucks too that are bigger gas guzzlers than many compact SUVs.

That is just shortsightedness.

"we're going to blow up my Nissan Pathfinder." "a tribute to gas guzzlers, a dying trend (we hope)"

Emphasis mine. So he's basically protesting his own SUV, maybe even after putting 100k miles on it in just three years. Talk about hypocrisy.

The people protesting gas guzzlers should also protest people that don't move closer to work to reduce their long daily commutes. The "M" in MPG stands for miles you know...

Plus why all the focus on SUVs as a whole? Let's look at the facts: Sure, there are some SUVs out there that are plain rediculous, but there are a lot of Sport sedans, minivans and pickup trucks too that are bigger gas guzzlers than many compact SUVs.

That is just shortsightedness.

"we're going to blow up my Nissan Pathfinder." "a tribute to gas guzzlers, a dying trend (we hope)"

Emphasis mine. So he's basically protesting his own SUV, maybe even after putting 100k miles on it in just three years. Talk about hypocrisy.

The people protesting gas guzzlers should also protest people that don't move closer to work to reduce their long daily commutes. The "M" in MPG stands for miles you know...

Plus why all the focus on SUVs as a whole? Let's look at the facts: Sure, there are some SUVs out there that are plain rediculous, but there are a lot of Sport sedans, minivans and pickup trucks too that are bigger gas guzzlers than many compact SUVs.

That is just shortsightedness.

"we're going to blow up my Nissan Pathfinder." "a tribute to gas guzzlers, a dying trend (we hope)"

Emphasis mine. So he's basically protesting his own SUV, maybe even after putting 100k miles on it in just three years. Talk about hypocrisy.

The people protesting gas guzzlers should also protest people that don't move closer to work to reduce their long daily commutes. The "M" in MPG stands for miles you know...

Plus why all the focus on SUVs as a whole? Let's look at the facts: Sure, there are some SUVs out there that are plain rediculous, but there are a lot of Sport sedans, minivans and pickup trucks too that are bigger gas guzzlers than many compact SUVs.

That is just shortsightedness.

"we're going to blow up my Nissan Pathfinder." "a tribute to gas guzzlers, a dying trend (we hope)"

Emphasis mine. So he's basically protesting his own SUV, maybe even after putting 100k miles on it in just three years. Talk about hypocrisy.

The people protesting gas guzzlers should also protest people that don't move closer to work to reduce their long daily commutes. The "M" in MPG stands for miles you know...

Plus why all the focus on SUVs as a whole? Let's look at the facts: Sure, there are some SUVs out there that are plain rediculous, but there are a lot of Sport sedans, minivans and pickup trucks too that are bigger gas guzzlers than many compact SUVs.

That is just shortsightedness.

I must say, this looks pretty snazzy. Assuming it would hold up in a crash (which, I'm sure, will be addressed). With the suicide-hinge rear doors, some impressive engineering will have to go into making this crash-worthy. (Why do you think they call them "suicide doors"?)

Mercedes M-Class Luxury SUV...

I had the pleasure of meeting this vehicle over the last fews days spent with a family member in Portland. Quite a contrast to the late 2A Land Rover he just finished restoring. Always fun to see how various cultures spawn different reactions to solving the issue of mobility.

Civic : 93hp, 113ft-lbs., 46/51mpg, $18,684

Golf TDI : 90hp, 155ft-lbs., 42/49mpg, $17,495

The nice thing about the TDI is that they can be easily "chipped" up to 115hp and over 200ft-lbs. of torque while maintaining or actually improving their mileage !! A chipped TDI will beat most cars on the road from 0-30mph.

Civic : 93hp, 113ft-lbs., 46/51mpg, $18,684

Golf TDI : 90hp, 155ft-lbs., 42/49mpg, $17,495

The nice thing about the TDI is that they can be easily "chipped" up to 115hp and over 200ft-lbs. of torque while maintaining or actually improving their mileage !! A chipped TDI will beat most cars on the road from 0-30mph.

My comment wasn't wrong -- but it was admittedly incomplete. SUVs and trucks aren't included in CAFE because when CAFE was first legislated, SUVs didn't exist (they at least weren't named as such). However, now, with top pick-up trucks more than doubling the sales of top consumer vehicles, it's difficult situation. Should vehicles used for commercial traffic be included in CAFE? Should 18 wheelers and farm tractors? Or should it be just those limited to passenger vehicles? How do we count just those sold to consumers? How do states report those vehicles that are commercially registered vs. those that are privately registered? It's a sticky issue with no clear answers. So, yes, I'll concede that the US hasn't covered EVERY single option to completion, but you can't do everything at once. There's always something to criticize about everyone if you hunt long enough (such as why aren't catalytic converters mandatory in Europe?). BTW, road surfacing isn't really considered a viable option for the US because of its high cost per mile. With many more miles of roadway than any other country in the world, it's a daunting task. It's too easy to oversimplify situations in these posts, but it's suffice to say that everyone could be doing more.

It doesn't strike you as slightly unfair to compare a "slightly used" vehicle with a brand new one?

Comparing a pretty low end 2003 F-150, MSRP of $19,455 (and this is not including any maintenance costs), would probably be more appropriate. You know, on a personal level.

Another thing I don't understand is why people think the electricity in an electric car is free. You pay for electricity just like you pay for gas. An electric car will make your utility bill skyrocket, no?

That's where you're wrong. Fossil fuels (oil, coal, and their derivatives) can deliver more useful energy than it takes to produce them. It's a cost-effective equation. If, as you claim, it took more energy to produce them then they deliver, we'd be in a sorry state indeed, and would have abandoned their use many years ago.

I think you missed part of my point. It will always take more energy to produce a fuel than it releases. (See Thermodynamics: Law of Conservation of Energy.) We have just gotten used to having most of the energy being put in by natural processes. Which, is also a possibility in using hydrogen, it is currently known that hydrogen exists in large quantities, trapped in sub-surface rocks. (it is mentioned by NASA here.) And, as such could be mined (just like oil). So in the end, we could get H2 in large quantities, with about the same trouble as oil. Moreover, according to the same article mentioned above, the supply would renew itself, quickly, and as such, would not run into the same supply problem we are headed for with oil.

I still say that diesel engines are a much better means of pollution reduction today than hydrogen.

This might be true, though, it would still face the problem that is getting in the way of cleaner technologies today: the consumer. People are comfortable with what they have, and don't want to switch. By the time you get everyone to switch over to diesel, hydrogen power will be available to the public, and then you are facing the same fight all over again. With the advent of such things as the GM concept car and the Ballard Field Tests, I think Fuel Cells are just about ready to mature into widespread use. It'd be better to wait the extra couple of years and only fight to get people to switch once.

Especially since all of the people who tout hydrogen are relying upon the magical appearance of cheap, effective solar power. If we had cheap, effective solar power today, we'd be running our electricity grid off of that instead of producing it by burning coal. Wouldn't that be a nice thing?
There have actually been a number of very successful experiments with solar power, unfortunatly, it only really has a chance in places that get a lot of sunlight. Plus it takes up a large amount of space. Problem is, its not as effiecent as burning coal (or commonly natural gas). So, it hasn't attacted much investment. Also, there is the problem that most power companies already have coal/NG power stations built, it makes terrible business sense to abandon a plant in the middle of its useful life cycle. Even if solar was cheap and effective, they are not going to shutter thier coal plants and build solar plants just because its cleaner, they would lose tons of money in the process, and that is what they care about.

Solar power in sufficient quantities to run even a moderate amount of the automotive traffic in the US is probably decades away. Diesel vehicles could be available today.

I will agree that the amount of solar power needed to run the traffic in the US is a ways away, though I don't think it will be the decades you claim. And yes, diesel is available today, in fact it is available in the US already, people just don't buy it. (VW Golf TDI).
I will agree that someone looking to buy a car today, would be well advised to look into getting a diesel vehicle, if they are looking for eviromentally friendly. Personally though I think they would be better servered holding out for a couple of years and getting an H2 powered car.

Speaking of Helicopters and Porsches, you can get a decent 2 seater helicopter for less money than a decent Porsche.

Compare for yourself, $165 grand for a Robinson R22 Beta II helicopter versus $180 grand for a 2002 Porsche 911 GT2.

In terms of fun per dollar, a helicopter beats a Porsche any day!

Actualy BMW does make the new Mini. Check out this early Edmunds review for information. They state "BMW (is the) (owner of the Mini brand and producer of the 2002 Cooper)"

So getting 120bhp/litre and a 9000rpm redline out of a two litre four cylinder engine has no geek appeal? How about inventing variable valve timing?

Increasingly, higher-end vehicles are coming on the market with steering, brakes, throttle, etc. that are completely controlled by electronic sensors and other "drive-by-wire" technologies.

Hopefully said systems have a Lithium battery back-up that's more reliable than my PalmPilot's.

"I took a drive in a vehicle once, and we went 200mph on the desert in New Mexico... then I drove it and we went 200mph again. Then I looked inside the hood, and I saw something the size of a shoebox... I figured it must have been nuclear."

Any geek wanting to buy this POS I hope are good with tools and think driving is just a way of getting from point A to point B. The new Fords are bad enough let alone something from 1988.

A quick check from Edmunds suggests 1990 Escort are valued around $1000. Says something about their worth.

My neighbor has a newer model Focus and Explorer and they're frustrated with the breakdowns and dealer headache. Reliability aside my gut instinct tells me a 1988 Ford Escort is gutless and drives like crap. Add the extra weight of the trimmings and this thing handles like a steel tub. Outside of mebbe a geek parade this thing can't be that much fun to drive.

Actually, the 325iX cost $30k when new. That's still only ~26% of the original price. I think the Porsche example is an exception ... they've always held their value pretty well.

If you bought a 1990 Honda Accord at the same time, you'd see about the same sort of depreciation in price. An Accord EX goes for maybe $4k these days (Edmunds reports $3,673 for private sale and $5,264 while eBay completed auctions suggest something lower than that). It cost about $17k new. Even at the $4k mark, it depreciated faster than the 325iX example. There are lots of examples, so it's hard to say for sure, but the Honda CRX Si depreciated more slowly and is still worth about a third of the original price.

I don't mean to flame you or get into a pissing match, but I thought I might lend some of my own performance automobile knowledge to this discussion.

BMWs are not a good purchase if you are looking for a performance automobile. They can be an exciting car to drive, but do not hold their value and are pretty high in maintenance costs. You can see this reflected in their rate of depreciation. I am making this statement relative to another famous german performance car, the 911 Porsche.

As an example, take a look at the 1990 BMW 3 Series
2 Dr 325iX AWD Coupe. You're gonna want 4-wheel-drive if you are going to mash on that gas pedal and don't just want to sit at the traffic light with the back wheels spinning. This car probably cost $40k new. Now it sells for less than $8k.

On the upper side of expense and performance, you've got the 1990 Porsche 911
2 Dr Carrera 4 Cabrio AWD Convertible which probably sold for around $80k (twice the BMW), but it now sells for just shy of $30k.

So the convertible 4wd BMW after 10 years sells for 1/5th the original sticker price, while the Porsche is more than a third of what the original owner paid. Of course, the BMW affords one the comfort of more realistic back seats and perhaps some cup holders up front.

As for the BMW motorcycles, they're an incredible machine. Relatively cheap, easy to work on and find parts for, extremely reliable, and fun to ride. I know of no other brand of motorcycles that match the BMW bikes on all these points. Remember near the end of Men In Black where Tommy Lee Jones dives into the mouth of that big alien to retrieve the gun which he describes as his 'favorite'? That's how I feel about my 1976 R90/6 BMW.

I don't mean to flame you or get into a pissing match, but I thought I might lend some of my own performance automobile knowledge to this discussion.

BMWs are not a good purchase if you are looking for a performance automobile. They can be an exciting car to drive, but do not hold their value and are pretty high in maintenance costs. You can see this reflected in their rate of depreciation. I am making this statement relative to another famous german performance car, the 911 Porsche.

As an example, take a look at the 1990 BMW 3 Series
2 Dr 325iX AWD Coupe. You're gonna want 4-wheel-drive if you are going to mash on that gas pedal and don't just want to sit at the traffic light with the back wheels spinning. This car probably cost $40k new. Now it sells for less than $8k.

On the upper side of expense and performance, you've got the 1990 Porsche 911
2 Dr Carrera 4 Cabrio AWD Convertible which probably sold for around $80k (twice the BMW), but it now sells for just shy of $30k.

So the convertible 4wd BMW after 10 years sells for 1/5th the original sticker price, while the Porsche is more than a third of what the original owner paid. Of course, the BMW affords one the comfort of more realistic back seats and perhaps some cup holders up front.

As for the BMW motorcycles, they're an incredible machine. Relatively cheap, easy to work on and find parts for, extremely reliable, and fun to ride. I know of no other brand of motorcycles that match the BMW bikes on all these points. Remember near the end of Men In Black where Tommy Lee Jones dives into the mouth of that big alien to retrieve the gun which he describes as his 'favorite'? That's how I feel about my 1976 R90/6 BMW.

BTW, cars with either manual OR automatic transmissions DO have flywheels, but they're relatively lightweight and they're main purpose is to transfer energy, not store it (although it can help to maintain speed on uphills, but you loose acceleration due to more mass you have to start rotating).

Here's a couple links showing the flywheels. Go here or here

While we're on the topic of regenerative braking, here's a solution from Ford using HPA (Hydraulic Power Assist) to help trucks accelerate.
Go here Or Here

Actually, it was on last year's Auto Show Circuit, according to Edmund's. Considering how long it takes to develop a prototype, that may explain the choice of Windows 98 - when this was being developed, 2000 was still brand new, and Volvo probably wanted something that had been tested longer. I guess they could have used NT 4, but maybe they needed plug and play and USB.

BMWs iDrive System on the BMW745i is the real deal.

iDrive consists of a computer that controls 270 functions (including basic climate and stereo settings), a center-mounted LCD screen and a console-mounted rotary pushbutton knob that works as the system's "mouse." It's an amazingly powerful system that BMW sees taking over almost all vehicle functions.

More info here.

BMWs iDrive System on the BMW745i is the real deal.

iDrive consists of a computer that controls 270 functions (including basic climate and stereo settings), a center-mounted LCD screen and a console-mounted rotary pushbutton knob that works as the system's "mouse." It's an amazingly powerful system that BMW sees taking over almost all vehicle functions.

More info here.

BMW already has a hydrogen-powered 7 Serices car. Of course, it is still just a prototype.

Another alternative, and perhaps one closer in functionality to your old Accord, is the 2002 Honda Civic Hybrid:

The Honda Civic Hybrid home page

The Edmunds Review

It has four seats, four doors, gets mileage somewhere between 40-70 MPG, can get out of its own way, and is only US$20,000.

It runs on gasoline, but uses a dual electric motor/gas engine setup. So refueling will be infrequent and convenient.

Until a breakthrough in battery tech happens, this is the almost-best we can do. And you can buy it today.

According to VW's site the TDI Manual only gets 49 MPG on the highway. Here is the link to the link to the specs. While the Civic Hybrid is rated at 51 MPG on the highway. The link (pdf) to the Civic's specs is here. Neither of these compare to Insight which gets 68 MPG, according to edmund's listed specs.

Now I'm not sure how you can say that the TDI has the best mileage for any vehicle that uses fossil fuel, when, it does not get the best mileage.

It should also be noted that the Jetta TDI burns diseal fuel instead of Unleaded gasoline. I do not, however, remember if diseal or unleaded burns cleaner.

> My suspicion is that many car owners could do better if their car simply recorded/reported MPG to them

Indeed. Actually, nearly all new cars sold hereabouts sport an onboard computer with mpg (well, liters for 100km here - 40 mpg roughly equals to 6l/100km FWIW) reporting. And I see that so does the Insight. But Europeans are what they are, ya know... Especially in the South :) I didn't know that the Insight was available in Europe actually. Even though I read a lot of the automobile press available, they didn't even talk about it - nor test it for that matter.

(as to the mileage database, I'd argue that most Insight buyers are conscious of consumption problems, as you are, it seems :) - and from the link above, that the "cockpit" is quite designed to make the driver focus on it)

> Also, the EPA "city" test cycle does have transient accelerations/decelerations. See this example. [epa.gov]

Hey, that's a city test after all :p

> The idea that diesel MPG is less sensitive to driving style is another interesting one. I suspect that would be reflected in the numbers -- "city" mileage ought to be relatively close to the "highway" mileage for such a car, if that were the case.

It is. The Skoda sports 37mpg in city test cycles, but of course in real life it can go much lower - at least until the starter-alternator becomes mainstream. The BMW is unfortunately handicapped by its cubic displacement here, with a "mere" 31mpg. Some cars even score the same mpg in town than on highway (the Renault Clio 1.5 dCi is one, with 42mpg each).

> The starter-alternator sounds suspiciously like what a hybrid does, minus the boost/recharging ability while driving

Well, it can add to the torque of the engine actually, on heavy thrust demands. It's a small electrical engine located between the engine and gearbox. It recharges the batteries, just like a normal alternator, of course. In fact, it's just like an hybrid system, including energy recovery on braking etc, but it's not used for main propulsion. On manual gearboxes, it restarts the engine when the clutch pedal is pressed. Automatic gearboxes? Dunno, and I don't like them anyway :p Efficiency? Well, we'll see in two years' time when C4 is out :)

Thanks for the very nice talking.

Sit behind the wheel of a Z06 Corvette and tell me you don't understand the obsession. I would sell everything I own (except my PowerBook) for a Z06.

If it were otherwise, someone can explain to me why a ten year old F150 supercab with a 2.5 ton truck 4 speed and a carbuerated 351 gets better MPG than a standard cab F150 with a 5 speed with overdrive and fuel injection and a 302? New ain't always better.

That's a pretty good question, and since I'm a spaz for minor details, I went looking for the answer at Edmunds.com. According to them:

2002 Ford F-150 Fullsize Crew Cab Truck
4.6L V8
231 hp @ 4750
293 ft-lbs. @ 3500 rpm
Estimated milegage (city/highway) 16/20 mpg (with automatic transmission)
Source: http://www.edmunds.com/new/2002/ford/f150/4drsuper crewkingranch2wdstylesidesb46l8cyl4a/specs.html?id =lin0018

1992 Ford F-150 Fullsize Extended Cab Truck
(I couldn't find "supercab," I figured this would be close enough)
4.9L straight 6
145 hp @ 3400 rpm
265ft-lbs. @ 2000 rpm
No mileage data posted here
Source: http://www.edmunds.com/used/1992/ford/f150/2drxltl ariat4wdextendedcablb/specs.html?id=lin0066

I was able to get mileage data for the 1991 model year, and it was 16/20 city/highway for the 4.9L 6-cyl. So, given those numbers, newer is better.

As for the new 7-series, I like it. Even the wierd rear end is growing on me. I had the opportunity to take a ride in one back in January, and I was pretty impressed. Regardless of the gadgets and gizmos, I don't think another sedan in the class can touch it in terms of driving fun.