Slashdot Mirror

Not only will you save money on gas, you'll save money on the car itself.

For example, a Geo Metro can be had for about $1000 and gets 50MPG, and there are several Honda models that get over 40MPG. In chronological (and decreasing milage) order, they are the 88-91 CRX HF, 92-95 Civic VX (hatchback), and 96-2000(?) Civic HX (coupe).

The 96+ Civic HX, which is obviously the least uncomfortable of the bunch, can be found for ~$5000 -- a quarter of the cost of a new Civic Hybrid or Prius, but only slightly worse gas milage!

I'm sure there are other cars, such as Toyotas, Volkswagens, etc. that also get 40+ MPG, you just have to look for them.

Not only will you save money on gas, you'll save money on the car itself.

For example, a Geo Metro can be had for about $1000 and gets 50MPG, and there are several Honda models that get over 40MPG. In chronological (and decreasing milage) order, they are the 88-91 CRX HF, 92-95 Civic VX (hatchback), and 96-2000(?) Civic HX (coupe).

The 96+ Civic HX, which is obviously the least uncomfortable of the bunch, can be found for ~$5000 -- a quarter of the cost of a new Civic Hybrid or Prius, but only slightly worse gas milage!

I'm sure there are other cars, such as Toyotas, Volkswagens, etc. that also get 40+ MPG, you just have to look for them.

Some sources are reporting that the EPA estimated mileage for the current generations of hybrids is as much as 42% more than the real world mileage, while the margin of error for compact gas only vehicles is only about %30.

I should have been more clear. By "style" I was narrowly referring to speed, acceleration, and braking, not to things like the use of accessories. I also said "less sensitive than other vehicles", so this is relative.

The Prius should be less sensitive to cruising speed than many other vehicles, due to its lower coefficient of drag (assuming cross section area is the same). I do find Prius mileage drops off considerably above 70 MPH, but with some vehicles, a similar drop might occur at lower speeds (maybe around 60 MPH). I don't have any hard data so this admittedly is more of an intuition.

I don't know of any particular reason for the Prius to be less sensitive to acceleration from a stop, but I've tried accelerating slowly and quickly, as well as in between. Personally I haven't seen any difference in mileage between these styles.

Of the three factors I listed above, I suspect braking style (meaning the combined use of the brake pedal, regenerative braking, and engine braking) has the most impact on fuel economy. Again I have no hard data, but mileage should be best with maximum use of regenerative braking. Of course this also implies that you will burn less gas between the time you notice a stop sign or red light, and the time you arrive at the intersection -- a double benefit. It may even be a triple benefit because if you slow down early, traffic lights are more likely to turn green by the time you arrive, making a full stop unnecessary. But two of these three benefits also apply to non-hybrids.

Country roads with a few stop signs are where I got my best mileage. 25-45MPH driving does meet the better mileage than freeway driving expectation.

Agreed, that mirrors my experience, and it supports my point, because driving 25-45 MPH without stops is a lot closer to the EPA's test profile for highway driving, than it is to the city profile. (Incidentally, with only 22 stop/starts in a 30 minute test, that city profile sure looks better than my commute). Alas, here in Southern California I rarely have the opportunity to drive any significant distance under those conditions. I did experience this on a recent trip to Phoenix; the traffic lights are much friendlier there.

Ah, yes. That would absorb much of the initial cost. I admit that since I've always looked at this from the perspective of simply wanting to spend less on fuel, I haven't looked too closely at these kits. How would a low-end conversion kit like this perform as compared with something mundane like an old econobox? If you go by the USDOE's numbers[1], a '94 Metro would actually be cheaper still, mileage-wise, and can be had for considerably less than eight grand.

[1] http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2001cartablef.jsp?i d=10740

Which version of the Prius are you looking at? According to the site you linked to, the '05 Prius gets 36 - 58 MPG or an average of 48.0.

And, yes, the Diesel Golf does get good mileage but is smaller than the Prius which is why I used the Passat for comparison. The Golf is classified as a Compact car at 88 ft3 whereas the Prius is a Midsize at 96 ft3.

According to actual drivers (from the EPA website, the Prius gets about 40-48 MPG. A Diesel Golf gets 40-49 MPG, slightly better.

The Diesel Golf is rated at 42 city/49 highway. The Prius is rated 52 city/45 highway.

Also, Diesel fuel is quite a bit cleaner than most people would believe, especially when using low-sulfer fuels.

Cheaper than hybrid. Cleaner than hybrid.

Maybe it's just that a LOT of people don't know how to use the compact spots, but there did seem to be a ton of compact spots in the entire parking area. Do so many people at Yahoo actully drive motorcycles, Mini Coopers, Segways, and golf carts?

You seem to misunderstand what constitutes a compact car. It doesn't have to be super tiny, just relatively small.

Search for Compact cars: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byEPAclass.htm

I would be surprised if there weren't lots of Honda Civics, BMW 3-series, Mitsubishi Evo's, Subaru WRX's, etc in that lot.

Maybe it's just that a LOT of people don't know how to use the compact spots, but there did seem to be a ton of compact spots in the entire parking area. Do so many people at Yahoo actully drive motorcycles, Mini Coopers, Segways, and golf carts?

You seem to misunderstand what constitutes a compact car. It doesn't have to be super tiny, just relatively small.

Search for Compact cars: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byEPAclass.htm

I would be surprised if there weren't lots of Honda Civics, BMW 3-series, Mitsubishi Evo's, Subaru WRX's, etc in that lot.

most SUV's get closer to 30 mpg than to 15.

Go to http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/FEG2000.htm and tell me what you see. I see most SUVs with city ratings closer to 15 than 30. I also see that minivans with mileage equal to the explorers having much more cargo room. The problem is that thing like the PT Cruiser are SUVs. That is a Neon with a rear seat that folds flat. Because of the rules, Chrysler got the car registered as an SUV. They save money and they get to make it less safe. If you compare 6-cyl minivans vs 6-cyl SUVs, you find that the SUVs are smaller and get worse mileage. It is only when you toss in PT Cruisers and the things like hybrids (there are no minivan hybrids) that the SUVs even come close to minivans in economy. Weight them by sales in the class (the Explorer at 15/20 outselling the Freestyle at 20/27), then SUVs are even worse off.

No, I think that when you look at the numbers, that minivans are better for mileage than SUVs.

Go here to see that this is not true. Gas prices have never been stable.

15 years of innovation and a completely new engine design, and we end up with a somewhat safer version of the Geo Metro (40% heavier... and with half the cargo space.)

1990 Geo Metro XFI Specs & Mileage

Weight: 1694 lbs
Cargo Volume: 31.4 cu. ft.
Front leg room (Max): 42.5 in.
Rear leg room (Min): 32.6 in.
Crash Test: Driver ***, Passenger ****

City: 53 MPG
Highway: 58 MPG
Combined: 55 MPG

2005 Toyota Prius Specs & Mileage

Weight: 2890 lbs
Cargo Volume: 16.1 cu. ft.
Front leg Room (Max): 41.9 in.
Rear leg Room (Min): 38.6 in.
Crash Test: Driver *****, Passenger ****

City: 60 MPG
Highway: 51 MPG
Combined: 55 MPG

15 years of innovation and a completely new engine design, and we end up with a somewhat safer version of the Geo Metro (40% heavier... and with half the cargo space.)

1990 Geo Metro XFI Specs & Mileage

Weight: 1694 lbs
Cargo Volume: 31.4 cu. ft.
Front leg room (Max): 42.5 in.
Rear leg room (Min): 32.6 in.
Crash Test: Driver ***, Passenger ****

City: 53 MPG
Highway: 58 MPG
Combined: 55 MPG

2005 Toyota Prius Specs & Mileage

Weight: 2890 lbs
Cargo Volume: 16.1 cu. ft.
Front leg Room (Max): 41.9 in.
Rear leg Room (Min): 38.6 in.
Crash Test: Driver *****, Passenger ****

City: 60 MPG
Highway: 51 MPG
Combined: 55 MPG

Using air conditioning is supposed to make a difference, but last autumn I drove the same route for a week and noticed that my MPG was higher during a week where I was using air conditioning compared to one where I only had the windows open or the fan on.

You may also want to check out How Stuff Works's site.

I haven't noticed any significant deviation in my gas mileage depending on how I drive. The two things that seem to make a difference are a) highway speeds and b) type of roads travelled on. Back when I drove mainly to school 3 miles away (with stops approx. 1/4 - 1 mi between eachother), I got 16-17mpg, but now that I drive to work 8 miles away (on streches of road mainly with 1-3 mi between stops), I get 19-20mpg. Driving agressively (not to the point where I floor it usually, but close) makes no apparent difference.

I drive a 1989 Chevrolet Cavalier with a V6 engine.

or are those numbers pretty piss-poor for hybrids? I remember when the Insight was pimped as having 70mpg and the Prius 60. Nobody comes close to those figures now. 30 mpg for a V6 Accord? The normal Accord gets only 7 mpg less (ajusted from vendor inflation. Hybrid:37 Normal:30). The variance in the Escape is less than that.

How can these cars be touted as environmentally friendly when you could easily increase your gas mileage by driving a 4-cylinder instead. That way, you get the gas savings and you aren't throwing away a huge battery full of toxic waste when you're done.

Calling the Ford, Lexus, and Honda Accord "environmentally friendly" hybrids is disingenuous. They aren't helping the gas problem whatsoever.

Below 55, your gas mileage gets better the faster you go. After 55 it starts to drop off. There's a neat graph here.

An ultra small car, but pretty impressive MPG, even for 1997. I wouldn't dare drive this on a highway, but if you live in a city, wouldn't be a bad car to get around inexpensively. If you want a newer and roomier car, a Volkswagon Jetta would be a better choice.

An ultra small car, but pretty impressive MPG, even for 1997. I wouldn't dare drive this on a highway, but if you live in a city, wouldn't be a bad car to get around inexpensively. If you want a newer and roomier car, a Volkswagon Jetta would be a better choice.

Unfortunately, the cars that are available everywhere else in the world are not available here. the government puts out a list of the most fuel efficient cars in the USA http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bestworst.shtml As you can see, what you suggest is not an option for us. I guess we'll give a pass on the "stupid celebrities and americans" comment and chalk it up to those ignorant europeans who think they know all about the US because of what they saw on TV.

The biggest surprise was how BAD the original fuel consumption on the Prius was before the modification. 40-45mpg? That's the same as a typical small car would get - and the Prius *is* a small car.

Wow, how many facts can you get wrong in such a short space? First of all, the Prius is significantly larger than a typical compact car (I have an 05 Prius, by the way) - it's closer to a midsize - it comfortably seats 5, plus it's a hatchback, giving it decent storage space. Second, check out the U.S. department of energy's page on fuel efficiency. The Prius has better mileage than EVERY other car listed except for one two-seater from Honda. Third, of course the average driver doesn't practically get the 51-60 MPG claimed. I get 45 MPG actual, just like most Prius owners. But guess what? No other car gets as good gas mileage as the EPA claims either. So either compare EPA numbers from the Prius and some other car, or compare actual mileage by the same driver under the same conditions. Otherwise it's not a fair comparison.

So why pay so much money for all this technology which amounts to a car that's LESS fuel efficient than a lot of normal petrol cars at half the price which can easily get 65+mpg?

The only thing you could be possibly talking about is diesel. Yes, it's true that diesel engines canget you greater fuel efficiency, and they're widely available in other countries, but it's a mistake to believe that it's better for the environment. Diesel exhaust contains 20-100 times more particles than gasoline exhaust. Until diesel can match or improve on the current emissions standards in the U.S., we won't be switching to diesel for ordinary passenger vehicles - that would be a huge step backwards in air quality, even if it did reduce fuel consumption by a small amount.

I also think you're confusing UK gallons with US gallons. Pick one, and then get your numbers straight.

The Prius was featured on the BBC's Top Gear program recently here in the UK and the general gist of the review as far as I remember was "why on earth are all the stupid celebrities and Americans spending a fortune buying these cars from the Japanese which are WORSE for the environment than a normal petrol car at HALF the price?". ..and I don't even think the review took into account the enormous additional environmental damage and costs of disposing of the car at each end of it's lifetime (mainly due to the batteries).

Sounds pretty biased to me. The Prius has been winning "car of the year" all around the world. It costs about $3000 more than a typical car in the same class with the same features. In the next few years, as new hybrids are introduced in other classes, you'll be able to purchase a hybrid version of any class of car you want.

If you want to save the environment, buy a small/light car with a small engine (sub 1.2L) and drive it sensibly.

What is it about hybrid technology that you don't like? Don't you realize that there's no reason you couldn't have a hybrid diesel, or a hybrid small/light car, too? Hybrid technology currently costs an extra $3000 or so, but that will only go down over time. Think of the other benefits of hybrid technology: continuously-variable transmission. The ability for your engine to turn off when it's not needed, and quick-start in a fraction of a second when it's needed. Regenerative braking.

The biggest surprise was how BAD the original fuel consumption on the Prius was before the modification. 40-45mpg? That's the same as a typical small car would get - and the Prius *is* a small car.

All this fuss over 'modern' Hybrid cars and their wonderful gas mileage... when there is a non-hybrid car over 20 years old that can break 50mpg.

I just don't get it. Hybrid cars are a non-starter to me. Just build the damn cars with simple to maintain, fuel-efficient engines, IMHO. I've worked on a CRX HF before, the engines are bone-simple, elegant, and a well-maintained and well-adjusted one can pass even 'modern' smog standards in California, so emissions aren't an issue either.

So... why pay $15-$20k for a fancy hybrid, when I can buy a car for $2k (assuming $1k for car, another $1k to get it up to snuff and pass smog) that gets even better mileage than almost any hybrid out there, and has fewer things that can go wrong, and is about 20% as expensive to repair, and has even cheaper insurance?

I just don't get it... it's already been proven that a decently-performing, fuel-effecient vehicle can be built without hybrid technology. So until they can match the CRX HF in every feasable stat except weight of vehicle, hybrids just seem like the auto makers (yes, even the Honda of today) playing smoke-and-mirrors games with the general public, claiming to make more fuel-effecient vehicles when the modern ones can't come close to a car from two decades ago.

>>Electric cars do not save oil

Yes they do. They get a much higher equivalent MPG than petrol-powered cars. As an example, here's the government's data on Toyota's RAV4-EV. 117 EqMPG city, 91 EqMPG highway and an overall average of 104 EqMPG. My Honda Civic economy car gets around 35MPG on average in the summer. A RAV4-EV gets over 3x that amount. And it's a small SUV to boot!

I bought an Echo for half the price of a Prius, and I only get (officially) 3 less miles per gallon than I would if I was driving a Prius.

And, better yet (IMHO) are cars that trade off some of the increased efficiency for increased performance. The 2005 Accord Hybrid has both more power and better fuel economy than its prececessors.

I bought an Echo for half the price of a Prius, and I only get (officially) 3 less miles per gallon than I would if I was driving a Prius.

And, better yet (IMHO) are cars that trade off some of the increased efficiency for increased performance. The 2005 Accord Hybrid has both more power and better fuel economy than its prececessors.

Let's start a fund for this person to pay for:

1. A round trip ticket to Sacramento
2. Hotel stay
3. Several meals with state Senators and Reps.

We need more constructive ideas like this. Also, check out http://www.fueleconomy.gov.

Lexus hybrid SUV

Toyota hybrid SUV

Hybrid trucks and SUVs from other manufactures

$21,415 MSRP (no haggling), and there's still a U.S. Federal tax deduction. It started at $2000 and was decreasing, scheduled to be phased out by 2007, but was extended.

They've been selling the Prius in the U.S. for several years (my wife and I have owned a 2002 Prius since the end of '01), and for longer than that in Japan. There's the usual Toyota warranties on the car in general, and an 8-year, 100,000-mile warranty on the hybrid system and battery. Ours has been extremely reliably, with no problems besides a warning light when the gas cap didn't get screwed on tight.

get 60mpg. IMO both look good. 145kph no problem

US EPA has a web site where one may compare cars.

Driving a hybrid is rather unnerving the first few months because the engine starts and stops on it's own.

EPA figures are a little off from reality. A friend has a geo and consistabtly gets 50+ mpg on the freeway. Also the Subaru Justy does much better than EPA numbers.

Another friends civic hybrid (honda) averages 47mpg with, conservative, mostly freeway driving.

I guess I wasn't 100% clear. I don't think that we should get rid of cars and only use human-powered transportation. That wouldn't work for a number of reasons. But, my argument is that you should at least consider bicycles, etc. if they are a possibility. Saying "There is no way in hell that I am going to bike to the store (that's 2 miles away) to get a gallon of milk." when it is a possibility is lazy & selfish.

I also think that human-powered transportation should become more of a priority in terms of urban planning. I know that I'm lucky that I live near a major American campus, so there are quite a lot of (decent) bikepaths. But even when I lived in Chicago, I would bike places because:

1) Once I got a parking spot, I didn't want to give it up unless absolutely necessary.
2) Most anywhere I wanted to go was within a 10-15 minute ride.
3) As long as you were careful & considerate, it was no problem to ride on the street/sidewalk.
4) Why spend $1.50 on the el when you could get there faster on a bike?

As for the market solving the problem, I'm not entirely sure. You would think that more research would be going into alternative fuel vehicles. I mean, hybrids are certainly popular, but are still using gasoline. Electric vehicles are interesting, but not widely adopted, and until solar, wind & nuclear power completely replace fossil fuels, we're still consuming oil, coal & natural gas to power those. Hydrogen isn't a fuel, but just an energy transportation medium; that is, it takes energy to create the hydrogen to be used in a fuelcell. And, some people are advocating using hydrocarbons (i.e. oil) to make hydrogen, which is right back where we were.

So, what solutions are you seeing that perhaps I'm not? Until a viable, sustainable solution presents itself, I'll keep riding my bike and driving my car, when appropriate.

you agree that the united states is a wasteful society, yet instead of proposing that we stop being wasteful by using electric motors as opposed to gasoline engines, we get cheaper prices of oil and keep driving our chevy suburbans (which, by the way get 15 miles to the gallon). maybe i'm just a tree-hugging hippie, but i think that instead of killing 14 thousand civilians in order to secure more stable oil prices so that we need not worry about inefficiency, it might be a good idea (at least in theory) to funnel the money that is spent on our offensive military (which you claim is being used to get more stable oil prices from the middle east - adding to our inefficiency) into - gasp! - researching non-wasteful energy and intelligence! that way, we (we = united states) aren't necessarily so wasteful as to require stable oil prices from the middle east, we still have a defensive military powered by accurate intelligence!

but why be smart? after all, people don't want a president who's smarter than they are, and corporations want a puppet. this way, everyone (but those who pay attention) wins!

Yeah, 6000lb+ vehicles used SOLELY for business purposes have some special rules regarding depreciation under section 179. More info here.

The clean car credit applies to personal AND business vehicles, however.

There's a lot of controversy over the EPA mileage ratings for cars - understating the higher mileages to make the lower mileage SUVs look better. But the real scandal is the EPA emissions ratings.

I looked into buying a 1989 BMW 325i. The EPA said it would produce 9.7 tons of CO2 per year. I thought that was pretty high, especially for a 2864lb vehicle. But when I ran their own numbers, it turns out to cough out just under 93,200 pounds of CO2 per year, almost 5 times the EPA spec.

Their annual 15,000 miles costs them $1625 for regular gas at $2.06, or about 789 gallons. At under 6.5lbs:gal, that's under 5130lbs of gas:year. Some DOE chemists say that the weight of gasoline's carbon (12) plus 2 atmospheric oxygen (2*16) molecules in each product CO2 molecule mean that the CO2 weighs 18 times the input gasoline. The 2864lb car therefore produces just under 92,300lbs CO2 per year, over 32 times its own weight *every year* - almost 700 tons of Greenhouse insulation since it rolled out of its Bavarian nest 15 years ago.

How much of the atmosphere am I tainting? If I used this stuff the fast way, huffing it in my garage (at Standard Temperature and Pressure), its 0.1144lbs:ft^3 would fill a cube about 100 feet on a side. Dispersed to somewhere over 0.033% of the volume of the atmosphere, that's 3000 of those 100' cubes a year - 3 1000' cubes - 3 billion cubic feet - stretching 300,000' to the "top" of the atmosphere (past 50mi), my dirty air stands on 10,000sq': 100' on a side. Every year I cover almost a quarter acre with dirty air that's killing me slowly. In the 15 years it's been burning, it's covered about 3.5 acres; about 300 million Americans doing that would account for half the total CO2 covering the 48 "temperate" states... 100% of the total across my lifetime... if only we kept the CO2 to ourselves.

Over 46 tons of CO2 per year? That's almost *5 times* the car's EPA spec of 19400lbs CO2. Where do they get that number? They claim that they're getting the numbers from the DOE lab "GREET" model - so on top of the 46 tons CO2 spewing from my car, there's production, refining, distribution of gasoline, plus NO2 and methane (CH4) - probably at least 50 tons! If they're using the superlow CO2 ratings in their environmental "planning", maybe we're a lot farther down the road to hell than even sensible alarmists believed. Get Christie Whitman out here - she's got a lot of 'splainin' to do!

There's a lot of controversy over the EPA mileage ratings for cars - understating the higher mileages to make the lower mileage SUVs look better. But the real scandal is the EPA emissions ratings.

I looked into buying a 1989 BMW 325i. The EPA said it would produce 9.7 tons of CO2 per year. I thought that was pretty high, especially for a 2864lb vehicle. But when I ran their own numbers, it turns out to cough out just under 93,200 pounds of CO2 per year, almost 5 times the EPA spec.

Their annual 15,000 miles costs them $1625 for regular gas at $2.06, or about 789 gallons. At under 6.5lbs:gal, that's under 5130lbs of gas:year. Some DOE chemists say that the weight of gasoline's carbon (12) plus 2 atmospheric oxygen (2*16) molecules in each product CO2 molecule mean that the CO2 weighs 18 times the input gasoline. The 2864lb car therefore produces just under 92,300lbs CO2 per year, over 32 times its own weight *every year* - almost 700 tons of Greenhouse insulation since it rolled out of its Bavarian nest 15 years ago.

How much of the atmosphere am I tainting? If I used this stuff the fast way, huffing it in my garage (at Standard Temperature and Pressure), its 0.1144lbs:ft^3 would fill a cube about 100 feet on a side. Dispersed to somewhere over 0.033% of the volume of the atmosphere, that's 3000 of those 100' cubes a year - 3 1000' cubes - 3 billion cubic feet - stretching 300,000' to the "top" of the atmosphere (past 50mi), my dirty air stands on 10,000sq': 100' on a side. Every year I cover almost a quarter acre with dirty air that's killing me slowly. In the 15 years it's been burning, it's covered about 3.5 acres; about 300 million Americans doing that would account for half the total CO2 covering the 48 "temperate" states... 100% of the total across my lifetime... if only we kept the CO2 to ourselves.

Over 46 tons of CO2 per year? That's almost *5 times* the car's EPA spec of 19400lbs CO2. Where do they get that number? They claim that they're getting the numbers from the DOE lab "GREET" model - so on top of the 46 tons CO2 spewing from my car, there's production, refining, distribution of gasoline, plus NO2 and methane (CH4) - probably at least 50 tons! If they're using the superlow CO2 ratings in their environmental "planning", maybe we're a lot farther down the road to hell than even sensible alarmists believed. Get Christie Whitman out here - she's got a lot of 'splainin' to do!

I always get a giggle out of people with the little sports cars. :)

I have a '00 TransAm WS/6, that is suppose to get 18/27. In real life, it does 20 in normal city driving, and 26 on long highway trips. The only way I ever achieved it was to pull onto I-10, set the cruise to 80 in 6th gear, and not touch the gas til I made my next stop at gas station, 400 miles later. Cross country drives are fun like that, but after 400 miles of not touching the gas or brakes, and effectively driving with one finger, you kinda forget that you have to hit the clutch and brakes to stop. It's that "oh ya, gotta drive now" feeling.

On real highway driving (occasionally encountering traffic, and the like), I get about 24 to 25 mpg.

If I'm racing (on tracks, of course), I can ruin that 17mpg mininum. :)

I haven't driven a GTO yet, but a friend who had the same car as mine (same specs, different car) drove one and was anything but impressed.

For me, mileage isn't a killer. My drives are very short, if I opt to make them. I walk a lot because parking sucks here. I use about 1 tank of gas (~16 gal) per month.

The official EPA MPG is 23 city, 31 highway on my 1995 Toyota Camry. To put that in perspective, I drive to-from school, Massachusetts to North Carolina at least half a dozen times each year and I've never averaged less than 35 mpg on the trip. I think my all time best was 41 mpg, but the climate was perfect and so I didn't need any AC/Heat the entire trip. I'm not sure how accurate the city side of things is, but I know the highway estimates are super conservative. Of course, even though I drive aggresively, I do have the 5-speed manual and spend most of my time in 5th. Oh and in case you were wondering, I regularly get 4-6mpg better than what I get while driving my mom's 1994 automatic camry, so I know that definately plays into it.

Just in case you were curious, check this website out for fuel efficiency data for all cars run by the EPA.

The official EPA MPG is 23 city, 31 highway on my 1995 Toyota Camry. To put that in perspective, I drive to-from school, Massachusetts to North Carolina at least half a dozen times each year and I've never averaged less than 35 mpg on the trip. I think my all time best was 41 mpg, but the climate was perfect and so I didn't need any AC/Heat the entire trip. I'm not sure how accurate the city side of things is, but I know the highway estimates are super conservative. Of course, even though I drive aggresively, I do have the 5-speed manual and spend most of my time in 5th. Oh and in case you were wondering, I regularly get 4-6mpg better than what I get while driving my mom's 1994 automatic camry, so I know that definately plays into it.

Just in case you were curious, check this website out for fuel efficiency data for all cars run by the EPA.

CNG requires minimal infrastructure improvements. Most parts of the US have high pressure natural gas available so all that is needed is a holding vessel and pumps. Beyond that it is possible to make a vehicle which will run on either gasoline/gas or diesel/gas. For more info on so called Bi-fuel vehicles see this government link. Such vehicles make TONS of sense for fleet vehicles as they can run on cleaner cheaper fuel when available but also can use standard fuel if away from the alternative stations for extended periods of time.

that is abysmal MPG most normal cars will do 35 MPG minimum new Hondas are 60 MPG average and some can do over 100 MPG (won't break down either), my 4 year old Citroen ZX turbo Diesel averages 35-40 MPG whilst driving hard and this is an engine that has no modern features not even an ECU. The website you link to shows that the best SUV's are about 20-30 MPG less efficient than the best cars and the worst cars equalled the Worst SUV's/Pickups. Suv's etc don't even come close to cars it not an every SUV has bad fuel economy attitude, more no SUV has good fuel economy as shown by the website you provided.

that is abysmal MPG most normal cars will do 35 MPG minimum new Hondas are 60 MPG average and some can do over 100 MPG (won't break down either), my 4 year old Citroen ZX turbo Diesel averages 35-40 MPG whilst driving hard and this is an engine that has no modern features not even an ECU. The website you link to shows that the best SUV's are about 20-30 MPG less efficient than the best cars and the worst cars equalled the Worst SUV's/Pickups. Suv's etc don't even come close to cars it not an every SUV has bad fuel economy attitude, more no SUV has good fuel economy as shown by the website you provided.

Please don't replicate the "every SUV must have bad fuel economy" meme. It's just not true. I drive a SUV and it's fuel economy is better than that of many ordinary 2WD vehicles (22-27 mpg). This meme is dangerous, because many Americans believe that and therefore American companies see no reason to improve the fuel efficency of their horribly heavy, clunky and obsolete 4x4 behemoths. Japanese car companies do not have this luxury and it shows - Subaru Forester, Mitsubishi Outlander, Honda CR-V or Nissan X-Trail are great family machines and they are as environment-friendly as regular (non-SUV) vehicles. So you don't have to give up anything, if it's really that important for you to have American company badge on your car, buy a Subaru rebadged as Chevrolet.

Not sure if you have any idea what your talking about. The 300 series with the big ass engine V8 new hemi get 26MPG on the highway.

The 300 series with a V8 gets 17/25 and that is only because the engine normally only runs on 4 cylinders. Technically that unimpressive average mileage of 17/25 isn't V8 mileage.

That is about average these days, and the "econobox" cars like the Civic (not including hybrid) get about 30 - 35MPG on the highway (the high end civic si being 30MPG). a whopping 4 - 9 miles per gallon increase.

The manual civic HX ($14k, not a hybrid) gets 36/44. That's a difference of 19 and about twice as much.

Not to mention you can't tow a damn thing with a civic

Straw man.

and forget about merging onto the highway with four passengers as well.

You are the first person I've met with such problems. And I live in DC, the second worst traffic in the US. My anecdotal evidence trumps yours.

more HP != worse gas mileage. It can if the car is geared towards performance, but thats not always the case. Any car thats in the 22MPG + range is fine. above 32MPG is outstanding.

There is pointless - SUV, and there is slight overkill (350 HP) which would you preffer ? (oh and the reason most SUV's get bad mileage is because the engines are typically underpowered.)

There is a negative correlation between HP and milage. To say other wise is simply delusional.

The first 27 models of SUV's with the best mileage are all 4 cylinders. The last 62 models of SUV's with the worst mileage are all 8 cylinders.

I suggest you go here. You are a clueless tool.

"The biggest problem with commuter electric vehicles is that most of them consume more energy per mile than an economy car with one occupant."

Where do you get this shit? It's all documented right here:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov

...and you're just plain wrong!

A few responses to the comments so far:

"What are bicycles and public transportation, Alex?"
As I stated in the submission, bicycles aren't really an option. Not only the distance, but I live in the Seattle area, so there are a number of rather daunting hills along my 18 mile commute. As far as public transportation goes, I have looked into that, but commuting from Kenmore to Monroe by bus would take over an hour, and require three bus changes. There just aren't any routes that run directly between the two.

The biggest problem with commuter electric vehicles is that most of them consume more energy per mile than an economy car with one occupant. ... depending on how your electricity is generated.
As stated above, I live in Seattle, so the majority of our electricity comes from the dams. Almost certainly cleaner than burning a gallon of gas every 30 miles.

You can buy an older, used car for $3,000-5,000. If you learn to work on them yourself, you can save money on repairs and maintainence.
I already have an older used car, that I only paid $2000 for six years ago. And, I already do work on it myself. The point isn't just the cost, but the waste of space and fuel. Even though I get 30mpg, it still feels like a waste.

suck it up and get a motorcycle. ... Stop whining because it's not everything a car is and do something to make things better.
First, who's whining? Second, I'm not prepared to take the risks associated with a motorcycle. Too many drivers are blind to them, and here in Seattle, the weather is not very friendly to motorcycles for much of the year. Believe me, there are tempting aspects of motorcycles, but they don't hold enough advantages over my cheap clunker car to woo me to them.

Then why, do you have as the #1 thing on your 'wish list' on your website, a Chrysler PT Cruiser?
See above. Good point, and I have changed it. (^_^)

Yes, rideshare. Carpool, vanpool, bus, train, SOMETHING where there is another driver.
I'm actually working on that. Working way out in sticks, most people at my small company (less than 2 dozen employees) come from different directions than me, or work different hours than me. One person comes from my direction, and we're working out a plan to carpool at least a few days a week, even though we usually work different hours than each other.

Basically I'm saying.. move to a better place, heck you might even make some money in real estate in the process :)
Hmm, not likely, considering two factors: 1) I don't own a house. 2) I'm only paying $250 a month for the two-bedroom I'm at now. Again, given that I'm living in the greater Seattle area, moving would be an incredibly foolish financial decision.

A few responses to the comments so far:

"What are bicycles and public transportation, Alex?"
As I stated in the submission, bicycles aren't really an option. Not only the distance, but I live in the Seattle area, so there are a number of rather daunting hills along my 18 mile commute. As far as public transportation goes, I have looked into that, but commuting from Kenmore to Monroe by bus would take over an hour, and require three bus changes. There just aren't any routes that run directly between the two.

The biggest problem with commuter electric vehicles is that most of them consume more energy per mile than an economy car with one occupant. ... depending on how your electricity is generated.
As stated above, I live in Seattle, so the majority of our electricity comes from the dams. Almost certainly cleaner than burning a gallon of gas every 30 miles.

You can buy an older, used car for $3,000-5,000. If you learn to work on them yourself, you can save money on repairs and maintainence.
I already have an older used car, that I only paid $2000 for six years ago. And, I already do work on it myself. The point isn't just the cost, but the waste of space and fuel. Even though I get 30mpg, it still feels like a waste.

suck it up and get a motorcycle. ... Stop whining because it's not everything a car is and do something to make things better.
First, who's whining? Second, I'm not prepared to take the risks associated with a motorcycle. Too many drivers are blind to them, and here in Seattle, the weather is not very friendly to motorcycles for much of the year. Believe me, there are tempting aspects of motorcycles, but they don't hold enough advantages over my cheap clunker car to woo me to them.

Then why, do you have as the #1 thing on your 'wish list' on your website, a Chrysler PT Cruiser?
See above. Good point, and I have changed it. (^_^)

Yes, rideshare. Carpool, vanpool, bus, train, SOMETHING where there is another driver.
I'm actually working on that. Working way out in sticks, most people at my small company (less than 2 dozen employees) come from different directions than me, or work different hours than me. One person comes from my direction, and we're working out a plan to carpool at least a few days a week, even though we usually work different hours than each other.

Basically I'm saying.. move to a better place, heck you might even make some money in real estate in the process :)
Hmm, not likely, considering two factors: 1) I don't own a house. 2) I'm only paying $250 a month for the two-bedroom I'm at now. Again, given that I'm living in the greater Seattle area, moving would be an incredibly foolish financial decision.

According to the EPA, the official fuel economy for a Chevrolet Avalanche 2WD is 14/18 City/Highway. Also from the EPA, a 1993 Toyota Tercel gets between 26/29 and 32/36 depending on the exact model. That difference adds up.

And while the emissions standards have tightened (less so for SUVs than for smaller cars), you still have to remember that finding, drilling, processing, and shipping oil creates its own pollution...

And FWIW, the previous poster was referring to Landrover Freelander. A 2003 Freelander is rated at 17/20, which is still not great.

According to the EPA, the official fuel economy for a Chevrolet Avalanche 2WD is 14/18 City/Highway. Also from the EPA, a 1993 Toyota Tercel gets between 26/29 and 32/36 depending on the exact model. That difference adds up.

And while the emissions standards have tightened (less so for SUVs than for smaller cars), you still have to remember that finding, drilling, processing, and shipping oil creates its own pollution...

And FWIW, the previous poster was referring to Landrover Freelander. A 2003 Freelander is rated at 17/20, which is still not great.

How big's the tank on that 'Vette, anyway?

I don't think the vette is the best example to use when talking about gas guzzlers. Newer vettes get considerably better mileage than any gas-powered SUV. In fact, a 350 horsepower V8 powered vette gets about the same mileage (city and highway) as a Honda Accord V6. And slightly BETTER mileage than a plain old Camry Solara.

V6 powered camry (fun yet sensible transportation)

350 horsepower corvette

In real life, even the 405hp Z06 model vette gets over 30mpg on the highway. That's only if you baby it though.

SUV's will guzzle gas whether you drive it like your grandma or not.

How big's the tank on that 'Vette, anyway?

I don't think the vette is the best example to use when talking about gas guzzlers. Newer vettes get considerably better mileage than any gas-powered SUV. In fact, a 350 horsepower V8 powered vette gets about the same mileage (city and highway) as a Honda Accord V6. And slightly BETTER mileage than a plain old Camry Solara.

V6 powered camry (fun yet sensible transportation)

350 horsepower corvette

In real life, even the 405hp Z06 model vette gets over 30mpg on the highway. That's only if you baby it though.

SUV's will guzzle gas whether you drive it like your grandma or not.