Slashdot Mirror

So you're saying EPA lowballs these things?
Let's compare apples-to-apples.
The new car is a little less powerful and requires a little less (but not as much less as the drop in HP would suggest) fuel to operate. So, no, there's no improvement to date.
And the yet-to-be delivered car contains a lot of hype and promises severely lacking in credibility. Again, nothing new.

13 years after Nissan built my 200SX, we see Mazda produce a vehicle with about the same exterior dimensions (lxwxd is ~3% less) and a 13% smaller engine. (200SX is 4364x1692x1377mm, 115HP, vs Mazda2 at 3949x1694x1475mm , 100HP).

They get--using NEW EPA numbers and the NEW EPA 55/45 city/hwy spread...wait for it...about 7% better mileage. (200SX@29.5 vs Mazda2@31.7)

This is what 13 years of incremental improvement have achieved? 13% smaller engine for 7% improvement?
And Mazda wants me to believe that a shiny new EBCIDIC engine is going to deliver, in one shot, a 120% improvement? (from 31.7MPG USEPA to 70 MPG Japanese).
By taking the 70MPG(J) as 70MPG(USEPA) I'm erring on the conservative side. "Most vehicles will achieve higher fuel economy on the U.S. test cycle than on the European or Japanese cycles.". If Mazda is to be believed, USEPA will give them a rating above 70MPG.

So, I'll say it again--an idiot would believe their promise of 70MPG. If they get an EPA 50 MPG that would be wonderful.

To your point, if these people deliver 70 Japanese MPG, I should see at LEAST 85 they way I drive. While this would be consistent with the grandiose claims from Mazda (and their ilk), past experience suggests that I should wait and see.
And the same experience tells me what I'm likely to see is no significant improvement in efficiency or performance.

So you're saying EPA lowballs these things?
Let's compare apples-to-apples.
The new car is a little less powerful and requires a little less (but not as much less as the drop in HP would suggest) fuel to operate. So, no, there's no improvement to date.
And the yet-to-be delivered car contains a lot of hype and promises severely lacking in credibility. Again, nothing new.

13 years after Nissan built my 200SX, we see Mazda produce a vehicle with about the same exterior dimensions (lxwxd is ~3% less) and a 13% smaller engine. (200SX is 4364x1692x1377mm, 115HP, vs Mazda2 at 3949x1694x1475mm , 100HP).

They get--using NEW EPA numbers and the NEW EPA 55/45 city/hwy spread...wait for it...about 7% better mileage. (200SX@29.5 vs Mazda2@31.7)

This is what 13 years of incremental improvement have achieved? 13% smaller engine for 7% improvement?
And Mazda wants me to believe that a shiny new EBCIDIC engine is going to deliver, in one shot, a 120% improvement? (from 31.7MPG USEPA to 70 MPG Japanese).
By taking the 70MPG(J) as 70MPG(USEPA) I'm erring on the conservative side. "Most vehicles will achieve higher fuel economy on the U.S. test cycle than on the European or Japanese cycles.". If Mazda is to be believed, USEPA will give them a rating above 70MPG.

So, I'll say it again--an idiot would believe their promise of 70MPG. If they get an EPA 50 MPG that would be wonderful.

To your point, if these people deliver 70 Japanese MPG, I should see at LEAST 85 they way I drive. While this would be consistent with the grandiose claims from Mazda (and their ilk), past experience suggests that I should wait and see.
And the same experience tells me what I'm likely to see is no significant improvement in efficiency or performance.

Drop and liquid sensors have been used to detect abuse for years. For instance, very low tech ones, stuck on packages, so you know if the shipping company dropped it or got it wet. So what's actually new here?

Their first claim is laughably general:
1. A system for detecting consumer abuse in an electronic device, the system comprising:one or more sensors configured to detect an occurrence of an abuse event;abuse detection circuitry configured to receive indication of the occurrence of the abuse event from the one or more sensors and to generate a record corresponding to the occurrence of the abuse event upon receiving the indication;a memory device configured to store the record; and an interface configured to facilitate communication between the electronic device and an external device.

Any "black box" type device is prior art; the only change is the application to consumers. Hardly a patentworthy innovation. In fact, I believe some car black boxes have _already been used_ to deny warranty claims: http://blogs.internetautoguide.com/6296914/auto-repair/nissan-gt-r-warranty-claims-being-voided-by-black-box-data-proving-racing/index.html

Sorry, Apple. Nothing novel here.

Personally I don't mind these devices being used to detect abuse, provided they are reliable and that their data is evaluated critically rather than just being used to say "NO". But color change liquid intrusion sensors notoriously aren't reliable, changing color in the presence of humidity. Thermal sensors could be tripped by whatever caused the failure rather than by abuse. And tamper sensors... well, "breaking this seal voids the warranty", when breaking the seal is required to perform some service or upgrade, isn't kosher under Magnussen-Moss, regardless of how high-tech the seal is.

I've also got a '98 sunfire and thing kicks. I currently have 240k miles on it and all I do is get the oil changed every 3k-5k miles , put high mile oil in it and it serves its purpose. My fiance has an Oldsmobile Alero and the thing is falling apart albeit slowly but it doesn't get as near as good gas mileage as my car. I also get close to 33MPG highway, not sure on City I do mostly highway driving.

But I was going to bring up that argument of the newer cars mileage vs. older cars is ridiculous depending when and what car is used to compare. I compared my car to a '09 Camry and these are the results: link I do have to admit that on paper the Ford does get 24/35, but the last time I drove a Focus was in drivers Ed and you had to floor the car to get up any hills. Not sure if its that way any more, but it turned me off on ever getting a Focus...I like acceleration in cars some old grandma car.

My issue is if they had great mileage in '98 why aren't we seeing even better mileage now? As fast as technology is moving along we should easily be at 100MPG now. The only issue is this...if the auto manufacturers create a car that is better than anything we've ever known and it does get 100MPG and has parts that are easily replaceable doesn't that hurt their bottom line in the end? It would mean people wouldn't be buying cars as much or wouldn't need a new one as the one they have could be fixed indefinitely and I would certainly think that in a business sense they would work every possible angle not to let that happen.

I'll make it simple for you. 10 years ago car companies realized that EVs don't need as many after market parts as IC cars do. So ever since then, they have acted to prevent EVs from coming to market. Not evil but against the public good. You are blaming the consumers (who did want to buy the cars) instead of the car companies (who didn't want to sell them). Quit being intentionally dense.

For comparison: a used Prius goes for ~24K USD http://www.internetautoguide.com/usedcars/11-int/toyota/prius/index.html
a new prius goes for ~22K USD http://www.toyota.com/prius-hybrid/

Now why would a used Prius sell for more than the new one? Because you can't find a new one to buy. They are always on back order. Really? No demand? Stick to engineering...

Actually, the crash test data for the SW2 is not bad at all, and in fact, better than the Yaris, with the possible exception of a (highly unlikely for a small, low slung wagon) rollover. Take a look for yourself:

http://www.internetautoguide.com/crash-tests/09-int/1999/saturn/s-series/index.html

http://www.internetautoguide.com/crash-tests/99-int/2008/toyota/yaris/liftback-hatchback/3005/index.html

I get better gas mileage than the Yaris, too. I'm up over 32 mpg on the current tank, and half of that driving has been city.

The SW2 is plenty comfortable to drive. I've been driving for 24 years - in several VW bugs and vans, Plymouths (Horizon and LeBaron), Honda Accord, Mazda 323 Wagon, Toyota 4Runner, small Ford pickup - and those are just vehicles I've owned. The SW2 is not an uncomfortable car, at all, based on the dataset I have. ;)

As far as emissions, I have no idea if it would meet laws everywhere, but it probably wouldn't, in California, since it *is* a 10 year old car. Where I am there aren't any emission tests. But I am sure it is at least as efficient/clean as 50% of what I see driving around, so I don't really see that as much of an issue, given all of the other factors.

Actually, the crash test data for the SW2 is not bad at all, and in fact, better than the Yaris, with the possible exception of a (highly unlikely for a small, low slung wagon) rollover. Take a look for yourself:

http://www.internetautoguide.com/crash-tests/09-int/1999/saturn/s-series/index.html

http://www.internetautoguide.com/crash-tests/99-int/2008/toyota/yaris/liftback-hatchback/3005/index.html

I get better gas mileage than the Yaris, too. I'm up over 32 mpg on the current tank, and half of that driving has been city.

The SW2 is plenty comfortable to drive. I've been driving for 24 years - in several VW bugs and vans, Plymouths (Horizon and LeBaron), Honda Accord, Mazda 323 Wagon, Toyota 4Runner, small Ford pickup - and those are just vehicles I've owned. The SW2 is not an uncomfortable car, at all, based on the dataset I have. ;)

As far as emissions, I have no idea if it would meet laws everywhere, but it probably wouldn't, in California, since it *is* a 10 year old car. Where I am there aren't any emission tests. But I am sure it is at least as efficient/clean as 50% of what I see driving around, so I don't really see that as much of an issue, given all of the other factors.

Why do you need an SUV to tow a boat? I've never quite figured this out.

http://www.internetautoguide.com/reviews/45-int/midsize-cars/chevrolet/impala/2000/index.html
This is what I'm driving right now. Really nice car, and would have no problem towing a small to mid-sized boat. Of course, you wouldn't want to tow a yacht with it, but most people have motorboats, rather than yachts. Besides....there's always the Crown Victoria/Grand Marquis.

Of course, a big part of this is to have the brakes on the trailer properly calibrated so they actually stop the trailer pretty much by themselves, rather than just dumping most of the braking through the hitch onto the car's brakes. Since most people don't bother to do this, it's no wonder people have brakes wear quickly when they're towing a trailer.

I don't think you're helping your argument by comparing a Prius and an Echo. An Echo is a very stripped-down ultra budget car, and the Prius is a gadget car. Just because they look similar doesn't mean that they're the same class of car.

You're better of comparing hybrid vs. non-hybrid versions of the same vehicle. Take the 2007 Camry Hybrid. The basic, no frills 2007 Camry will be $18,270 MSRP. The Hybrid version (with an unknown trim level above the no-frills version) will be $25,900. However, comparing the Hybrid to the CE is disingenuous. According to this article:

The Hybrid comes with the most complete list of features. Other than the power moonroof, the navigation system, the leather interior and the heated front seats (available with the leather trim), the Hybrid comes fully loaded. It's fitted with 16-inch alloy wheels. The moonroof, navigation system, leather seats and heated front seats are optional.

In this case, it's better to compare the Hybrid to the LE or XLE at $19,450 or $24,425. This puts the hybrid overhead between $6,450 to $1,475.

According to Forbes' auto website, the feature list on the 2006 Honda Civic Hybrid is comparable to the EX model. If you pick the models without satellite navigation, that's $22,150 MSRP for the hybrid with a CVT vs. $19,260.00 for an EX with a regular automatic transmission. That's less than a $3000 difference.

However, your point about the superior savings of an electric are valid if true. Where do you get the $0.25 per "gallon" number?

No one has made a [practical] vehicle that runs much above the 40 mpg mark (that I know of).

Ever hear of the TDI engine from Volkswagon? My wife and I have a 2003 Volkswagen Jetta (Wagon) with the TDI engine and get an *average* of 50 mpg.

Solid car, great safety record (http://www.internetautoguide.com/crash-tests/09-i nt/2003/volkswagen/jetta/index.html)

More info:
http://www.canadiandriver.com/testdrives/03jetta_t di.htm

That's funny, my car that gets 50 mpg (2003 Volkswagen Jetta Wagon TDI) has extremely good safety:

http://www.internetautoguide.com/crash-tests/09-in t/2003/volkswagen/jetta/index.html

I also have no problem leaving many other cars behind at stoplights, if I care to waste the gas.

The problem with that Hybrid vs. Taurus comparison is that.. Well, it's too good.

Yes, Insights and Priuses are forward-thinking vehicles designed for a beter future and all that jazz. Yes, Tauruses are traditionals sedans built on the concepts of the past and whatnot.

The fact is, though, that the Taurus still massively outsells the Prius and the Insight.

The Taurus averages about 350,000 sold per year since 1985. ( http://www.internetautoguide.com/reviews/45-int/mi dsize-cars/ford/taurus/2004/ )
The Prius sold all of 24,000 in '03. ( http://slate.msn.com/id/2096191/ )
From 1999 to 2002, the Insight sold just under 11,000 units. ( http://www.insightcentral.net/KB/sales.html )

Take that same concept and apply it to Microsoft vs. "The New Guys" (or whatever you want to call all the various hot new things MicroSoft must defeat to stay relevant) and... You get a very realistic comparison. So a good deal of people are using FireFox and OpenOffice, and Google is THE search engine. People ae still doing all these things from a Windows desktop, and a vast majority stick to the standard MicroSoft offering anyhow.

I'd most definitely love to see the Prius and thew Insight trounce the Taurus. It ain't happenin' soon.

I'd most definitely love to se "The New Guys" trounce MicroSoft. It ain't happenin' soon.

[Be Free.]

An 1987 Formula Firebird you say? Gee, I hope you brought it in for its seat belt recall or you could find yourself flying through the windshield on the off chance you can keep that POS running long enough to make it to a race.

Do a search for "software" on this page

If you'd seen the *SIZE* of the hulking monster I was staring at, you'd be impressed.

Also, compare the size of your Renault
against my Saturn SL2.

I've heard that there is a growing trend in Japan to make cars more homey and luxurious, like little living rooms, as mentioned here and here for example. Partly because they spend so much time in their cars due to heavy traffic. The pictures and diagrams really brought this home. Check out the size of that mother, and look at the flat-floor diagram, with the wide seat sideways and the others arranged around it. I could easily imagine adding a coffee table and a lamp.