Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You don't trust polls, etc, but you'll trust dealer stickers for MPG numbers? Those numbers are usually off 10-25%. (The Government does those tests and they don't run the car loaded, on A/C, don't exceed 55mph, don't drive above 2,000RPM, etc.) It certainly is possible to get those numbers if you drove like my grandmother but in the "real world" most people are 10-25% below the window sticker figures. (That is especially the case on Hybrids.)
The trip computers in those cars are also very sketchy, too. In any car I've had that number is also about 10-20% off from what the real MPG was. It reads the engine RPM and estimates your MPG with no regard to road conditions, air conditioning, tire PSI, etc. They are neat little features but they give estimates at best.
The Prius MSRP starts at 22K per the Toyota web site. The Malibu starts at $20K (gas) or $23K (hybrid) per the Chevy site. I don't understand why you've seen an $8K difference between the two.
No. I trust dealer stickers for prices. I do not trust anything for MPG numbers except what real people that I know are getting. Everyone who publishes those figures skews the numbers one way or another to promote whatever their agenda may be.
I do nto think that the Prius computer can be based only on RPM since the car switches between gas an electric and the computer must take into account the times when the car is using no gasoline at all. It is funny to see the MGP jump when the gasoline engine shuts down.
I saw the base Prius at $20,000 and change. As I said from the beginning, I was considering only the Malibu LTZ. The Malibu LTZ is $28,000 and change. I did not like the base Malibu, it is boring. The base prius comes with everythign I would want and it is less boring because of the unusual technology involved and the phenomenal gas milage. I would prefer the Malibu LTZ to the Prius, but perhaps not enough to pay an extra $8K. Or even $7 k if you want to split hairs.
Ultimately I will wait and see if the US car makers finally come up with something exciting for 2009. UNtil then I will drive my Jensen. Bad Mileage, but it is not boring at all.
Almost as neat as spending less for gas, A high MPG car also has the advantage of not constantly stopping for gas. That is a big plus to me. In my truck I have to stop to get gas three times a week. Now I cannot even fill it up becuase of the $50 limit on Visa at gas pumps. That is a pain in the rump. Stopping once a week for 10 to 15 gallons of gas would be great.
It is amazing to me that in this economic climate, the US automakers offer not one single car that gets over 40 mpg. Hardly any of them even get 30.
I am still impressed at the technology in the Malibu LTZ that gets 265 HP out of a six cylinder engine, but right now we need MPG, not HP. They seem to be chasing the wrong goals.
"Funny how all of the cars you mentioned went in and out of production over the years except for one of them....the Mustang. If your Z is so great why are the sales about 1/3 of the Mustang and why has the Z been put to rest several times in the past 10-20 years?
I think 200,000 buyers a year know something more than you do. Also, the Mustang is, by far, a better built car than the Z. Consumer Reports, JD Power, etc, have all rated the Mustang higher over the years."
Duhhhh...cost??
Z, Supras, Rx-7s all became too expensive compared to domestic sports cars,like shotty Mustangs. Zs and Supras price tag hovered around $40k during the last years of production in 96. At least $10-15k more than Mustangs. That's like $50 grand in today's money. Besides Ford didn't sell too many Mustangs anyway back then. Look what happened to Cameros,Trans ams, etc. Market no longer became interested.
You're just a homer, any car aficionado will tell you any of these Zs or Supras were musch better cars than Mustangs.
Stick to your Ford Taurus. You don't sound like you know too much about sports cars.
Where's the link to Consumer Reports reliablity.comparison stats or J.D. Powers ????? I want to see it!!!!!
I know you're making things up.
...it's like eating Florida oranges in California. It's like smoking Cuban cigars in North Carolina, going to New York and cheering for the Red Sox. It's just bad form, and it's very insulting.
Personally, when I see foreign cars on the road, I don't extend courtesies to them that I do for others, such as moving over when they want to pass, letting them merge into my lane etc. You'll recognize me on the highway, because I'm the one who points towards the other lane when you're tailgating me, waiting for me to pull over so you can pass.
Thats just so lame, you need to grow up. You don't live in a socialist country, its capitalism. The better product rules. People are not going to throw away their hard earned wealth on a car just because it is American. An example: A colleague of mine had bought a Toyota Camry new in 1986. In the year 2000, after 200,000 miles of only doing routine maintenance, he gave it to his nephew. And this is not an exception, its the norm with Hondas and Toyotas and Subarus. Keep an open mind and you will progress.
I am still impressed at the technology in the Malibu LTZ that gets 265 HP out of a six cylinder engine, but right now we need MPG, not HP. They seem to be chasing the wrong goals.
Are you kidding me, the Honda S2000, gets around the same HP on a N/A 4 cylinder . I was truly amazed when I first read this.
Are you kidding me, the Honda S2000, gets around the same HP on a N/A 4 cylinder . I was truly amazed when I first read this.
S200 gets 237 HP out of a 4 at 8000 rpm (older versions at 8800 rpm). Pretty impressive, but unless they use sodium filled valves that little 4 is not going to last long at 8000 rpm.
Funny thing is that a 1973 Jensen Healy got about 150 H.p. stock and is pretty easy to tweak up to the 200+ range. That is with 35 year old technology and no fuel injection. However if you push the engine that hard it will not last real long.
The S2000 is neat but too pricy compared to the comeptition. It came in second to the Miata in affordable sports cars. If I was going for a foreign 2 seater though I would go Insight not S2000. MPG overules HP right now.
Are you kidding me, the Honda S2000, gets around the same HP on a N/A 4 cylinder . I was truly amazed when I first read this.
The S2000 2.2 liter 4 cylinder engine puts out 237 horsepower, the highest specific output (horsepower per liter) for any mass-produced naturally aspirated engine. Provided you are willing to rev it to 7,800 rpm or thereabouts and have only 162 lb/ft of torque at an also race car-like 6,800 rpm. Plus it's a no-frills two-seater that costs more than that Malibu. Don't get me wrong, it is an amazing engine but most people are not going to rev this car like a motorcycle even though that's what you need to do to get the most out of it. But this is a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison anyway, don't you think? Compared to the Accord's V6, which is the natural comparison, the Malibu does pretty well at a lower cost.
Thats just so lame, you need to grow up. You don't live in a socialist country, its capitalism. The better product rules. People are not going to throw away their hard earned wealth on a car just because it is American. An example: A colleague of mine had bought a Toyota Camry new in 1986. In the year 2000, after 200,000 miles of only doing routine maintenance, he gave it to his nephew. And this is not an exception, its the norm with Hondas and Toyotas and Subarus. Keep an open mind and you will progress.
Was your colleague's Toyota made in the U.S. or Japan?
And Hondas, Toyotas and Subarus are far from being the only cars that can run up 200,000 miles with routine maintenance.
"Funny how all of the cars you mentioned went in and out of production over the years except for one of them....the Mustang. If your Z is so great why are the sales about 1/3 of the Mustang and why has the Z been put to rest several times in the past 10-20 years?
I think 200,000 buyers a year know something more than you do. Also, the Mustang is, by far, a better built car than the Z. Consumer Reports, JD Power, etc, have all rated the Mustang higher over the years."
Duhhhh...cost??
Z, Supras, Rx-7s all became too expensive compared to domestic sports cars,like shotty Mustangs. Zs and Supras price tag hovered around $40k during the last years of production in 96. At least $10-15k more than Mustangs. That's like $50 grand in today's money. Besides Ford didn't sell too many Mustangs anyway back then. Look what happened to Cameros,Trans ams, etc. Market no longer became interested.
You're just a homer, any car aficionado will tell you any of these Zs or Supras were musch better cars than Mustangs.
Stick to your Ford Taurus. You don't sound like you know too much about sports cars.
Where's the link to Consumer Reports reliablity.comparison stats or J.D. Powers ????? I want to see it!!!!!
I know you're making things up.
Well, yeah, of course cost is a major factor in why the Mustang program hasn't been cancelled but that is a very important factor don't you think? You should be mad at Nissan for making an overpriced car that nobody (except you) would buy.
The Corvette is more expensive than a Z but it has never been killed, either. Why is that?
It is amazing to me that in this economic climate, the US automakers offer not one single car that gets over 40 mpg. Hardly any of them even get 30.
I am still impressed at the technology in the Malibu LTZ that gets 265 HP out of a six cylinder engine, but right now we need MPG, not HP. They seem to be chasing the wrong goals.
It's pretty simple, actually. Historically, the US automakers, saddled by union labor and high-priced domestic suppliers cannot make a small car that will be profitable.
If you were on the Board of Directors, and a program manager came to you and said "Please lend me $1.5 Billion so I can make a car that will lose $500 Million per year" what do you think the answer would be?
The Domestics are slowly starting to get parts from lower-cost suppliers and eventually they'll be more competitive with the imports who use mostly foreign parts and non-union labor.
For example, this car will be coming from Ford in a couple years:
As far as your "we need mileage not horsepower" comments you are probably right, but most US consumers still prefer size and horsepower over MPG, unfortunately. Maybe with fuel prices so high of late that sentiment is going to slowly change, though.
Automakers do not get enough credit, though, for increasing horsepower AND MPG at the same time. These latest batches of 3.5L V6 engines from Honda, Toyota, Ford, Nissan, GM are all very good powerplants that have 250+ horsepower but the same (or better) MPG's as the 3.0L engines they replaced. Honda or Toyota (I forget which) was the first to have a 3.5L/high horsepower motor and then everyone else followed suit because that is what the public wants.
I live in Canada and never seen that happen. There seems to be lots of Kia and VW in my neighborhood.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. I was truly amazed when I first read this.
