A thought on gas savings

This is a boring post I'm sure but I'm bored. Selling my Crx Si. I had a guy stop by last night driving a big old Ford truck. He was tired of filling it up everyday. After he left, I thought, that thing may get 15 mpg. I can get 38 mpg if I drive easy. So I figured it out. If he bought the Crx and drove 20,000 miles @ $2.77/gal, he would have it paid off in gas savings. I thought of that AFTER he left. Just ramblin'.

so your selling the CRX for $2235.39?

You just illustrated why i don't care a whole lot about MPG. Takes a LONG time for it to pay for itself.

In reply to 93celicaGT2:

The way he talks, it would only take probably a year and a half for him to reach that. I've actually seen some people have to choose between gas and food. When you have a wife and kids to take care of, it matters then.

93celicaGT2 wrote: You just illustrated why i don't care a whole lot about MPG. Takes a LONG time for it to pay for itself.

Seriously?

Let's do the math. If you drive 15,000 miles per year, as a lot of people do, and you drive something that gets 30 mpg, you will use 500 gallons of fuel. If we assume you can buy that fuel at $2.50 per gallon, your annual fuel cost is $1,250.

Now lets say you drive a nice Hummer H2 that gets 10 mpg. In order to drive the same 15,000 miles, you will need 1500 gallons of petrol. At the same $2.50 per gallon, you will spend $3,750 per year.

The difference is $2,500 per year in fuel savings. Maybe not a lot for you, Mr. Moneybags, but I would call it a significant amount.

Fletch1 wrote: In reply to 93celicaGT2: . I've actually seen some people have to choose between gas and food.

Been there, Done That....Glad I'm out of college.

I should throw out the caveat that i've only ever owned one car that got worse than 20mpg. The savings become more and more of a moot point.

I think this ties in more with how unimpressed i am with hybrids. It would take a very long time for me to see any benefit to one.

But it's also why i don't bother looking at the MPG as a factor when i'm shopping around for a 99-00 Civic Si or a 2000-2005 Celica GTS. Yes, they get decent gas mileage, better than the MX6. But they make way less power, WAY less power, and it would take me probably a decade to make up the price difference.

It's more of a difference of starting point i guess.

I'm sorry if i sound like a Mr. Moneybags, i assure you, i'm not. But it would be WELL worth it to me to pay an extra grand or two a year in operating costs to drive something that i liked.

I may feel differently if i was DD'ing a massive truck. But i don't, nor will i ever.

I feel like i'm rambling and maybe not making sense. It's the lack of sleep and Mt. Dew talking. But i've had a buddy pressuring me into getting a Civic or even a new Volt, and the math just don't make sense.

Grtechguy wrote:

Fletch1 wrote: In reply to 93celicaGT2: . I've actually seen some people have to choose between gas and food.

Been there, Done That....Glad I'm out of college.

Ditto.

But consider me the illogial enthusiast. I buy what i want, because i want it on a primal level.

1988RedT2 wrote:

93celicaGT2 wrote: You just illustrated why i don't care a whole lot about MPG. Takes a LONG time for it to pay for itself.

Seriously? Let's do the math. If you drive 15,000 miles per year, as a lot of people do, and you drive something that gets 30 mpg, you will use 500 gallons of fuel. If we assume you can buy that fuel at $2.50 per gallon, your annual fuel cost is $1,250. Now lets say you drive a nice Hummer H2 that gets 10 mpg. In order to drive the same 15,000 miles, you will need 1500 gallons of petrol. At the same $2.50 per gallon, you will spend $3,750 per year. The difference is $2,500 per year in fuel savings. Maybe not a lot for you, Mr. Moneybags, but I would call it a significant amount.

An excellent point. The math most folks fail to do is when they're trading their Hummer in on a, say Honda Fit. What's missing is the depreciation hit you take on the Hummer for selling it, plus the depreciation you take on the new fuel efficient car when you leave the lot.

In the last couple years, I've talked to a lot of smart people with college educations that did the math and then gleefully spent 10k to save 2k.

In the OP's situation, the guy should've bought the car.

Speedblind.."In the OP's situation, the guy should've bought the car"

Thanks. My point. With the fairly low miles for a Honda (180,000) and a HUGE amount of new parts and work done, that guy ditching his truck for the Crx would easily gone another 20,000 miles( or 100,000+) and had it paid off in no time since he drives all the time. And then sell it for not much less down the road since they will be even more rare. Yeah, you can find one a little cheaper than mine, but be prepared to spend money on parts and labor if your not a mechanic. Ahhhh...I'm too analytical. I can't believe I'm pushing the sale of my Si so hard either:( But I need a Subaru:)

Yeah, it really doesn't make much sense to sell a gas guzzler to buy a fuel sipper, but I know someone who sold a Hummer H2 and bought a Jetta TDI. I'm sure they took a hit. They were just fed up with the whole big SUV thing.

In spite of the Mt. Dew and lack of sleep, I agree with 93celicaGT2 about starting point. I would never consider a car that got below 20 mpg as my DD and I've got two kids to shuttle around. My wife commutes around 100 miles a day and she's in a Mazda 3 that gets about 33 mpg. Still, you don't have to look very far to see full-size trucks being used as commuters. My neighbor does it, and his V6 Ford gets 17 mpg.

My truck gets about 10 mpg, but I drive it maybe 2000 miles a year--that is, when I need a truck. My RX-7 sees even fewer miles, so I don't mind that it thirstily glugs premium gas. A vehicle for every purpose and purpose for every vehicle. The daily driver has to pull down good mileage, or I won't own it.

Hybrids are a joke, because they get just an mpg or two more than the comparable cheaper conventional drivetrain and make no compromises. Americans want their cake and to eat it too, or so the automakers think. As for me, give me the VW TDI, or a reasonable facsimile.

Who's rambling now?

All this talk about depreciation and stuff is necessarily useful only in the situation where you're talking about newish cars.

But, the fact of the matter is that even IF you play the game 'right', buying a new car for ANY mpg reasons whatsoever is a ridiculously dumb idea. Thats not the primary motivator for wanting 'newness' and any mistakes you make in doing mpg math will only slightly compound the depth of your wrongness lol.

As far as hybrids, i think you guys are ALSO still stuck in the 'new' phase. I just bought a 2001 honda insight for $3900. Sure, its got 280k on it, but it still works, still gets me 50mpg. Is the hybrid part of it really helping that much? Only when im flooring it.. the electric doesnt really do crap for mpg in this design, it just allows the car to use a tiny gas motor and retain normal-ish acceleration. But, on the other hand, if i look at the other things that can get me 50mpg.. with the exception of some VW diesels, the rest of the car those 50mpg drivetrains come in is a joke! The insight is a decently nice car! i like spending time in it, and dont constantly feel like its a deathtrap. So, im sort of glad it's a hybrid if only in the sense that thats the only reason its a semi-nice car (price point, market position when new).

I think you guys will find that after hybrids depreciate (my car costs about the same as a nice 01 civic that gets 15 mpg less) their price differences when new will disappear and what you'll be left with is a much more advanced car for the same amount of money as a non-hybrid.

"Hybrids are a joke, because they get just an mpg or two more than the comparable cheaper conventional drivetrain and make no compromises"

The new Honda Cr-z is a good example. My 89 Crx gets the same or more. It also depends on the situation. A track car that gets bad mileage or truck that rarely gets used vs. a DD that gets bad mileage is a huge difference of course. Would I spend a alot more for a new car that gets a few more mpg's, probably not. But I'm not going to buy new anyway. In this situation that happened last night, the guy could have a cheap car paid off quickly simply with the miles he drives and low mpg truck he would park. That's simply what I was saying. I just thought it was amazing really. Again, I'm too analytical sometimes.

I guess to put my point in a way that makes sense...

If you already have a car that gets acceptable (in my definition, 20s or high MPG) mpg, it makes no sense to get something that gets better gas mileage for the sole reason of gas mileage unless you either A) Drive a E36 M3load constantly, or B) can get the other car for almost no money out of pocket.

In the OP's situation? Yeah, dude in the truck should have bought the Honda.

In my case? I wouldn't have gotten rid of the MX6 for the Honda for the reason of MPG, even though i'm getting about 24mpg on 93 octane at the moment.

1988RedT2 wrote: The difference is $2,500 per year in fuel savings. Maybe not a lot for you, Mr. Moneybags, but I would call it a significant amount.

It may not make sense to trade in a Hummer and lose a few thousand dollars to get more fuel efficent car, but it is a very valid argument for not buying the hummer in the first place.

The only time I even consider gas mileage when buying a new vehicle is if I find two comparable vehicles. By comparable, I mean having the same features and price. First thing I look for is "Will it do what I want it to do?" Next is "How much is it going to cost me to buy it?" Fuel mileage might sneak into third place if I am looking for a commuter car.

I sometimes laugh at the "hybrid folks" but the ones that really crack me up are the "diesel fanatics". Sure, I'm going to pay $2K to $3K more for a vehicle and then .50 cents a gallon more than regular gas to have a vehicle that gets 5mpg more than the regular gas version .

I like driving a car. I don't really like driving a truck, but I need a shop truck. My car gets 25 ish mpg. My truck gets 12 ish. Here are the things that make it not worthwhile- $1300 per year for licence and insurance, plus the 3 grand the car costs in the first place. Math doesn't work.

My truck is good on gas. At the hwy speeds I drive, I get 24 MPG. My car gets 40 MPG (thank google for the conversions, it was originally in L/100 km - now in US gal.). Driving the 50k (km) or so a year that I do, if I drive the car, it's $2000 less in gas. Insurance, and plates on the car are $700/yr, and my 4 yr old truck gets far less wear and tear. On top of that, I could drop the ins. on the truck for most of the the summer, and save a few hundred more. I love driving the car, so whether it makes sense or not, the math works for me.

So here's my problem. The car is a summer only car. I won't drive it in the snow (salt). Does it make sense to buy a $500 beater version of the same car, swap ins. for the winter, and do it all year round?

The money doesn't matter to me, but something bothers me about being inefficient. It bothers me that a new RX8 gets worse gas mileage than a new 911 Turbo S.

Otto_Maddox wrote: The money doesn't matter to me, but something bothers me about being inefficient. It bothers me that a new RX8 gets worse gas mileage than a 5000lb, 19ft long tow rig/family hauler truck.

Fixed that for you.

Wife and I both drive efficient cars for daily drivers. Hers averages 38-40, mine 33-35. She drives 66 miles everyday, I drive 44. 5 days a week, it adds up. Although... even our most inefficient beast we own still averages over 20.

As for taking a long time to make it up.... we save $1500 a YEAR by us driving the accent and elantra over the truck. we've had her car for 3 years, mine for 8, which means we saved $2900 on hers, $4800 on mine. I don't know about you, but I am glad to have spent that $7700 on something OTHER than gas to get to and from work.

as I have said before.. different horses for different courses... while I have no time for a hybrid at all... I would only consider a diesel if it were a large truck. Simply put having all that torque AND better miliage is having your cake and eating it too time (as somebody said above)

That said.. all of my cars get decent to good miliage, but if I were in a need for another car for DD duties.. I would try and get the best miliage out of the cars I am looking at.

Well, even though I need something AWD for winter I'm trying to get everything lined up so I can commute by motorbike instead of using the 'vette. I probably won't have the time to get the bikes from the UK registered before winter so I'm looking at a simple mid-size, probably dirt, bike.

Should get about 50mpg, which would halve my fuel cost for the next few months until it starts snowing.

Regarding the CR-Z, i initially was disappointed in its performance credentials, but the more i learn about it, the more i like it. Having been around some tracks in other people's civic hatchbacks and CRXs, owning my Insight, and now looking at the CR-Z, i think its a natural and sensical progression.

Not only do i think the design compromises make sense, i think that, as a mode of travel (i.e. new car, nobody spends 20k on a brand new econo-machine to do anything in greater measure than just use it as a normal car), it will easily be twice or thrice (THRICE I SAY!) the normal, useable car than any generation of small honda hatch, including the 1g Insight, has ever been. I would trade my 50mpg insight hybrid for this 35 mpg CR-Z hybrid in a second! And i do 120+mile commutes several times a week! Why would i swap so fast? Because, obviously, in everything BUT that absolute mpg number the CR-Z will be a superior car. Better looks, better cargo room, better comfort, better noise isolation, better handling, better acceleration, better breaking, more seamless IMA integration, cooler gauges, cooler paint colors, better seats, on and on and on.

Sure, its not fast. Neither was the NON-SI crx. Where is the CR-Z Si you guys are comparing the crx Si to? It hasnt been built, yet. When it is, comparisons will be more apples-apples.

And as far as mpg, what do you guys seriously expect? Honda tried the MAX-MPG record-setting trend-leading hybrid idea back in 1999. In fact, as i recall, they were the first to bring such a MPG-focused hybrid to US shores. The thing about that is.. they were also the ONLY manufacturer to try that max-mpg approach. How many of you guys bought Insights back in 99? Im guessing none.. and yet here you guys are voting with your mouths that a hybrid should be more mpg-focused, when in reality Honda is listening to the votes you made with your dollars and looking at the sales numbers of the 1g Insight vs. the prius and other lower-mpg, more-compromises designs that outsold it by the boat-load. What do you expect?

if I were looking for a high miliage commuter.. the Insight and the Smart would be on my short list.. along with a base Mini.