TonyB wrote:

and expect it to last the life of the vehicle.


Usual utterly mindless sales bull****. Note that they dont say
anything about what that 'life of the vehicle' involves time wise.

It's always amusing to see the "lasts the life of the vehicle"
statements by automakers. Yep, when the battery dies, the life of the
vehicle is over, and the battery lasted the life of the vehicle. As
Toyota stated regarding the RAV 4 EV, "The cost to replace the battery
is more than the value of the vehicle." We've seen similar idiotic
statements from automakers regarding other components, i.e. Saturn
timing chains, which, when they break, usually mark the end of the
vehicle ('see, we told you that the timing chain would last the life of
the vehicle!').

With a hybrid, you really have to be measuring fuel economy over the
long term to know when the battery capacity has diminished to the point
where it's no longer contributing to the fuel economy.

TonyB wrote:

No one does with hybrid cars yet.

or did you just make it up?

You clearly are doing just that.

Andrew Grant used a 2001 Prius as a taxi and put 200,000
miles on it without needing a battery replacement. See
http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/taxi/batteries.

Irrelevant to what will be seen with normal car use.

Taxis have always got a much better result even with
conventional cars, because of how they are used.

This is evidence of more than adequate battery life in a hybrid,

Nope.

I am confused. Why is Rod Speed posting under the name TonyB? Whats
going on here?

Andy

Ford Prefect wrote:
TonyB wrote:
Ford Prefect wrote:

Ted B. wrote:


"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in message
...


Per Ted B.:


your best bet for a car that will last a long time would be any
gasoline (only)

Why only gas-powered?


A number of reasons, the main one being that gas (only) designs
have been refined over many years to the point where even the worst of
the bunch are pretty darned reliable. Diesel (only) designs are
pretty close, in terms of reliability, but not QUITE up to par with
the gas (only) vehicles yet.

Diesel engines are far more reliable than gas engines, that's why
they are used for things like emergency generators and heavy
equipment. Cars with diesel engines often clapped right out before
the engine fails.

Again, there are exceptions, but if you want to play the odds on a
car that will last a long time, gas (only) is your best bet right
now and Japanese makes are also your best bet.

There are a number of other options including gas/electric hybrids
and even natural gas production vehicles. They all have major
disadvantages over gas (only) designs, though. Hybrids are VERY
complex, using extra parts that have limited lifespans and are VERY
expensive to replace. (read: batteries)


The batteries have warranties for 100,000 miles


And many of the frugal keep them for longer than that.

Very few people, even frugal ones keeps cars longer than 10 years.

Wrong.

It wouldn't be frugal to keep a vehicle when it gets to the point when repairs
begin to exceed the replacement of a comparable car in good working order.

That doesnt normally happen.

For years I purchased 4-6 year old cars for peanuts and drove them until a
major repair raised it's ugly head, usually within 2-3 years ( transmission,
engine)

That is completely silly with a decently designed car.

then it was on to the next one.

You would have been a lot better off choosing a better 4-6 year
old car that wouldnt need major repairs for another 10-20 years.

Plenty qualify.

In theory at least, any natural gas vehicle SHOULD be just as

reliable as a gasoline powered vehicle is. The problem with a
natural gas vehicle will be availability of fuel. Owner
satisfaction plays a DIRECT role in the long-term reliability of
any vehicle. Simply stated, if you like your car, you will take
better care of it. I don't see how any owner of a natural gas powered
vehicle could be real satisfied with a car that has limited
infrastructure support. Most hybrid owners seem to be ecstatically
happy with their vehicles, for now. That will change fast when the
hybrids are old enough to need their batteries replaced, though.


Long after they have already sold the car


Irrelevant to what the frugal do.

Evasion of real world facts noted

Pathetic excuse for bull**** noted.

You clearly wouldnt notice the real world if it bit you on your lard arse.

And if we are

talking about a vehicle to drive for ~20 years or longer, then
multiple rounds of battery replacements WILL be an issue for hybrid
owners. All things considered, gas (only) is the best bet, right
now (2005). -Dave

The average American does not keep their car anywhere near 20 years,
so battery packs with a warranty of 100,000 miles is not an issue.
The U.S. Department of Transportation reports "Surveys have shown
that, on the average, a person trades in or sells a car when it is
only 4 1/2 years old with just 41,000 miles on it".

Irrelevant to what the frugal do.

Evasion of real world facts noted

Pathetic excuse for bull**** noted.

You clearly wouldnt notice the real world if it bit you on your lard arse.

SMS wrote:
TonyB wrote:

and expect it to last the life of the vehicle.


Usual utterly mindless sales bull****. Note that they dont say
anything about what that 'life of the vehicle' involves time wise.

It's always amusing to see the "lasts the life of the vehicle"
statements by automakers. Yep, when the battery dies, the life of the vehicle
is over, and the battery lasted the life of the vehicle.

Yeah, in spades with the lifetime guarantees on electronic devices
and media particularly. I've never needed to exercise one of those,
I've always expected them to roll of the floor laughing and point out
that its just reached the end of its life and tell you to bugger off.

One particularly anal fellow I know used to do it with floppys,
normally at trade shows, demand a replacement for any
floppy that had failed. He always got a replacement.

As Toyota stated regarding the RAV 4 EV, "The cost to replace the battery is
more than the value of the vehicle."

Yeah, that's why it flew like the proverbial lead balloon.

We've seen similar idiotic statements from automakers regarding other
components, i.e. Saturn timing chains, which, when they break, usually mark
the end of the
vehicle ('see, we told you that the timing chain would last the life of the
vehicle!').

With a hybrid, you really have to be measuring fuel economy over the long term
to know when the battery capacity has diminished to the point where it's no
longer contributing to the fuel economy.

And long before that it wont be getting anything like the
fuel economy that the spruikers are selling it as having.

Absolutely classic snake oil merchant stuff.

Per SMS:
Actually there are some very reliable automobile diesel
engines from Europe and Asia, but most don't make it to the U.S. because
of the sulfer content in the diesel fuel.

Would you venture an opinion on the VW TDI that they use in the
Freightliner/Dodge Sprinter van?
--
PeteCresswell

"Ted B." wrote in message
eenews.net...


I generally agree with what you write. However, even low-end cars will
last
longer than 10 years/150,000 miles if well maintained. 20 years and
300K
or
more is easily attainable. Just avoid the Chevys and Fords and
Chryslers
(daimler chryslers now, but still domestically built crap).

I think that's an unjustified canard. My mother-in-law drove the same
Ford
Granada for 23 years. If she hadn't died at the age of 93, she'd still
be
driving it today (I've seen it a couple of times around town).



Sure there will always be exceptions to the rule. The Ford Granada you
write about is not one of them, unless your MIL was a 70-93 year old
commuter. (I suspect she was retired for most if not all of the time she
owned that car).

However did you guess? She learned to drive at the ripe young age of 72,
when my father-in-law could no longer drive. Nonetheless, the car had
between 100K and 200k miles on the clock (I don't remember the the number)
when we sold it.

It's about playing the odds. Could you get a Chevy to last 20 years?
Yes.
Would you improve your odds by buying a Toyota instead? GREATLY.

Is this really true? How about a cite?

The best I've been able to come up with is that the US, as a country, does
pretty well in the vehicle longevity department. In the US, cars last an
estimated average of 160,000 miles. It's 145,000 in Australia, 125,000 in
the UK, Canada and France do 115,000, the rest of Europe manages 105,000.
Curiosly, Japan manages a meager 70,000. (From
http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/What_is_the_average_car's_lifetime_mileage ) I'm
unable to find average mileage or age by manufacturer. Since you're so
definite and sure of yourself, I'm willing to concede that I don't know what
to google for - maybe you could provide some backup for your statements.

If we assume the average driver does 1,000 miles a month, cars in the US
manage to last a bit over 13 years on average, while in Japan they manage
less than 6 (I have no idea what the average annual mileage for a private
automobile is in Japan). I expect that as a proportion of the total fleet,
there are far more Japanese vehicles in the US than there are US vehicles in
Japan. At first blush, it would appear that the presence of large numbers
of Japanese cars drags the US average down, not up.

"Andy" wrote in message
oups.com...
Ted B. wrote:
Most hybrid owners seem to be ecstatically
happy with their vehicles, for now. That will change fast when the
hybrids
are old enough to need their batteries replaced, though. And if we are
talking about a vehicle to drive for ~20 years or longer, then multiple
rounds of battery replacements WILL be an issue for hybrid owners.

What evidence, or analysis, do you have supporting your position that
hybrids will need multiple battery replacements? Do you actually know
anything about this, or did you just make it up?

Andrew Grant used a 2001 Prius as a taxi and put 200,000 miles on it
without needing a battery replacement. See
http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/taxi/batteries. This is evidence of
more than adequate battery life in a hybrid, so the balls in your court
to provide some evidence that hybrid's have battery replacement issues.

Here is what Toyota has to say about Prius battery life:

"We have lab data showing the equivalent of 180,000 miles with no
deterioration and expect it to last the life of the vehicle. We also
expect battery technology to continue to improve: the second-generation
model battery is 15% smaller, 25% lighter, and has 35% more specific
power than the first. This is true of price as well. Between the 2003
and 2004 models, service battery costs came down 36% and we expect them
to continue to drop so that by the time replacements may be needed it
won't be a much of an issue. Since the car went on sale in 2000, Toyota
has not replaced a single battery for wear and tear."

It seems to me that, if they _really_ expected the batteries to last the
lifetime of the vehicle, and the cost of replacements to drop to the point
where it wouldn't be much of an issue, they'd give a life of the vehicle
warranty. It was the potential cost of battery replacement that put me off
buying a Prius - a lifetime warranty would remove that issue from
consideration.

One thing that gives me pause is that last statement - batteries have not
been replaced for wear and tear. That doesn't mean batteries haven't been
replaced. I wonder what the reasons for replacement were?

SoCalMike wrote:
A. Smith wrote:

The EPA's numbers don't match my experience.

I have a 98 Civic HX. It looks like the EPA has
it at around 35 mpg which is rediculously low in
my experience.

I always get between 51 and 53 mpg except for the
few times I go on the interstate. Then it drops
to the high 40's.


my 98 CX 5spd gets a steady 32 in mixed driving. its rated 32/37, IIRC.
whatever youre doing is obviously working.

Of course, I drive it gently, and the tires are "inflated."
Amd I am very careful about "breaking in" the engine - I really
don't know if that does much or not but I have always had good
"luck."

The biggest difference is the engine. The engine in the HX
has the cam with two profiles - high speed and low speed.
Before the Honda I had an even lighter car that only got 40+
mpg compared with 50+ on the heavier HX.

SMS wrote:

TonyB wrote:

and expect it to last the life of the vehicle.



Usual utterly mindless sales bull****. Note that they dont say
anything about what that 'life of the vehicle' involves time wise.


It's always amusing to see the "lasts the life of the vehicle"
statements by automakers. Yep, when the battery dies, the life of the
vehicle is over, and the battery lasted the life of the vehicle. As
Toyota stated regarding the RAV 4 EV, "The cost to replace the battery
is more than the value of the vehicle." We've seen similar idiotic
statements from automakers regarding other components, i.e. Saturn
timing chains, which, when they break, usually mark the end of the
vehicle ('see, we told you that the timing chain would last the life of
the vehicle!').

With a hybrid, you really have to be measuring fuel economy over the
long term to know when the battery capacity has diminished to the point
where it's no longer contributing to the fuel economy.

In regards to the Rav 4 EV battery issue it was not that the batteries
were worn out, but that the government mandated they had to be replaced
when they could only reach 80% of their former capacity. That would be
like forcing people to replace the engines in their conventional cars
when gas mileage decreased 20% due to wear and tear etc.

Andy wrote:

TonyB wrote:

No one does with hybrid cars yet.


or did you just make it up?

You clearly are doing just that.


Andrew Grant used a 2001 Prius as a taxi and put 200,000
miles on it without needing a battery replacement. See
http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/taxi/batteries.

Irrelevant to what will be seen with normal car use.

Taxis have always got a much better result even with
conventional cars, because of how they are used.


This is evidence of more than adequate battery life in a hybrid,

Nope.


I am confused. Why is Rod Speed posting under the name TonyB? Whats
going on here?

Andy


Because everyone has kill filed him as rod speed ;~)- Tony B= Plonked!

"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in message
...
Per Dave C.:

How many low-end cars last 10 years/150,000 miles?


My daily commuter is a '96 metro with 188k miles. Beyond the normal
service, the only thing I have replaced has been a timing belt (might be
consider normal service, I caught it before it broke), idle control motor
(from a junkyard), broken turn signal light (hit a dog), and a wiper
bushing. It used to get 42 mpg, but now I get about 38.

I am ready to replace it at any time, but as long as it keeps going without
expensive maintenance, I will keep using it. I have my eye on the all wheel
drive Subaru to replace it because they do pretty dang good in the
occasional snow we get and still have good mileage.

Matthew

TonyB wrote:

Ford Prefect wrote:

TonyB wrote:

Ford Prefect wrote:


Ted B. wrote:



"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in message
om...



Per Ted B.:



your best bet for a car that will last a long time would be any
gasoline (only)

Why only gas-powered?


A number of reasons, the main one being that gas (only) designs
have been refined over many years to the point where even the worst of
the bunch are pretty darned reliable. Diesel (only) designs are
pretty close, in terms of reliability, but not QUITE up to par with
the gas (only) vehicles yet.

Diesel engines are far more reliable than gas engines, that's why
they are used for things like emergency generators and heavy
equipment. Cars with diesel engines often clapped right out before
the engine fails.


Again, there are exceptions, but if you want to play the odds on a
car that will last a long time, gas (only) is your best bet right
now and Japanese makes are also your best bet.

There are a number of other options including gas/electric hybrids
and even natural gas production vehicles. They all have major
disadvantages over gas (only) designs, though. Hybrids are VERY
complex, using extra parts that have limited lifespans and are VERY
expensive to replace. (read: batteries)


The batteries have warranties for 100,000 miles


And many of the frugal keep them for longer than that.


Very few people, even frugal ones keeps cars longer than 10 years.


Wrong.


It wouldn't be frugal to keep a vehicle when it gets to the point when repairs
begin to exceed the replacement of a comparable car in good working order.


That doesnt normally happen.

Yes it does, check with the department of transportation


For years I purchased 4-6 year old cars for peanuts and drove them until a
major repair raised it's ugly head, usually within 2-3 years ( transmission,
engine)


That is completely silly with a decently designed car.


then it was on to the next one.


You would have been a lot better off choosing a better 4-6 year
old car that wouldnt need major repairs for another 10-20 years.

Plenty qualify.

You have a car you pay less than $2000.00, you drive it 2-3 years and
it's value is now such that it's a write off if you get a flat tire. The
tranny goes south, the engine seizes, blows etc. The cost of repairs
exceed the replacement value, you'd be a fool to keep it.


In theory at least, any natural gas vehicle SHOULD be just as


reliable as a gasoline powered vehicle is. The problem with a
natural gas vehicle will be availability of fuel. Owner
satisfaction plays a DIRECT role in the long-term reliability of
any vehicle. Simply stated, if you like your car, you will take
better care of it. I don't see how any owner of a natural gas powered
vehicle could be real satisfied with a car that has limited
infrastructure support. Most hybrid owners seem to be ecstatically
happy with their vehicles, for now. That will change fast when the
hybrids are old enough to need their batteries replaced, though.


Long after they have already sold the car


Irrelevant to what the frugal do.

Evasion of real world facts noted


Pathetic excuse for bull**** noted.

You clearly wouldnt notice the real world if it bit you on your lard arse.


And if we are


talking about a vehicle to drive for ~20 years or longer, then
multiple rounds of battery replacements WILL be an issue for hybrid
owners. All things considered, gas (only) is the best bet, right
now (2005). -Dave

The average American does not keep their car anywhere near 20 years,
so battery packs with a warranty of 100,000 miles is not an issue.
The U.S. Department of Transportation reports "Surveys have shown
that, on the average, a person trades in or sells a car when it is
only 4 1/2 years old with just 41,000 miles on it".


Irrelevant to what the frugal do.


Evasion of real world facts noted


Pathetic excuse for bull**** noted.

You clearly wouldnt notice the real world if it bit you on your lard arse.



Good bye Rod

Matthew Beasley wrote:

"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in message
...

Per Dave C.:


How many low-end cars last 10 years/150,000 miles?



My daily commuter is a '96 metro with 188k miles. Beyond the normal
service, the only thing I have replaced has been a timing belt (might be
consider normal service, I caught it before it broke), idle control motor
(from a junkyard), broken turn signal light (hit a dog), and a wiper
bushing. It used to get 42 mpg, but now I get about 38.

I am ready to replace it at any time, but as long as it keeps going without
expensive maintenance, I will keep using it. I have my eye on the all wheel
drive Subaru to replace it because they do pretty dang good in the
occasional snow we get and still have good mileage.

Matthew



The best long term mileage I've received in a Japanese car was with a
Nissan Sentra with a five speed automatic, it died at 156,000 miles.
The funny thing is when I picked up some interior trim parts at the
wreckers (when the poor dear thing had 105,000 on her) every one of the
Sentras they had in there had between 151,000- 158,000 miles on it.
I kept a close watch on the car after it hit 150,000, sure it was going
to die on me any day ;~

Ford Prefect wrote:
Ted B. wrote:

There are a number of other options including gas/electric hybrids and
even natural gas production vehicles. They all have major
disadvantages over gas (only) designs, though. Hybrids are VERY
complex, using extra parts that have limited lifespans and are VERY
expensive to replace. (read: batteries)

The batteries have warranties for 100,000 miles

True, and like someone noted, many people sell their car before it
reaches 100,000 miles. But, what is the battery issue going to do
to the resale value? Let's say you're at 90,000 miles and you're
ready to sell the car. A smart buyer is going to look at it and go,
"Hmm, how long 'til these batteries are going to need to be replaced?
If the warranty lasts 100,000 miles and we're nearly there, I'm going
to guess pretty soon." And the buyer is going to adjust the price
he's willing to pay based on that. Even if you sell it at 75,000
miles, the same issue remains. Nobody wants to buy a car where they
can expect big, expensive maintenance coming up relatively soon.

What that means is that the battery issue, even though the original
owner is protected from it by a warranty, is still going to have a
negative impact on the initial owner because it affects the resale value.

- Logan

SMS wrote:
It's always amusing to see the "lasts the life of the vehicle"
statements by automakers. Yep, when the battery dies, the life of the
vehicle is over, and the battery lasted the life of the vehicle. As
Toyota stated regarding the RAV 4 EV, "The cost to replace the battery
is more than the value of the vehicle."

Well, to make a fair comparison to a hybrid, you have to realize that
the RAV 4 EV was meant to run exclusively on batteries. That means
if the range a few hundred miles (as is typical for a gasoline powered
car), then the RAV 4 EV needs to have enough batteries in it to store
power for that whole journey. In contrast, on a hybrid you only need
enough power to run the vehicle for something like 25 miles, because
the purpose of the batteries on a hybrid is to store small amounts of
energy that would otherwise be lost (energy that comes from regenerative
braking, and energy that comes from running the engine at its ideal RPM
vs. a non-ideal RPM).

The point is, on the hybrid, the battery capacity is something like
an order of magnitude smaller than the battery capacity needed on a
purely electric vehicle. Which presumably means that the costs of
replacing the batteries in a hybrid would be close to an order of
magnitude smaller as well.

I know you were mainly making a statement about automakers and their
"life of the vehicle" claims, but I thought I'd bring this up since
we're sort of implicitly comparing hybrids against pure electrics.

- Logan

Logan Shaw wrote:

Ford Prefect wrote:

Ted B. wrote:


There are a number of other options including gas/electric hybrids
and even natural gas production vehicles. They all have major
disadvantages over gas (only) designs, though. Hybrids are VERY
complex, using extra parts that have limited lifespans and are VERY
expensive to replace. (read: batteries)


The batteries have warranties for 100,000 miles


True, and like someone noted, many people sell their car before it
reaches 100,000 miles. But, what is the battery issue going to do
to the resale value? Let's say you're at 90,000 miles and you're
ready to sell the car. A smart buyer is going to look at it and go,
"Hmm, how long 'til these batteries are going to need to be replaced?
If the warranty lasts 100,000 miles and we're nearly there, I'm going
to guess pretty soon." And the buyer is going to adjust the price
he's willing to pay based on that. Even if you sell it at 75,000
miles, the same issue remains. Nobody wants to buy a car where they
can expect big, expensive maintenance coming up relatively soon.

What that means is that the battery issue, even though the original
owner is protected from it by a warranty, is still going to have a
negative impact on the initial owner because it affects the resale value.

- Logan

Why would anyone buy a car with 90,000 miles on it anyway? At that
mileage even conventional cars are often in need of costly repairs.
such as drive train and engine. Even when I was first driving and needed
a really cheap clunker I don't think I ever bought anything with more
than 65,000 miles on it or kept it more than two years. Even today I can
pick up a good midsized car with less than 60,000 miles on it for less
than $3000.00 in Canadian funds.

Ted B. wrote:
The problem with a natural gas
vehicle will be availability of fuel. Owner satisfaction plays a DIRECT
role in the long-term reliability of any vehicle. Simply stated, if you
like your car, you will take better care of it. I don't see how any owner
of a natural gas powered vehicle could be real satisfied with a car that has
limited infrastructure support.

Well, I'll not deny that this is an obstacle right now, but one thing that
might make it a little nicer for people is that it should be possible for
many people to refuel at home. Many houses already have natural gas service,
there is at least one company that makes a "Vehicle Refueling Appliance"
called "Phill", which allows you to put natural gas provided by your
utility company into your natural gas car. Here's the product's web site:

http://www.myphill.com/vehicles.htm

And here's some info about home refueling from Honda:

http://automobiles.honda.com/models/...lName=Civic+GX

Home refueling doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of road trips
that would simply be impossible in a natural gas vehicle (because of a lack
of stations), but imagine the convenience of having one of these machines
installed in your garage at home. No more having to make time to stop off
at the gas station on the way to work -- just refuel your car at night
while it's sitting in the garage. For someone who mostly commutes back
and forth to work or otherwise drives in town, that could actually be
much MORE convenient than a traditional car.

- Logan

Ford Prefect wrote:
TonyB wrote:

Ford Prefect wrote:

TonyB wrote:

Ford Prefect wrote:


Ted B. wrote:



"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in message
...



Per Ted B.:



your best bet for a car that will last a long time would be any
gasoline (only)

Why only gas-powered?


A number of reasons, the main one being that gas (only) designs
have been refined over many years to the point where even the
worst of the bunch are pretty darned reliable. Diesel (only)
designs are pretty close, in terms of reliability, but not QUITE
up to par with the gas (only) vehicles yet.

Diesel engines are far more reliable than gas engines, that's why
they are used for things like emergency generators and heavy
equipment. Cars with diesel engines often clapped right out before
the engine fails.


Again, there are exceptions, but if you want to play the odds on
a car that will last a long time, gas (only) is your best bet
right now and Japanese makes are also your best bet.

There are a number of other options including gas/electric
hybrids and even natural gas production vehicles. They all have
major disadvantages over gas (only) designs, though. Hybrids
are VERY complex, using extra parts that have limited lifespans
and are VERY expensive to replace. (read: batteries)


The batteries have warranties for 100,000 miles


And many of the frugal keep them for longer than that.


Very few people, even frugal ones keeps cars longer than 10 years.


Wrong.


It wouldn't be frugal to keep a vehicle when it gets to the point
when repairs begin to exceed the replacement of a comparable car in
good working order.


That doesnt normally happen.

Yes it does,

Fraid not.

check with the department of transportation

Completely useless on that.

For years I purchased 4-6 year old cars for peanuts and drove them
until a major repair raised it's ugly head, usually within 2-3
years ( transmission, engine)


That is completely silly with a decently designed car.


then it was on to the next one.


You would have been a lot better off choosing a better 4-6 year
old car that wouldnt need major repairs for another 10-20 years.

Plenty qualify.

You have a car you pay less than $2000.00, you drive it 2-3 years and
it's value is now such that it's a write off if you get a flat tire.

Mindlessly silly.

The tranny goes south, the engine seizes, blows etc.

Hardly ever happens with a car of that age.

The cost of repairs exceed the replacement value, you'd be a fool to keep it.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you've
never ever had a clue. What matters is how likely that is
to happen and how long the replacement will last for.

In theory at least, any natural gas vehicle SHOULD be just as


reliable as a gasoline powered vehicle is. The problem with a
natural gas vehicle will be availability of fuel. Owner
satisfaction plays a DIRECT role in the long-term reliability of
any vehicle. Simply stated, if you like your car, you will take
better care of it. I don't see how any owner of a natural gas
powered vehicle could be real satisfied with a car that has
limited infrastructure support. Most hybrid owners seem to be
ecstatically happy with their vehicles, for now. That will
change fast when the hybrids are old enough to need their
batteries replaced, though.


Long after they have already sold the car


Irrelevant to what the frugal do.

Evasion of real world facts noted


Pathetic excuse for bull**** noted.

You clearly wouldnt notice the real world if it bit you on your lard
arse.
And if we are


talking about a vehicle to drive for ~20 years or longer, then
multiple rounds of battery replacements WILL be an issue for
hybrid owners. All things considered, gas (only) is the best
bet, right now (2005). -Dave

The average American does not keep their car anywhere near 20
years, so battery packs with a warranty of 100,000 miles is not
an issue. The U.S. Department of Transportation reports "Surveys
have shown that, on the average, a person trades in or sells a
car when it is only 4 1/2 years old with just 41,000 miles on it".


Irrelevant to what the frugal do.


Evasion of real world facts noted


Pathetic excuse for bull**** noted.

You clearly wouldnt notice the real world if it bit you on your lard
arse.

Good bye Rod

Usual response of the terminal prat when
its got done like a ****ing dinner, yet again.

Just another silly little kid putting its fingers in its ears,
closing its eyes and screaming 'nyah, nyah, cant hear ya'

Doesnt work, little boy.

Ford Prefect wrote:
Logan Shaw wrote:

Ford Prefect wrote:

Ted B. wrote:


There are a number of other options including gas/electric hybrids
and even natural gas production vehicles. They all have major
disadvantages over gas (only) designs, though. Hybrids are VERY
complex, using extra parts that have limited lifespans and are VERY
expensive to replace. (read: batteries)


The batteries have warranties for 100,000 miles


True, and like someone noted, many people sell their car before it
reaches 100,000 miles. But, what is the battery issue going to do
to the resale value? Let's say you're at 90,000 miles and you're
ready to sell the car. A smart buyer is going to look at it and go,
"Hmm, how long 'til these batteries are going to need to be replaced?
If the warranty lasts 100,000 miles and we're nearly there, I'm going
to guess pretty soon." And the buyer is going to adjust the price
he's willing to pay based on that. Even if you sell it at 75,000
miles, the same issue remains. Nobody wants to buy a car where they
can expect big, expensive maintenance coming up relatively soon.

What that means is that the battery issue, even though the original
owner is protected from it by a warranty, is still going to have a
negative impact on the initial owner because it affects the resale
value. - Logan

Why would anyone buy a car with 90,000 miles on it anyway? At that
mileage even conventional cars are often in need of costly repairs.
such as drive train and engine.

Another pig ignorant lie.

Even when I was first driving and needed a really cheap clunker I don't think
I ever bought anything with more than 65,000 miles on it or kept it more than
two years.

Your terminal stupiditys have always been your problem, child.

Even today I can pick up a good midsized car with less than 60,000 miles on it
for less than $3000.00 in Canadian funds.

So a Prius with 60K on it will be worth a lot less, ****wit.

Ford Prefect wrote:
SMS wrote:

TonyB wrote:

and expect it to last the life of the vehicle.



Usual utterly mindless sales bull****. Note that they dont say
anything about what that 'life of the vehicle' involves time wise.


It's always amusing to see the "lasts the life of the vehicle"
statements by automakers. Yep, when the battery dies, the life of the
vehicle is over, and the battery lasted the life of the vehicle. As
Toyota stated regarding the RAV 4 EV, "The cost to replace the
battery is more than the value of the vehicle." We've seen similar
idiotic statements from automakers regarding other components, i.e.
Saturn timing chains, which, when they break, usually mark the end
of the vehicle ('see, we told you that the timing chain would last
the life of the vehicle!').

With a hybrid, you really have to be measuring fuel economy over the
long term to know when the battery capacity has diminished to the
point where it's no longer contributing to the fuel economy.

In regards to the Rav 4 EV battery issue it was not that the batteries
were worn out, but that the government mandated they had to be
replaced when they could only reach 80% of their former capacity.

Another lie.

That would be like forcing people to replace the engines in their conventional
cars when gas mileage decreased 20% due to wear and tear etc.

Pity its another lie.

Logan Shaw wrote:
Ted B. wrote:
The problem with a natural gas
vehicle will be availability of fuel. Owner satisfaction plays a
DIRECT role in the long-term reliability of any vehicle. Simply
stated, if you like your car, you will take better care of it. I
don't see how any owner of a natural gas powered vehicle could be
real satisfied with a car that has limited infrastructure support.

Well, I'll not deny that this is an obstacle right now, but one thing
that might make it a little nicer for people is that it should be
possible for many people to refuel at home. Many houses already have natural
gas
service, there is at least one company that makes a "Vehicle
Refueling Appliance" called "Phill", which allows you to put natural
gas provided by your utility company into your natural gas car. Here's the
product's web
site:
http://www.myphill.com/vehicles.htm

And here's some info about home refueling from Honda:

http://automobiles.honda.com/models/...lName=Civic+GX

Home refueling doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of road
trips that would simply be impossible in a natural gas vehicle
(because of a lack of stations),

Wrong.

but imagine the convenience of having one of these
machines installed in your garage at home. No more having to make time to
stop off at the gas station on the way to work -- just refuel your car at
night while it's sitting in the garage. For someone who mostly commutes back
and forth to work or otherwise drives in town, that could actually be much
MORE convenient than a traditional car.

Sure, but that comes at the cost of what's required to do that.

That aint cheap.

Ford Prefect wrote:
Matthew Beasley wrote:

"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in message
...

Per Dave C.:


How many low-end cars last 10 years/150,000 miles?



My daily commuter is a '96 metro with 188k miles. Beyond the normal
service, the only thing I have replaced has been a timing belt
(might be consider normal service, I caught it before it broke),
idle control motor (from a junkyard), broken turn signal light (hit
a dog), and a wiper bushing. It used to get 42 mpg, but now I get
about 38. I am ready to replace it at any time, but as long as it keeps going
without expensive maintenance, I will keep using it. I have my eye
on the all wheel drive Subaru to replace it because they do pretty
dang good in the occasional snow we get and still have good mileage.

The best long term mileage I've received in a Japanese car was with a
Nissan Sentra with a five speed automatic, it died at 156,000 miles.

You keep killing cars ? Your problem.

The funny thing is when I picked up some interior trim parts at the
wreckers (when the poor dear thing had 105,000 on her) every one of
the Sentras they had in there had between 151,000- 158,000 miles on
it. I kept a close watch on the car after it hit 150,000, sure it was
going to die on me any day ;~

Pathetic, really.

Andy wrote:

I am confused. Why is Rod Speed posting under the name TonyB? Whats
going on here?

Ah, that explains it. He appears to be posting as "Simon" as well. I
suppose the reason for this is that everyone has filtered "Rod Speed."
Often you will see people like this create new aliases, to get through
people's kill files.

Per SMS:
Which TDI is this? Is it the same one that VW uses in the diesel cars
that they sell in the U.S. (not in California though).

Apparently not, bc I got it wrong.

It's actually "Mercedes-Benz CDI turbo diesel engine" per Freightliner's web
site. The site is sorely lacking, however, in details.

--
PeteCresswell

Why would anyone buy a car with 90,000 miles on it anyway? At that
mileage even conventional cars are often in need of costly repairs.
such as drive train and engine. Even when I was first driving and needed
a really cheap clunker I don't think I ever bought anything with more
than 65,000 miles on it or kept it more than two years. Even today I can
pick up a good midsized car with less than 60,000 miles on it for less
than $3000.00 in Canadian funds.

I think I have only bought one vehicle with less than 100,000 miles on
it. My current commuter I bought with 170k on it. I have driven it
for over a year(~28k) and it has cost me nothing. Regular oil changes
and some other basic maintenance. My TCO of this vehicle is a few
pennies above what fuel costs me(on a per mile basis). If you are
selective, it is relatively easy to find very high mileage older cars
that will run for a long time. I have taken several vehicles well past
the 200k mark. One may have cleared the 250k(not sure as odometer
quit).

I would much rather have a 5 year old 150k mile vehicle than a 20yr old
15k vehicle that Granny drove to chuch on Sundays. Short driving is
much harder on a vehicle than long trips that get everything up to
operating temps.

JW

wrote in message
oups.com...

Why would anyone buy a car with 90,000 miles on it anyway? At that
mileage even conventional cars are often in need of costly repairs.
such as drive train and engine. Even when I was first driving and needed
a really cheap clunker I don't think I ever bought anything with more
than 65,000 miles on it or kept it more than two years. Even today I can
pick up a good midsized car with less than 60,000 miles on it for less
than $3000.00 in Canadian funds.

I think I have only bought one vehicle with less than 100,000 miles on
it. My current commuter I bought with 170k on it. I have driven it
for over a year(~28k) and it has cost me nothing. Regular oil changes
and some other basic maintenance. My TCO of this vehicle is a few
pennies above what fuel costs me(on a per mile basis). If you are
selective, it is relatively easy to find very high mileage older cars
that will run for a long time. I have taken several vehicles well past
the 200k mark. One may have cleared the 250k(not sure as odometer
quit).

I would much rather have a 5 year old 150k mile vehicle than a 20yr old
15k vehicle that Granny drove to chuch on Sundays. Short driving is
much harder on a vehicle than long trips that get everything up to
operating temps.

JW

Hmmm. I was just looking at an over 20 year old car with less than 15K.

http://www.ferraris-online.com/pages...E-308GTS-40675

BRD wrote:
Logan Shaw wrote:

Home refueling doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of road
trips that would simply be impossible in a natural gas vehicle
(because of a lack of stations),

Wrong.

OK, since you know all routes longer than 200 miles (the range of a Honda
natural gas vehicle) have a natural gas station somewhere along the way,
where would I stop for natural gas on a trip from San Antonio, TX to
El Paso, TX?

It's about 550 miles between the two, so I think I will need to get fuel
at least 3 times. I just used the Alternative Fuel Station Locator:

http://afdcmap.nrel.gov/locator/LocatePane.asp

and the only station that sells compressed natural gas that I found
anywhere near on the way (I searched for stations within 300 miles of
Fort Stockton, TX, which produced a circle that covers my starting
point and destination) was in Midland, TX. Midland, TX is 400 miles
away from San Antonio, TX (my starting point), so I can't get to the
gas station before I run out of fuel. Also, Midland, TX is 300 miles
away from El Paso, TX (my destination), so even if I could get to my
refueling stop (which I can't), I wouldn't be able to get from there
to my destination.

And even if I could make it to Midland to refuel and could make it
from there to my destination, I would still have to go 150 miles out
of my way to get to the fuel station.

I suppose I could just carry a crapload of extra fuel with me, but
somehow I wonder if that's legal or safe.

- Logan

Logan Shaw wrote
BRD wrote
Logan Shaw wrote:

Home refueling doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of road
trips that would simply be impossible in a natural gas vehicle
(because of a lack of stations),

Wrong.

OK, since you know all routes longer than 200 miles (the range of a
Honda natural gas vehicle) have a natural gas station somewhere along
the way, where would I stop for natural gas on a trip from San
Antonio, TX to El Paso, TX?

Doesn't qualify as 'plenty of road trips'

And any decent natural gas powered car can use gasoline as well.

It's about 550 miles between the two, so I think I will need to get
fuel at least 3 times. I just used the Alternative Fuel Station
Locator:
http://afdcmap.nrel.gov/locator/LocatePane.asp

and the only station that sells compressed natural gas that I found
anywhere near on the way (I searched for stations within 300 miles of
Fort Stockton, TX, which produced a circle that covers my starting
point and destination) was in Midland, TX. Midland, TX is 400 miles
away from San Antonio, TX (my starting point), so I can't get to the
gas station before I run out of fuel. Also, Midland, TX is 300 miles
away from El Paso, TX (my destination), so even if I could get to my
refueling stop (which I can't), I wouldn't be able to get from there
to my destination.

And even if I could make it to Midland to refuel and could make it
from there to my destination, I would still have to go 150 miles out
of my way to get to the fuel station.

I suppose I could just carry a crapload of extra fuel with me, but
somehow I wonder if that's legal or safe.

- Logan

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 22:27:34 GMT, SMS
wrote:

It's always amusing to see the "lasts the life of the vehicle"
statements by automakers. Yep, when the battery dies, the life of the
vehicle is over, and the battery lasted the life of the vehicle. As
Toyota stated regarding the RAV 4 EV, "The cost to replace the battery
is more than the value of the vehicle." We've seen similar idiotic
statements from automakers regarding other components, i.e. Saturn
timing chains, which, when they break, usually mark the end of the
vehicle ('see, we told you that the timing chain would last the life of
the vehicle!').

Timing CHAINS generally outlast timing BELTS by a considerable margin.
A Saturn with a timing CHAINwill generally oulast a VW's timing BELT.

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 09:59:52 -0400, "Lou"
wrote:


"anon" wrote in message
. ..
same here. I have a 95 Geo Prizm 1.8L stick. They
say 29 city, but over the life of the car so far it's been
33 city. Generally their numbers are way too high, not
too low.

The EPA's numbers don't match my experience.


Mine neither. I have a 2005 Impala LS. Automatic transmission, electric
everything. This is what the EPA classifies as a large car, and the mileage
rating is 22/30 city/highway. I'm consistently getting over 30 mpg in mixed
driving - last week, for instance, I drove 440 and a fraction miles, and got
36.2 miles per gallon according to the average mileage gauge the car comes
equipped with.

In my experience over the last 10 - 20 years, the EPA ratings are low.


Have you ever compared actual mileage to the computerized average?

The average American does not keep their car anywhere near 20 years, so
battery packs with a warranty of 100,000 miles is not an issue. The U.S.
Department of Transportation reports "Surveys have shown that, on the
average, a person trades in or sells a car when it is only 4 1/2 years old
with just 41,000 miles on it".

Which is stupid. But we are discussing what vehicles are the best bet to
buy if you want to put a lot of miles on it and keep it 20 years, or maybe
longer. 100,000 mile warranty on mucho expensive batteries is not going to
help you much, if your goal is to keep something on the road for
00K. -Dave

What evidence, or analysis, do you have supporting your position that
hybrids will need multiple battery replacements? Do you actually know
anything about this, or did you just make it up?


The battery in your cell phone is higher quality. How many times can you
charge IT before it needs to be replaced? Anybody would have to be an idiot
to bet on any current technology battery lasting the life of a car that they
want to keep for 20 years or so. -Dave

It's about playing the odds. Could you get a Chevy to last 20 years?
Yes.
Would you improve your odds by buying a Toyota instead? GREATLY.

Is this really true? How about a cite?


How about using your own eyes. Every time you drive, count how many old
cars are on the road. Make a game of it. Every 80's model domestic vehicle
scores 100 points. Every 80's model Japanese vehicle scores 10 points. Any
pre-1996 vehicle scores 10 points, also. Keep a tally of DOMESTIC vs. JAP
IMPORTS. If you see a Jap import that you know was assembled in the U.S.,
score it the same as a Jap Import. A good design will last long, regardless
of where it is assembled.

Even if you give the 80's domestic vehicles 100 points a pop (vs. 10 points
for the jap imports from the same period), the Jap imports will still
embarras the Hell out of the domestics, if you are scoring them based on
longevity.

Are there 80's model domestic vehicles still on the road? (keep in mind
that some of them would only be about 17 years old) Yes. But it's so
uncommon that you really NOTICE, when you see one. Twenty year old (and
older) jap imports still on the road are quite common. -Dave

How many low-end cars last 10 years/150,000 miles?


My daily commuter is a '96 metro with 188k miles. Beyond the normal
service, the only thing I have replaced has been a timing belt (might be
consider normal service, I caught it before it broke), idle control motor
(from a junkyard), broken turn signal light (hit a dog), and a wiper
bushing. It used to get 42 mpg, but now I get about 38.


There ya go. Suzuki quality. You should consider keeping it till at least
250 or 300K. -Dave

Why would anyone buy a car with 90,000 miles on it anyway? At that mileage
even conventional cars are often in need of costly repairs.
such as drive train and engine.

Only if they've been abused. If you can't get a car to do at least 200K
without needing major repairs, you are doing something wrong. This is one
reason I don't buy used. Too many people abuse cars to the point where they
are worthless with as little as 90,000 miles on them. Sad, really. -Dave

The magic bullet is kill author contains "nospam.com". Your syntax may
vary. Hand.

Rod Speed is now "Simon" Plonk!

Simon wrote:
Ford Prefect wrote:

TonyB wrote:


Ford Prefect wrote:


TonyB wrote:


Ford Prefect wrote:



Ted B. wrote:




"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in message
news:b60sh1lr6viof5747s8vtkilhk18tc5cao@4ax .com...




Per Ted B.:




your best bet for a car that will last a long time would be any
gasoline (only)

Why only gas-powered?


A number of reasons, the main one being that gas (only) designs
have been refined over many years to the point where even the
worst of the bunch are pretty darned reliable. Diesel (only)
designs are pretty close, in terms of reliability, but not QUITE
up to par with the gas (only) vehicles yet.

Diesel engines are far more reliable than gas engines, that's why
they are used for things like emergency generators and heavy
equipment. Cars with diesel engines often clapped right out before
the engine fails.



Again, there are exceptions, but if you want to play the odds on
a car that will last a long time, gas (only) is your best bet
right now and Japanese makes are also your best bet.

There are a number of other options including gas/electric
hybrids and even natural gas production vehicles. They all have
major disadvantages over gas (only) designs, though. Hybrids
are VERY complex, using extra parts that have limited lifespans
and are VERY expensive to replace. (read: batteries)


The batteries have warranties for 100,000 miles


And many of the frugal keep them for longer than that.


Very few people, even frugal ones keeps cars longer than 10 years.


Wrong.



It wouldn't be frugal to keep a vehicle when it gets to the point
when repairs begin to exceed the replacement of a comparable car in
good working order.


That doesnt normally happen.


Yes it does,


Fraid not.


check with the department of transportation


Completely useless on that.


For years I purchased 4-6 year old cars for peanuts and drove them
until a major repair raised it's ugly head, usually within 2-3
years ( transmission, engine)


That is completely silly with a decently designed car.



then it was on to the next one.


You would have been a lot better off choosing a better 4-6 year
old car that wouldnt need major repairs for another 10-20 years.

Plenty qualify.


You have a car you pay less than $2000.00, you drive it 2-3 years and
it's value is now such that it's a write off if you get a flat tire.


Mindlessly silly.


The tranny goes south, the engine seizes, blows etc.


Hardly ever happens with a car of that age.


The cost of repairs exceed the replacement value, you'd be a fool to keep it.


Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you've
never ever had a clue. What matters is how likely that is
to happen and how long the replacement will last for.


In theory at least, any natural gas vehicle SHOULD be just as



reliable as a gasoline powered vehicle is. The problem with a
natural gas vehicle will be availability of fuel. Owner
satisfaction plays a DIRECT role in the long-term reliability of
any vehicle. Simply stated, if you like your car, you will take
better care of it. I don't see how any owner of a natural gas
powered vehicle could be real satisfied with a car that has
limited infrastructure support. Most hybrid owners seem to be
ecstatically happy with their vehicles, for now. That will
change fast when the hybrids are old enough to need their
batteries replaced, though.


Long after they have already sold the car


Irrelevant to what the frugal do.

Evasion of real world facts noted


Pathetic excuse for bull**** noted.

You clearly wouldnt notice the real world if it bit you on your lard
arse.

And if we are



talking about a vehicle to drive for ~20 years or longer, then
multiple rounds of battery replacements WILL be an issue for
hybrid owners. All things considered, gas (only) is the best
bet, right now (2005). -Dave

The average American does not keep their car anywhere near 20
years, so battery packs with a warranty of 100,000 miles is not
an issue. The U.S. Department of Transportation reports "Surveys
have shown that, on the average, a person trades in or sells a
car when it is only 4 1/2 years old with just 41,000 miles on it".


Irrelevant to what the frugal do.


Evasion of real world facts noted


Pathetic excuse for bull**** noted.

You clearly wouldnt notice the real world if it bit you on your lard
arse.


Good bye Rod


Usual response of the terminal prat when
its got done like a ****ing dinner, yet again.

Just another silly little kid putting its fingers in its ears,
closing its eyes and screaming 'nyah, nyah, cant hear ya'

Doesnt work, little boy.

Rod Speed again=Plonk!

BRD wrote:

Ford Prefect wrote:

SMS wrote:


TonyB wrote:


and expect it to last the life of the vehicle.



Usual utterly mindless sales bull****. Note that they dont say
anything about what that 'life of the vehicle' involves time wise.


It's always amusing to see the "lasts the life of the vehicle"
statements by automakers. Yep, when the battery dies, the life of the
vehicle is over, and the battery lasted the life of the vehicle. As
Toyota stated regarding the RAV 4 EV, "The cost to replace the
battery is more than the value of the vehicle." We've seen similar
idiotic statements from automakers regarding other components, i.e.
Saturn timing chains, which, when they break, usually mark the end
of the vehicle ('see, we told you that the timing chain would last
the life of the vehicle!').

With a hybrid, you really have to be measuring fuel economy over the
long term to know when the battery capacity has diminished to the
point where it's no longer contributing to the fuel economy.

In regards to the Rav 4 EV battery issue it was not that the batteries
were worn out, but that the government mandated they had to be
replaced when they could only reach 80% of their former capacity.


Another lie.


That would be like forcing people to replace the engines in their conventional
cars when gas mileage decreased 20% due to wear and tear etc.


Pity its another lie.

In article ,
Logan Shaw wrote:

OK, since you know all routes longer than 200 miles (the range of a Honda
natural gas vehicle) have a natural gas station somewhere along the way,
where would I stop for natural gas on a trip from San Antonio, TX to
El Paso, TX?

There are exactly two CNG facilities near me. An Amoco-nee-BP which
installed it at the specific explicit request of my employer and the
gas company (HQ'd across the street from the pumps) (amoco labs was a
mile down the road, too) and my employer who eventually installed a tank
and nozzle after the DOE made them. We also pump E-85 (talk about bad
mileage!). Number of CNG passenger vehicles around here... less than
50.

I don't doubt CNG "can" work, but in its current state it is a pain in
the ass to use, doesn't give a lot of range due to volumetric storage
constraints, and will require yet another major capital investement in
tank and pumping infrastructure. Consumers will _not_ like it, says i,
who have used it many times, unless the fill tech in improved
significantly.

don't get me started on the corn squeezings. er, um E-85.

..max

Brad wrote:

Ford Prefect wrote:

Matthew Beasley wrote:


"(PeteCresswell)" wrote in message
...


Per Dave C.:


How many low-end cars last 10 years/150,000 miles?



My daily commuter is a '96 metro with 188k miles. Beyond the normal
service, the only thing I have replaced has been a timing belt
(might be consider normal service, I caught it before it broke),
idle control motor (from a junkyard), broken turn signal light (hit
a dog), and a wiper bushing. It used to get 42 mpg, but now I get
about 38. I am ready to replace it at any time, but as long as it keeps going
without expensive maintenance, I will keep using it. I have my eye
on the all wheel drive Subaru to replace it because they do pretty
dang good in the occasional snow we get and still have good mileage.


The best long term mileage I've received in a Japanese car was with a
Nissan Sentra with a five speed automatic, it died at 156,000 miles.


You keep killing cars ? Your problem.


The funny thing is when I picked up some interior trim parts at the
wreckers (when the poor dear thing had 105,000 on her) every one of
the Sentras they had in there had between 151,000- 158,000 miles on
it. I kept a close watch on the car after it hit 150,000, sure it was
going to die on me any day ;~


Pathetic, really.



What's really pathetic is you, "Rod Speed" changing your nym several
times in the same thread because no one will no longer discuss anything
with you. You are plonked on all levels now, enjoy the silence ;~)