List of highest MPG *used* cars...
 

Wanting to buy a better gas mileage used car?

Use the following web page to find used cars with the highest gas mileage
going back to 1994.

Find the cars with the highest gas mileage, then look for those specific
models in the want ads, car lots, whatever...

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byMPG.htm

Bill wrote:
Wanting to buy a better gas mileage used car?

Use the following web page to find used cars with the highest gas mileage
going back to 1994.

Find the cars with the highest gas mileage, then look for those specific
models in the want ads, car lots, whatever...

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byMPG.htm


yeah. neat. to break it down... if you cant get (or dont want) a VW
diesel, or a hybrid, the geo metro is the cheapest choice, followed by a
civic hatch.

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.

I really don't care how high the price of gasoline
goes. Well, if it gets up to $6/gal maybe.


Bill wrote:
Wanting to buy a better gas mileage used car?

Use the following web page to find used cars with the highest gas mileage
going back to 1994.

Find the cars with the highest gas mileage, then look for those specific
models in the want ads, car lots, whatever...

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byMPG.htm

yeah. neat. to break it down... if you cant get (or dont want) a VW
diesel, or a hybrid, the geo metro is the cheapest choice, followed by a
civic hatch

Actually, both of those are a lot more expensive than what you are currently
driving, unless what you are currently driving is financed. The addition of
a car payment (plus increased insurance, if you are required to carry full
coverage again because your new car is financed) will more than wipe out any
potential savings you'd see at the fuel pump.

Generally speaking, you are better off to keep your current car, if it is
paid for. -Dave

Dave C. wrote:
yeah. neat. to break it down... if you cant get (or dont want) a VW
diesel, or a hybrid, the geo metro is the cheapest choice, followed by a
civic hatch

Actually, both of those are a lot more expensive than what you are currently
driving, unless what you are currently driving is financed. The addition of
a car payment (plus increased insurance, if you are required to carry full
coverage again because your new car is financed) will more than wipe out any
potential savings you'd see at the fuel pump.

This is true for a limited period. Let's say it takes you 5 years to
pay off that used car.

But what happens after the 5 years? After 5 years, the payments go away
but the improved fuel efficiency remains. Then it actually is cheaper
each month. Depending on the additional cost of the fuel efficient car,
it might eventually pay off.

For example, say your current car gets 15 mpg and you want to upgrade to
a car that gets 30 mpg, and it'll cost you $10000 to upgrade. Also,
let's say gas is $3/gallon and you drive 15,000 miles a year. Each
year, the 30 mpg car will use $1500 of fuel, and the 15 mpg car will
use $3000 of fuel. So, you save $1500/year in fuel.

Now, if you pay 6% interest on a loan for $10,000, the monthly payment
would be $193.33, and you're going to make $2320 of payments per year.
So, for the first 5 years, it costs you $820/year extra, for a total
of $4100 extra.

But in the 6th year, you save $1500. In the 7th year, you save another
$1500. Near the end of 8th year, you break even. In the 9th year, you
come out ahead.

The situation is different if it costs you only $5000 to upgrade from
a 15 mpg car to a 30 mpg car. If you get a 5 year loan on that at 6%,
then your monthly payment is $96.66, and you pay $1160/yr in payments.
But if you drive that 15,000 miles a year, you save $1500/yr in gas.
So, you come out ahead the very first month!

And this really is a plausible scenario. I know a few people with
older big American cars (and vans) with V8 engines that get 15mpg,
and their car is worth something like $1000. If they could replace
it with a $6000 car that gets 30mpg, it only costs them $5000 to
upgrade, and it really is worth it if they drive a lot.

So basically, it might be worth it or it might not. It all depends on:

1. the difference in value between your current car and a more
fuel-efficient one (which equates to how much it costs to upgrade).
2. the difference in mileage between the car you have now and a
more fuel-efficient one.
3. how much you drive.

Well, it also depends on the price of gas, but that's harder to predict
and way harder to control... :-)

- Logan

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.

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
That works for me. '98 Burb with 120k that gets about 14 mpg. Sale value
plummeting towards zero, but it probably has another 100k in it.

kbb.com (Kelley Blue Book) says a 1998 Suburban in good condition with
120k miles is worth $5630 (private party value).

I burn about 1,000 gallons of gas per year.

Absolute minimum cost for a new car: $15,000 - probably a good bit more - but
$15,000 for round numbers...

Let's say the new car gets an honest 28 mpg. That means that at $3.00 per
gallon, I save $1,500 per year.

$15,000.... $1,500 per year.... That's a 10-year payoff absolute minimum -
unless gas goes *really* out of sight... OTOH, any new car is going to cost more
than $15,000 .....

Yes, any new car is going to cost a bunch, but if you replace your
used vehicle with a different used vehicle, it shouldn't cost that
much to switch.

Again according to kbb.com, a 2000 Honda Civic DX Hatchback with 75,000
miles goes for $6650. edmunds.com says this car gets 28 mpg city and
35 mpg highway.

So, for a cost of $1020, you should be able to sell that Suburban and
change to a car that gets twice the gas mileage, is newer, and has lower
mileage on it. And that will save you $1500 a year if you continue
to drive the same amount and gas stays at $3/gallon. (This is not
counting stuff that's cheaper for the Civic -- compare the price of
a new set of tires for a Suburban with the price for a new set of
tires for a Civic!)

And yes, you are trading a big vehicle with lots of room for a compact
car. But that's what increases gas mileage the most: decreasing the
size of the engine and making the car lighter.

Now, to take things a step further, let's say that the Civic won't
meet your needs 20% of the time, because sometimes you need to haul
around big stuff or lots of people. Even if you bought a Civic and
drove it 80% of the time (and drove your Suburban the other 20%),
you'd still save $1200/year in fuel costs. In 5.5 years, the fuel
savings would have paid for the car, AND you'd also own a car that's
worth at least a couple thousand bucks. Yes, there are extra costs
(like registration) for having two cars, but you would probably
still come out ahead financially.

- Logan

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.

Dave C. wrote:
Generally speaking, you are better off to keep your current car, if it is
paid for. -Dave

yes, generally speaking. if mine were to get totalled tomorrow, i might
look into a used geo metro with low miles.

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
How many low-end cars last 10 years/150,000 miles?

with regular oil changes, a civic or corolla should do that easily.

Per Dave C.:
Actually, both of those are a lot more expensive than what you are currently
driving, unless what you are currently driving is financed. The addition of
a car payment (plus increased insurance, if you are required to carry full
coverage again because your new car is financed) will more than wipe out any
potential savings you'd see at the fuel pump.

Generally speaking, you are better off to keep your current car, if it is
paid for. -Dave


That works for me. '98 Burb with 120k that gets about 14 mpg. Sale value
plummeting towards zero, but it probably has another 100k in it.

I burn about 1,000 gallons of gas per year.

Absolute minimum cost for a new car: $15,000 - probably a good bit more - but
$15,000 for round numbers...

Let's say the new car gets an honest 28 mpg. That means that at $3.00 per
gallon, I save $1,500 per year.

$15,000.... $1,500 per year.... That's a 10-year payoff absolute minimum -
unless gas goes *really* out of sight... OTOH, any new car is going to cost more
than $15,000 .....

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

I think I'll stick with I have - or maybe buy a much newer/lower mileage 'burb
for next to nothing if/when the prices bottom out....
--
PeteCresswell

I'm very happy with my 1997 corolla (1.6L, 5spd). I get 33mpg mixed
city-highway, and 45mgp on extended highway trips.

"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.

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.


Moi aussi! (Pardon my French.)
I have always gotten higher than EPA numbers but then I have a light
foot on the gas and I have a tendency to coast when I know I'm likely
to need to stop for that light up ahead (which may explain why Ed over
at the garage can't figure out how my brakes last so long). Contrast
that with three different cars I saw and heard yesterday while riding
my pedal-powered-cycle -- all of them had to pull out onto the main
road from the side street and floor it because they were on a straight
stretch of road with no traffic on it at all.


--
"It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything.
I am strongly in favor of common sense, common honesty, and common decency.
This makes me forever ineligible for public office." - H. L. Mencken

In my city the high MPG cars dont start have
siginficant depreciation (10%) until their
3rd-4th year now.
I found that out when looking around in 2003 and 2004.
Even more so in the current environment.
So I decided it was more "frugal" to go new and
avoid uncertain repair bills.
Tax and insurance are higher on new vehicles.

(PeteCresswell) wrote:

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

Depends on what you mean by low end. A Honda Civic or Toyota Corolla
will easily go that long with proper maintenance. The newer super-low
end cars like Kia, Hyundai, Suzuki, etc, will not have much of a problem
either, though with more repairs.

That works for me. '98 Burb with 120k that gets about 14 mpg. Sale
value
plummeting towards zero, but it probably has another 100k in it.

I burn about 1,000 gallons of gas per year.

Absolute minimum cost for a new car: $15,000 - probably a good bit more -
but
$15,000 for round numbers...

Let's say the new car gets an honest 28 mpg. That means that at $3.00
per
gallon, I save $1,500 per year.

$15,000.... $1,500 per year.... That's a 10-year payoff absolute minimum -
unless gas goes *really* out of sight... OTOH, any new car is going to
cost more
than $15,000 .....

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


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). Heck, even the
cheapie Hyundais/Kias will do 20 years / 300K if maintained properly. But
your best bet for a car that will last a long time would be any gasoline
(only) powered non-Mitsubishi Japanese brand, at the moment. Think Toyota
or Honda or Suzuki, for example. -Dave

kbb.com (Kelley Blue Book) says a 1998 Suburban in good condition with
120k miles is worth $5630 (private party value).


Yes, any new car is going to cost a bunch, but if you replace your
used vehicle with a different used vehicle, it shouldn't cost that
much to switch.

Again according to kbb.com, a 2000 Honda Civic DX Hatchback with 75,000
miles goes for $6650. edmunds.com says this car gets 28 mpg city and
35 mpg highway.



You are forgetting a couple of things. Any large SUV like a suburban is
extremely difficult to sell, right now. Forget about blue book value. If
you really want to get rid of it right now, cut that value in half or
better. Also, good luck finding a good quality used Civic for anywhere near
as cheap as blue book. Hell, I've seen TWO YEAR OLD Hondas sitting on
dealer lots for prices GREATER than MSRP, BRAND NEW. Yes, I mean that some
dealers actually expect premium brand new pricing on USED vehicles. For
example, 2006 model, $30K. Identical 2004 model, $32K. -Dave

"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).

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).

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.

So of course there are going to be people who say (for example) "But my
Dodge lasted 30 years!!!". Yes, it happens. That does not mean that it's
smart to (for example) buy a Dodge if you want a vehicle to last 30 years,
though. -Dave

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Dave C.:

Actually, both of those are a lot more expensive than what you are currently
driving, unless what you are currently driving is financed. The addition of
a car payment (plus increased insurance, if you are required to carry full
coverage again because your new car is financed) will more than wipe out any
potential savings you'd see at the fuel pump.

Generally speaking, you are better off to keep your current car, if it is
paid for. -Dave



That works for me. '98 Burb with 120k that gets about 14 mpg. Sale value
plummeting towards zero, but it probably has another 100k in it.

I burn about 1,000 gallons of gas per year.

Absolute minimum cost for a new car: $15,000 - probably a good bit more - but
$15,000 for round numbers...

Not really. There are many new cars available for $12K, and a few for
less than $10K. These are street prices, not MSRP prices, for second and
third tier manufacturers like Kia, Hyundai, Suzuki, Mazda, etc.

Not really. There are many new cars available for $12K, and a few for less
than $10K. These are street prices, not MSRP prices, for second and third
tier manufacturers like Kia, Hyundai, Suzuki, Mazda, etc.

Suzuki is not third tier, and the cheapest street price for a new Suzuki is
substantially above $12K. HOWEVER, Suzuki no longer offers fuel-efficient
vehicles (in the U.S. anyway, though they have lots of fuel-efficient
vehicles for sale outside the U.S. still), like they did even a few years
ago. Suzuki seems to be targetting more upscale customers now, at least in
the U.S. Even their lower-end models which are aimed to compete with the
Civics and Corollas range from about the same price to more expensive, and
have lower MPG also.

So if you are looking for a cheap new car that will give you good fuel
economy, Suzuki fails to deliver on both counts. Suzuki does make some
damned nice vehicles, though, in terms of performance, value (relatively
speaking) and RELIABILITY. In fact, in Japan, Suzuki has a better rep.
(well earned, btw) for reliability than both Honda and Toyota.
(really!) -Dave

"(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.
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) 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. 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

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.

Oh bull****.

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.

More bull****.

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) 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.

More bull****.

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.

Gets sillier by the minute.

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.

In spades.

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.

All things considered, gas (only) is the best bet, right now (2005).

Bull**** with diesels and natural gas.

"TonyB" wrote in message
news:431deb43$0$14489$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-

Oh bull****.

More bull****.

More bull****.

Gets sillier by the minute.

In spades.

Bull**** with diesels and natural gas.

Very informative, TonyB. -Dave

Ted B. wrote:

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.
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.

A lot of people do not understand the reliability issue with hybrids,
since they are so new. Similarly, many people believe that since diesel
engines are so reliable on trucks, that the same extends to cars, but
this hasn't been the case in the few diesel passenger vehicles sold in
the U.S.. 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. Onc we have the same low
sulfer diesel fuel in the U.S., it will make diesel engines in cars more
practical.

All things considered, gas (only) is the best bet, right now (2005). -Dave

Probably for several more years as well.

Ted B. wrote
TonyB wrote in message
news:431deb43$0$14489$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-

Oh bull****.

More bull****.

More bull****.

Gets sillier by the minute.

In spades.

Bull**** with diesels and natural gas.

Very informative, TonyB. -Dave

Even you should be able to bull**** your way out of
your predicament better than that pathetic effort.

SMS wrote
Ted B. wrote

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. 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.

A lot of people do not understand the reliability issue with hybrids,
since they are so new. Similarly, many people believe that since
diesel engines are so reliable on trucks, that the same extends to
cars, but this hasn't been the case in the few diesel passenger
vehicles sold in the U.S..

Lie. They've been around since the 60s and are very reliable.

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.

Irrelevant to how RELIABLE they are.

Once we have the same low sulfer diesel fuel in the U.S., it will make diesel
engines in cars more practical.

Nope, just more AVAILABLE, a different matter entirely.

All things considered, gas (only) is the best bet, right now (2005).

Probably for several more years as well.

Nope, particularly with diesel and natural gas powered cars.

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

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

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".

Per Ted B.:
your best bet for a car that will last a long time would be any gasoline
(only)

Why only gas-powered?
--
PeteCresswell

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."

Andy

Per Ted B.:
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.

I may try to nurse my Chevy 'burb to 250k.... but I didn't get it fully debugged
until somewhere over 75k. Bought it new. First (and only?) new car I've every
owned. It's stranded me more times than all of my beaters put together over a
period of about 40 years.

It has at least one design problem: the valve body on it's 4L60 transmission;
that has been known for years, but never been remedied by GM. Major attitude
problem there IMHO. If I ever hear GM management whining about competition from
abroad, they'll get no sympathy from me.
--
PeteCresswell

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
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?

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).

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.

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.

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.

Andy wrote
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?

What is seen with laptops which use
their batterys much less aggressively.

Do you actually know anything about this,

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.

so the balls in your court to provide some evidence
that hybrid's have battery replacement issues.

Not when there aint a single rechargeable battery technology
that doesnt see the battery needing to be replaced.

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

Usual sales bull****. Time will tell on how accurate it is in practice.

"We have lab data showing the equivalent
of 180,000 miles with no deterioration

Bet that is a lie given that its never been seen with a single rechargeable
battery technology yet and part of the reason they binned the RAV4-EV
was because of the deterioration in its batteries, as they admit themselves.
http://www.toyota.com/html/shop/vehi...ome/index.html

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.

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.

It'd be a hell of a lot more surprising if it DIDNT improve.

This is true of price as well.

Ditto in spades.

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.

Pity about the RAV4-EV.

Since the car went on sale in 2000, Toyota has
not replaced a single battery for wear and tear."

Doesnt say anything useful about lasting ~ 20 years without replacement.

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.
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. 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) then it was on to the next one.


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


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

"rick++" wrote in message
ups.com...
In my city the high MPG cars dont start have
siginficant depreciation (10%) until their
3rd-4th year now.
I found that out when looking around in 2003 and 2004.
Even more so in the current environment.
So I decided it was more "frugal" to go new and
avoid uncertain repair bills.
Tax and insurance are higher on new vehicles.

Shortly it will be essential that any car, and especially the late model
high mpg models that are in demand, be checked to make sure they haven't
been yanked out of the Gulf Coast flood waters, dried out a bit and then
shipped to other parts of the country to be sold. Going to be lots of those
available.

TKM

In article ,
"TKM" wrote:

Shortly it will be essential that any car, and especially the late model
high mpg models that are in demand, be checked to make sure they haven't
been yanked out of the Gulf Coast flood waters, dried out a bit and then
shipped to other parts of the country to be sold. Going to be lots of those
available.

All right! an H2O!!

..max

Ford Prefect wrote:

Very few people, even frugal ones keeps cars longer than 10 years.
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. 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) then it was on to the next one.

Keeping cars for more than ten years is very common in California, where
there is not much of a rust issue. And we're not talking just poor
people with junkers, or rich people with European luxury cars. Plenty of
10 year old Integras, Corollas, Camrys, Accords, Civics, Jettas, etc.
Fairly rare to see a 10 year old American nameplate car on the road.

These cars are on the road because they don't need expensive repairs to
keep them in working order.

In article ws.net,
Ted B. wrote:
So if you are looking for a cheap new car that will give you good fuel
economy, Suzuki fails to deliver on both counts. Suzuki does make some
damned nice vehicles, though, in terms of performance, value (relatively
speaking) and RELIABILITY.

But note that some "Suzuki" cars sold in the US are rebadged Daewoos.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.