Searching \ for '[OT]: Gas & taxes (was Online electronics store)' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=gas+taxes+was+online
Search entire site for: 'Gas & taxes (was Online electronics store)'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT]: Gas & taxes (was Online electronics store)'
2002\08\23@095019 by Dale Botkin

flavicon
face
On Fri, 23 Aug 2002, Dominic Stratten wrote:

> Rip off eh and we pay the equivalent of over $1 per litre for petrol !!!
> (0.73 ukp)

I sometimes wish we did too - maybe then not so many people would be
driving massive 4WD trucks and "sport utility vehicles" everywhere, most
of which never see anything but warm garages and smooth pavement.

> I just wish I could convert the car to run on hot air - our 4 year old son
> has far too much of it.

My in-laws would drive for free, forever. 8-)

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email spam_OUTlistservTakeThisOuTspammitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\08\25@095745 by Howard Winter

face
flavicon
picon face
On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 08:48:59 -0500, Dale Botkin wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Aug 2002, Dominic Stratten wrote:
>
> > Rip off eh and we pay the equivalent of over $1 per litre for petrol !!!
> > (0.73 ukp)
>
> I sometimes wish we did too - maybe then not so many people would be
> driving massive 4WD trucks and "sport utility vehicles" everywhere, most
> of which never see anything but warm garages and smooth pavement.

They're starting to appear here (Britain) too, although they are the smaller models because otherwise there
wouldn't be anywhere to park them!

But anyway, surely four-wheel-drive is vital for the weekly run to the supermarket?  :-)

There was an amazing interview shown here last week involving a Washington DC lobbyist for the "right to drive
huge gas-guzzlers" campaign, who was adamant that lighter cars are inherently more dangerous in an accident,
and even went as far as to say that with a car with 4 people in it versus the same car with 2 people, the
2-people would be injured more because their car was lighter... "Ya canna' change the laws of physics,
Captain!"  - unless you're a politician, apparently!

> > I just wish I could convert the car to run on hot air - our 4 year old son
> > has far too much of it.
>
> My in-laws would drive for free, forever. 8-)

A pipeline to the Houses of Parliament would be a really good source of free energy!  :-)

Cheers,

Howard Winter
St.Albans, England

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2002\08\25@165049 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> There was an amazing interview shown here last week involving
a Washington DC lobbyist for the "right to drive
huge gas-guzzlers" campaign, who was adamant that lighter cars are
inherently more dangerous in an accident, and even went as far as to say
that with a car with 4 people in it versus the same car with 2 people, the
2-people would be injured more because their car was lighter...

"Ya canna' change the laws of physics, Captain!"  - unless you're a
politician, apparently!
>>

The laws of Physics are slightly on his side in the altter case,
unfortunately. While the momentum change for both "vehicle systems" is
liable to be about the same the VELOCITY PROFILE for each vehicle will be
different. Take it to its extreme case and then look at the 2 and 4 person
case. A large heavily truck travelling at high speed impacting a small car
travelling at low speed will only slow slightly whereas the car will
suddenly assume a high velocoity in the reverse direction. The momentum
change for both will be the same. A person in each vehicle will have their
personal momentum (which is what concerns them) altered quite differently in
each case. The occupants' personal change in velocity is what matters to
them and their relative vehiclemass will have a bearing on this.

Taking the 2 person / 4 person case, the vehicle with the greatest MV treats
its passengers best *all other things being equal*. The important point to
note is all other things are not equal. Large vehicles are generally
designed to be stiffer and have less crumple zone protection. A 4Wd vehicle
will generally not 'fold up" in an accident the same way that a car designed
to do so will do so. The subsequent difference in peak acceleration forces
can have a significant effect on outcomes - which is why crumple zones
exist.


       RM












>
> > > I just wish I could convert the car to run on hot air - our 4 year old
son
> > > has far too much of it.
> >
> > My in-laws would drive for free, forever. 8-)
>
> A pipeline to the Houses of Parliament would be a really good source of
free energy!  :-)
{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2002\08\25@170630 by Dale Botkin

flavicon
face
On Sun, 25 Aug 2002, Howard Winter wrote:

> But anyway, surely four-wheel-drive is vital for the weekly run to the
> supermarket?  :-)

Oh yeah.  Definitely.  And if you have more than one kid, of course, you
HAVE to have seven passenger seating with the LCD entertainment center and
video games.  *sigh*  We had a minivan for quite some time, but then we
have five kids, too.

Of course some us remember that it was indeed possible to drive before
front wheel drive, 4WD, ABS, traction control and all that became more or
less standard features.  My current vehicle is a rear-drive, manual
transmission car with no ABS, traction control, no extra weight in the
trunk, no nuthin'.  In the summer it's also my race car (it's a '98 V6
Mustang).  I live in Nebraska, where we get our share of snow and ice in
the winter.  In four winters driving it I've never once missed work (or
even been late), been stuck or had an accident because of road conditions.
I can pass four-wheelers as they spin all their tires trying to get up a
hill on packed snow.  How does one work this sort of magic??  Erm - we
used to call them (say it with me now)...  SNOW TIRES.  Simply amazing.
They're not even studded and I don't own a set of chains, don't need 'em.

But hey, I understand that not everyone can be bothered to learn such a
complicated, taxing task as DRIVING.  8-P

Dale

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2002\08\25@173337 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> the winter.  In four winters driving it I've never once missed work (or
> even been late), been stuck or had an accident because of road conditions.
> I can pass four-wheelers as they spin all their tires trying to get up a
> hill on packed snow.  How does one work this sort of magic??  Erm - we
> used to call them (say it with me now)...  SNOW TIRES.  Simply amazing.
> They're not even studded and I don't own a set of chains, don't need 'em.

       Hehe, very true Dale. This past winter was quite good for snow fall here in
Toronto, Canada, and there were quite a few days where there was enough snow
to cause problems. I drive an 88 Olds Delta 88, definately not an "off road"
type car, but with my snow tires (Michelin Artic Alpines) I didn't have ONE
problem. Sure I slid a bit, but that's to be expected. I think the biggest
thing is people think "I have a 4wd, I am invincible", they completely
overdrive the road and get into trouble. It's when they're in the ditch they
realize how useless 4WD can be when none of your tires have grip.

The WORST day, every year, for this sort of thing is the first snow fall, it
seems like it takes a few days for people to "remember" that driving in the
winter is different from the summer... so be it, I for one LOVE driving in
the snow, it is quite an experience. TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2002\08\25@191238 by Jinx

face picon face
> designed to be stiffer and have less crumple zone protection. A 4Wd
> vehicle will generally not 'fold up" in an accident the same way that a
> car designed to do so will do so. The subsequent difference in peak
> acceleration forces can have a significant effect on outcomes - which
> is why crumple zones exist

The big concern is that large 4WD off-roaders have a higher impact
zone than "normal" cars. So if you're in a normal family car and get hit
by a large 4WDOR , the chances are that you will come off 2nd best.
The 4WDOR will not meet yours bumper-to-bumper as its are much
higher, but could end up through the windows or riding right over you.
A study last year by the AAA should how badly cars on the receiving
end of attention from 4WDORs fared, and particularly so if those
4WDORs had bull bars. In a collision these are just battering rams.
As a cyclist my natural instinct is to fear them more than normal traffic,
they're just so big and stinky diesely, but after having riden in a few I
now appreciate the better field of view you get in one. Perhaps in that
regard they're safer

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2002\08\25@192731 by Jim

flavicon
face
  "The big concern is that large 4WD off-roaders"

Not many of those in a BIG city. The biggest hazard
in the BIG city is the "Grade-A, still-breathing Idiot".

Comes in all age groups and exhibits his or her traits
unabashedly and with ultimate disregard for both the
civil and the physical laws ...

RF Jim

   "Our ability to manufacture fraud has exceeded
    our  ability to detect it."

    - Al Pacino as Viktor Taransky in the movie 'Simone'


{Original Message removed}

2002\08\25@193817 by Dale Botkin

flavicon
face
On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Jinx wrote:

> but after having riden in a few I now appreciate the better field of
> view you get in one. Perhaps in that regard they're safer

Dunno, around here that better field of view seems to get used mainly for
territory expansion and target acquisition.

Dale
---
"You can't let some hundred-pound soccer mom kick your ass!  For
the rest of your life you'll flich whenever you hear a Range Rover."
               --Unknown

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2002\08\25@194022 by Dale Botkin

flavicon
face
On Sun, 25 Aug 2002, Jim wrote:

>    "The big concern is that large 4WD off-roaders"
>
> Not many of those in a BIG city.

Dunno, when I last visited NYC it seemed almost every single person I met
who drove a vehicle had an Explorer or Suburban.  Or, God help us, a
Navigator.  Smaller vehicles seemed to all be taxis or "black cars".

Dale

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2002\08\25@201038 by Jim

flavicon
face
 "Dunno, when I last visited NYC it seemed almost
  every single person I met who drove a vehicle
  had an Explorer or Suburban."

These are *not* "large 4WD off-roaders"! Cream puffs
with an extra 1000 pounds or so, sure!

I think Jinx was referring to the monster trucks
that testosterone-deficient red-necks drive!

"Large 4WD off-roaders" - LOL!

Besides, which one of you *drives* your own car
around in NYC?

RF Jim




   "Our ability to manufacture fraud has exceeded
    our  ability to detect it."

    - Al Pacino as Viktor Taransky in the movie 'Simone'

{Original Message removed}

2002\08\25@220953 by Pic Dude

flavicon
face
Come on over to Texas some time.  In either of my cars,
I have a definite inferiority complex from all the other
SUV's hovering over my head.  What's worse is that both
cars are lower than average, and one's a fiberglass
convertible.  Yes, I'm a nervous individual! Ack!!!

Cheers,
-Neil.


> On Sun, 25 Aug 2002, Jim wrote:
>
> >    "The big concern is that large 4WD off-roaders"
> >
> > Not many of those in a BIG city.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


2002\08\25@222455 by Jim

flavicon
face
An SUV does NOT automatically a "4WD off-roader" make!

Lift kits!

Oversize tirs!

A ladder to board the thing!

Rifle in the gun rack behind the driver!

Winch kit!

Snatch-em strap as standard on-baord equipment (a
large rubber band that works WONDERS pulling buddies
out of the mud)!

CB radio!

Mud flaps!

Garter hanging from the mirror!

"Live Free or Die" bumper sticker!

NRA bumper sticker on other side of bumper!

(You guys have been living *in the city* for
waaaaaay too long!!)

The only "off-roader" I ever thought was worth a
flip was an old converted VW chassis my brother
had fixed up - he could make 10 times the speed
of a friends jeep owing to the spring in the
suspension -

- whereas the jeep (CJ-5) was comparatively so
stiff it would beat you to death if you tried
the same thingm (it's also the reason our military
has 'dune buggys' in their motor pool for special
ops)!

RF Jim

   "Our ability to manufacture fraud has exceeded
    our  ability to detect it."

    - Al Pacino as Viktor Taransky in the movie 'Simone'

{Original Message removed}

2002\08\26@024833 by Jinx

face picon face
> An SUV does NOT automatically a "4WD off-roader" make!

Nope. The sort of thing I'm thinking of is the Pajero. Although it's
designed, or rather marketed, as an off-roader I doubt whether
many people do take it there, and probably get seriously pissed
off when it gets dirty. Over the years I've seen various SUVs tested
for ruggedness and some of them could be considered as off-road
vehicles (eg Landrover derivatives, Landcruiser etc) but many of
them would fall apart and don't have the guts for that kind of terrain.
They're just the "in" thing these days, especially if you get a personalised
plate too. There are better SUV off-roaders used for farm work. I had
a trip along the motorway the other day in an early model Toyota utility.
Not very comfortable, but you felt like it was a vehicle you could drive
anywhere and throw around a bit

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\08\26@110352 by llile

flavicon
face
> SUV's Yada Yada Yada

OK, let's go the other way with this discussion.  My wife just got a new
job with a 35 mile commute highway each way daily.  Assuming she strikes
out on carpooling, she will be driving our van which gets 16MPG.

I would love to justify owning a Honda hybrid electric car.   Given the
parameters of approximately 3500 miles per year commuting, what is the
payback on gas guzzling versus gas-sipping vehicles?   Considering also
the "cool " factor of an electric vehicle  ;-)

Anybody know the gas mileage specs of the Honda hybrid electrics off the
top of their head?

--Lawrence

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\08\26@115625 by Tom Messenger

flavicon
face
At 10:03 AM 8/26/02 -0500, you wrote:
>> SUV's Yada Yada Yada
>Anybody know the gas mileage specs of the Honda hybrid electrics off the
>top of their head?
>
>--Lawrence

In the Free and Independent Nation of California, Honda quotes:
50mpg/US$20K for the Civic.

My 2 cents: Civics are great cars. At todays gas prices, it's somewhat of a
wash.  That is, the extra cost for a hybrid Civic vs your guzzler.  On the
other hand, if gas prices should go up substantially, the hybrid would look
better by far.  If, if, if.

One thing that's an unknown to me is how long the battery (nimh) will
really last.  They told me something like 3 to 4 years and $1800
replacement cost.  This could well eat into the gas savings. My feeling on
the battery is that battery technology is marching along at a very fast
pace.  By five years from now, it may well be possible to get a battery
replacement that will last much longer than the original one. But, as you
know, ymmv.

Tom M.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\08\26@115757 by Pic Dude

flavicon
face
Friend with a Honda hybrid sees 57-ish mpg.  Personally, if
you consider the size/shape/lack-of-performance/lack-of-utility
of the car, that's not so impressive compared to the Civic VX
which was touted to give somewhere near 50mph (IIRC).  And
this was with a non-hybrid regular gasoline engine.  Add the
aerodynamics and other non-powerplant features of the Insight
and I'm sure that 50mpg would go up noticeably.

Somehow I don't see electrics/hybrids as "cool".  Cool is...
muscle car with big 460 V8 blown/stroked to 514 and high enough
compression ratio to generate flames out the exhaust!  With fuel
consumption measured in gpm (gallons per mile).
Now that's cool!  :-)

Cheers,
-Neil.



> {Original Message removed}

2002\08\26@134412 by llile

flavicon
face
Pic Dude Wrote:
>Somehow I don't see electrics/hybrids as "cool".  Cool is...
muscle car with big 460 V8 blown/stroked to 514 and high enough
compression ratio to generate flames out the exhaust!  With fuel
consumption measured in gpm (gallons per mile).
Now that's cool!  :-)

OK, we are all entitled to our opinions and there is no accounting for
taste.  Assume for a moment that I think the Insight is cooler than a
muscle car, and therefore you can assume I am insane.

Let's see:  3500 Miles per year, at 16 MPG is 218 gallons of gas.  Gas is
cheap in Missouri, we are paying about $1.38 this week.  That's $301.

I can already see how this is going. With the Insight, at an optomistic
57MPG, we use 61 gallons to go the same distance.  That's $84, for a
savings of $217 and change.

Say we drove more, many people put 12,000 miles a year on a car.  The gas
hog uses 750 gallons, at a price of $1035.  The Insight uses  210 gallons,
costing $290.  It saves $745 over the klunker.  Not great.

Now payback is another thing - payback compared to what?  I paid $5000 for
my used van, not a really fair comparison.  There are few cars with such a
tight amount of space as the insight, so how would one compare?

Car payments on a $20,000 car might cost me $300 a month, which makes the
difference in operating costs pale in comparison.  Not looking good.  If
the battery is going to wear out in 4 years the Insight is really looking
bad.  Anybody got facts on this?

All I really need to get around town is a car that carries two people and
two sacks of groceries, and the Insight fills that niche nicely.  I have a
pickup for hauling big stuff, and a comfy van for traveling or hauling
hordes of kids.

Well, there is still the "cool" factor to consider.  Anybody seen a used
Insight lately?

--Lawrence

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\08\26@135621 by Brendan Moran

flavicon
face
{Quote hidden}

I don't like the Insight.  Honda bragged about how small their electric
motor was.  The only advantage that I can see to the Insight over the Toyota
Prius is that the Insight comes in standard.  I'd check the Prius's figures.

--Brendan

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\08\26@142920 by llile

flavicon
face
I wrote:

>Now payback is another thing - payback compared to what?  I paid $5000
for
my used van, not a really fair comparison.  There are few cars with such a
tight amount of space as the insight, so how would one compare?

>Car payments on a $20,000 car might cost me $300 a month, which makes the
difference in operating costs pale in comparison.  Not looking good.  If
the battery is going to wear out in 4 years the Insight is really looking
bad.  Anybody got facts on this?


A quick peruse of Ebay motors shows that a 2001 model Insight can be
bought for about $8800, whereas a similar  Civic goes for about $700 to
$1000 less, give or take.  Given a few hundred dollars difference, the
used Insight wins IMHO.  They seem to come with a 7 year warrantee on the
electric system, does that mean the batteries last at least 7 years???  My
experience with NiMh is pretty positive over NiCads, but that may not
translate to a car.

--Lawrence

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\08\26@144955 by Pic Dude

flavicon
face
The lower used price says something strong about resale
value ... or lack thereof.

To achieve high gas mileage, they use very high-end
components to get very accurate & efficient fuel control.
For example, the Insight uses wide-band O2 sensors, rather
than the regular O2 sensors most current EFI cars use.
However, when it's time to replace these, it costs >$600
a piece.

I'm sure I can get a regular Ford Mustang to give me higher
gas mileage with the more accurate wide-band O2 sensors.
Even more if the body were made with the same composite
materials, the wheel-wells covered, the car size shrunk
down and streamlined, etc.

My point here is that this is still not an
apples-to-apples comparison.  "Regular" combustion-engined
vehicles can gain a noticeable increase in fuel efficiency
using the similar technologies or level of technology that
the Insight uses, diminishing the apparent benefits of the
Insight.

Cheers,
-Neil.



> {Original Message removed}

2002\08\26@165507 by Jim

flavicon
face
 "I'm sure I can get a regular Ford Mustang
  to give me higher gas mileage [than a Honda
  Insight] with the more accurate wide-band
  O2 sensors.'

And I'll bet not.

Because 1) *you're* not incorporating regenerative braking
and recovering otherwise waste energy and 2) your power
plant's efficiency will be a lot less given any particular
cruise speed ... the Insight's electric motor *augments*
the gasoline engine when required to get up to
speed/climbing small hills ...

RF Jim


   "Our ability to manufacture fraud has exceeded
    our  ability to detect it."

    - Al Pacino as Viktor Taransky in the movie 'Simone'


{Original Message removed}

2002\08\26@175546 by Pic Dude

flavicon
face
Nope.  You're misquoting me... tch, tch, tch.

I meant "...higher gas mileage *than it currently
has*...".

That would be rather difficult to get a V8 to have
better gas mileage than the Insight.

Cheers,
-Neil.



> {Original Message removed}

2002\08\26@181702 by Dale Botkin

flavicon
face
On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Pic Dude wrote:

> That would be rather difficult to get a V8 to have
> better gas mileage than the Insight.

<nit> Actually, a "regular" Mustang has a 3.8 liter V6.  The GT, Cobra,
Bullitt and Mach1 have V8s. </nit>

There's a LOT of room for improvement, at least on the V6.  I currently
get around 20MPG in town, but I suspect with a few more modifications I
could probably get that to 25MPG.  Considering the cost, capacity,
performance and "cool factor" of a Mustang as compared to the Insight,
I'll take the 'Stang.

Now, if the Insight were less expensive, or less...  well, funky looking,
or got better than 50MPG, or all three, I might consider one.  If I had to
give up acceleration, throttle response and handling, though, I'd prefer
to go all electric.

Dale

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\08\26@182611 by Brendan Moran

flavicon
face
> Now, if the Insight were less expensive, or less...  well, funky looking,

Wow.  I sound like a stuck record.  Check out the Prius.  It looks like a
normalish Toyota.  No weird side panels or anything, just a normal Toyota
with a better engine design.

> or got better than 50MPG, or all three, I might consider one.  If I had to
> give up acceleration, throttle response and handling, though, I'd prefer
> to go all electric.

--Brendan

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\08\26@182822 by Mike Mansheim

flavicon
face
>> Anybody know the gas mileage specs of the Honda hybrid electrics off
>> the top of their head?

> 50mpg/US$20K for the Civic.

Honda has two hybrids now:  the 50 mpg Civic, which seats 4 (5 if small)
and looks "normal", and the Insight, which I've heard can approach
70 mpg, seats only 2, and looks "funky".
I suppose it's for aerodynamics, but it never looks good to me to cover
up half of the back wheel the way the Insight does.
I would be curious to know how often that battery pack will need to be
replaced - that will be a significant expense that your typical diy'er
probably won't be able to get around (unlike replacing your own engine,
for example).

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\08\26@183440 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Pic Dude wrote:
>
> > That would be rather difficult to get a V8 to have
> > better gas mileage than the Insight.
>
> <nit> Actually, a "regular" Mustang has a 3.8 liter V6.  The GT, Cobra,
> Bullitt and Mach1 have V8s. </nit>
>
> There's a LOT of room for improvement, at least on the V6.  I currently
> get around 20MPG in town, but I suspect with a few more modifications I
> could probably get that to 25MPG.  Considering the cost, capacity,
> performance and "cool factor" of a Mustang as compared to the Insight,
> I'll take the 'Stang.

       I drive a car based on GM's 3800 engine and on the highway I get around
7.6L/100km, that converts to about 31miles/US Gallon (around 37miles per UK
gallon), not bad. If it were a standard I'd get even better mileage. Of
course in the city it's worse (since I'm never in overdrive in the city).
Just proves that you don't need a 1L engine to get not to shabby mileage.
BTW these are ACTUAL MEASURED figures, not what the manufacturer hands out.
TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\08\26@183642 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> > Now, if the Insight were less expensive, or less...  well,
> funky looking,
>
> Wow.  I sound like a stuck record.  Check out the Prius.  It looks like a
> normalish Toyota.  No weird side panels or anything, just a normal Toyota
> with a better engine design.

       I'd have to agree, the Prius looks like a stinted Corolla, pretty good
considering it's impressive figures. About the only thing I couldn't stand
is the "gauges in the centre" concept. TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\08\26@183647 by Pic Dude

flavicon
face
> <nit> Actually, a "regular" Mustang has a 3.8 liter V6.  The GT, Cobra,
> Bullitt and Mach1 have V8s. </nit>

Any of that series of machines that does not have a V8 is not worthy
of being called a Mustang! :-) :-) :-)

Cheers,
-Neil

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\08\26@185131 by Brendan Moran

flavicon
face
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> My point here is that this is still not an
> apples-to-apples comparison.  "Regular" combustion-engined
> vehicles can gain a noticeable increase in fuel efficiency
> using the similar technologies or level of technology that
> the Insight uses, diminishing the apparent benefits of the
> Insight.

The point is that for an off-the-shelf car, the Insight *does*
incorporate those features, whereas a "regular" combustion-engined
vehicle *does not*.  If you're looking to have these features off the
shelf, it's the Prius, Insight, and their ilk that have them.

- --Brendan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>

iQA/AwUBPWqwjAVk8xtQuK+BEQLvzgCcC+k1rGjNmxBj71LvNGdrwIZo1XsAoKnt
BqexVg1C3rTXYPdHRviDkpgI
=VkBx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\08\26@185646 by Brendan Moran

flavicon
face
> > > Now, if the Insight were less expensive, or less...  well,
> > funky looking,
> >
> > Wow.  I sound like a stuck record.  Check out the Prius.  It looks like
a
> > normalish Toyota.  No weird side panels or anything, just a normal
Toyota
> > with a better engine design.
>
>         I'd have to agree, the Prius looks like a stinted Corolla, pretty
good
> considering it's impressive figures. About the only thing I couldn't stand
> is the "gauges in the centre" concept. TTYL

For you SUV lovers out there, take a trip to Cali and buy an electric SUV.
http://www.toyota.com/html/shop/vehicles/ravev/rav4ev_0_home/index.html


"In addition to generating zero emissions, the revolutionary 67-hp motor is
capable of approaching 78 mph, more than adequate for both street and
highway driving."

"Utilizing 24 high-capacity, nickel-metal hydride batteries, the RAV4 can
travel up to 126 miles on a single charge. For most of us, that's enough to
get us to work and back.*"

"*Actual range will vary depending on your driving habits."


Looks like people are finally begining to take eco-vehicles seriously.  Say
goodbye, aircar.

--Brendan

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\08\26@190937 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
{Quote hidden}

       I just don't see the point of that car. Sure it's electric, but where does
the power come from? In many areas in the states coal burning plants (some
natural gas). I don't see why this is so much better, they are just shifting
WHERE the pollution comes from. In countries that get all their power from
renewable resources (solar, hydro, wind, etc.) then I agree with this
technology, otherwise I just don't see the benefit. TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\08\26@192717 by Brendan Moran

flavicon
face
>         I just don't see the point of that car. Sure it's electric, but
where does
> the power come from? In many areas in the states coal burning plants (some
> natural gas). I don't see why this is so much better, they are just
shifting
> WHERE the pollution comes from. In countries that get all their power from
> renewable resources (solar, hydro, wind, etc.) then I agree with this
> technology, otherwise I just don't see the benefit. TTYL

That argument has several critical falacies, I think.  If the car itself
uses regenerative braking, and other energy conservation devices, then it is
valid on that point alone.  If you have a hybrid car, and a full electric
car, both with the same electrical conservation amenities, and whatever
power plant is supplying the charger is using the best energy efficiency
techniques, and neglecting any differences due to the design of the car,
then the net difference in terms of the environment should be nil.

The benefit I see is $4.00 for electricity vs something like 5x the price
for gas.

BTW, What contries are actively employing solar power?  I thought that it
hadn't really caught on, and was still in a primarily developmental stage.

--Brendan, who thinks that the top of every building in North America should
be covered in some form of solar collector.

PS what do you folks think of tidal power?

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\08\26@194805 by Andrew Warren

flavicon
face
Brendan Moran <.....PICLISTKILLspamspam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu> wrote:

> --Brendan, who thinks that the top of every building in North
> America should be covered in some form of solar collector.

Not a bad idea...

   SAN JOSE, CA, NOV. 14, 2001 -- Cypress Semiconductor (NYSE: CY),
   a global supplier of high-performance integrated circuits, today
   announced that it is deploying a large solar electric generation
   system at its new headquarters building in San Jose to offset
   expensive peak power purchases from the grid. The 335 kW solar
   rooftop array is being manufactured, designed and installed by
   PowerLight Corporation of Berkeley, California
   (http://www.powerlight.com). When completed, this system will be the
   largest photovoltaic (PV) system in the Silicon Valley,
   generating enough electricity to power more than 300 homes.

   "Investing in clean, reliable solar energy is consistent with
   Cypress’s track record of being pioneers in technology innovation
   and leaders in our community," said Cypress president and CEO
   T.J. Rodgers. "We see no reason why other Silicon Valley firms
   shouldn’t follow suit – this project was entirely justifiable on
   economic merits alone."

   "Silicon Valley is a natural leader in recognizing and
   implementing new solutions to California’s energy needs," noted
   PowerLight CEO Tom Dinwoodie. "As with the introduction of
   distributed computing, onsite distributed solar generation offers
   customers flexibility and increased control over their energy
   demand. Cypress’ new 335 kW solar system will help Cypress
   efficiently and reliably meet its energy needs – and provide
   excess generation back to the grid for a return."

   "Commercially-sized solar PV is a smart long-term investment,
   especially during tough economic times," added Rodgers. "On-site
   solar PV addresses our nation’s energy security and insulates us
   from future price volatility. Wider PV deployment will ensure all
   Americans a safe, reliable and stable energy supply, while
   reducing our dependence on foreign energy sources."

   The PowerGuard solar panels will reduce Cypress’ utility costs
   substantially over the next three decades, while extending the
   lifetime of the roof and providing added thermal insulation
   benefits to the building. PowerGuard is a patented, lightweight
   PV roofing assembly that delivers clean solar electricity to the
   building while protecting the roof from damaging effects of
   weather and UV radiation. The project is being underwritten in
   part by rebates from the California Energy Commission’s Emerging
   Renewables Buydown program, and incentives from California PUC.

-Andy

=== Andrew Warren -- aiwspamKILLspamcypress.com
=== Principal Design Engineer
=== Cypress Semiconductor Corporation
===
=== Opinions expressed above do not
=== necessarily represent those of
=== Cypress Semiconductor Corporation

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\08\26@195633 by Jim Main

flavicon
face
I recently read that the energy required to produce a solar cell was more
than the cell would ever actually produce within it's lifetime.

hmmm


{Original Message removed}

2002\08\26@200710 by Spehro Pefhany

picon face
At 12:57 AM 8/27/02 +0100, you wrote:
>I recently read that the energy required to produce a solar cell was more
>than the cell would ever actually produce within it's lifetime.

That's nothing that can't be fixed by sufficient government rebates.

;-)

Best regards,

Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..."            "The Journey is the reward"
.....speffKILLspamspam.....interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com
9/11 United we Stand

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\08\26@200914 by Brendan Moran

flavicon
face
>     while
>     reducing our dependence on foreign energy sources."

Read: Can't expect B.C. Hydro to keep giving us energy if we don't pay them
for it.

--Brendan

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\08\26@205609 by Jim

flavicon
face
    "If it were a standard I'd get even better
     mileage. Of course in the city it's worse
     (since I'm never in overdrive in the city)."


We've come a LONG ways from the two-speed GM
"Powerglide" (Slush-o-matic!) that sat behind
the 283 CID V8 power plant that was in my Dad's
1964 Chevy Belair.

Today's lock-up torque converters in today's
automatic tranmissions aren't as inefficient
as they once were, and can, against *most*
drivers probably out-do a manual transmission
mileage wise.

Today it's no longer just a case of the mechanical
levers and linkages or a fluid 'computer' that
determines which gear is selected - there's a
micro in the loop ...

RF Jim


{Original Message removed}

2002\08\26@210017 by Jim

flavicon
face
  "The project is being underwritten in part by rebates
   from the California Energy Commission's Emerging
   Renewables Buydown program, and incentives from
   California PUC."

And about as close to realizing 'free energy' as we'll
ever get - gov't grants paid for by 'pinching' the rest
of us ... corporate welfare anyone?

RF Jim

   "Our ability to manufacture fraud has exceeded our
    ability to detect it."

    - Al Pacino as Viktor Taransky in the movie 'Simone'


{Original Message removed}

2002\08\26@210032 by Jim

flavicon
face
Even with that clarification - I'll bet not.

And *certainly* not if you expect to remain in
emissions compliance!

I once had a '78 Ford Pinto, 2.4 L engine and in
1980 or so I equipped it with a mileage computer
sold though Sears. This device included a bonafide
fuel-flow meter and an adaper that went in-line
with the speedometer.

I had purchased an assortment of jets from the
dealer and also installed an aftermarket intake
manifold from Offenhauser - it was a dual-plane
style that separate the two paths, primary and
secondary barrels, from the carb to the intake
port.

Did *wonders* for low-speed torque and cured
the usual tendency for this engine to stall
when letting the clutch out (otherwise some
'gas' was required - this was a 4-speed stick).

I played around some and couldn't do that much
to improve the gas mileage ... but that manifold
did wonders for the stalling I described!

RF Jim


{Original Message removed}

2002\08\26@211815 by Andrew Warren

flavicon
face
Jim Main <EraseMEPICLISTspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu> wrote:

> I recently read that the energy required to produce a solar cell was more
> than the cell would ever actually produce within it's lifetime.

   From the press release, Cypress's system will produce enough
   electricity to power 300 homes, with an expected lifetime of
   three decades.

   The system seems to be rated at 335kW, and these particular cells
   produce 10 watts/square foot, so we're talking about 33,500
   square feet of photovoltaic roofing tiles.  Each tile seems to
   cover about 8 square feet, so there are 4200 tiles on the roof.

   30 years' power for 300 homes    2+ years of a home's power
   ----------------------------- =  --------------------------
            4200 tiles                         tile

   Think the manufacture of one tile uses more energy than what's
   consumed by a house over a period of two years?  I don't know,
   but it seems unlikely.

   What you read was probably true for solar cells in pocket
   calculators, but I doubt that it holds for this sort of
   application.  If it did, these solar cells would always cost more
   than they'd save, so there wouldn't be much of a market for
   them.

   -Andy

=== Andrew Warren -- aiwspamspam_OUTcypress.com
=== Principal Design Engineer
=== Cypress Semiconductor Corporation
===
=== Opinions expressed above do not
=== necessarily represent those of
=== Cypress Semiconductor Corporation

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\08\26@220713 by Dale Botkin

flavicon
face
On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Pic Dude wrote:

> > <nit> Actually, a "regular" Mustang has a 3.8 liter V6.  The GT, Cobra,
> > Bullitt and Mach1 have V8s. </nit>
>
> Any of that series of machines that does not have a V8 is not worthy
> of being called a Mustang! :-) :-) :-)

Heh...  tell that to my taillights.  A few newer GTs have.  And of course
the original Mustangs were all 6-cylinders, so I guess it could be argued
either way.  I've owned 3, a 4-banger '77, a '74 351C and the '98.  The
'73 would go fastest, but I can still take esses at 45+ on my way to
work in the '98.

Dale
(did I mention it's not entirely stock...?)

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\08\26@223007 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> >         I just don't see the point of that car. Sure it's electric, but
> where does
> > the power come from? In many areas in the states coal burning
> plants (some
> > natural gas). I don't see why this is so much better, they are just
> shifting
> > WHERE the pollution comes from. In countries that get all their
> power from
> > renewable resources (solar, hydro, wind, etc.) then I agree with this
> > technology, otherwise I just don't see the benefit. TTYL
>
> That argument has several critical falacies, I think.  If the car itself
> uses regenerative braking, and other energy conservation devices,
> then it is
> valid on that point alone.  If you have a hybrid car, and a full electric
> car, both with the same electrical conservation amenities, and whatever
> power plant is supplying the charger is using the best energy efficiency
> techniques, and neglecting any differences due to the design of the car,
> then the net difference in terms of the environment should be nil.

       Well there are fallacies on the other end. The storage of electrical energy
is far from perfect. So, this is the chain: coal/natural gas burned, heat
water, spin turbine, make electricity, convert it to higher voltage,
transmit it along miles of cable, convert it to lower voltage, convert it to
lower voltage again, convert it a third time (maybe even a fourth time),
charge a battery, discharge a battery, spin a motor. Now, with ALL of that,
what do you think the total efficiency of that whole process is?
Regenerative braking only matters when you actually break (heavy city
traffic), it's effect is minimal for most highway travel, and even when it
has an effect it still goes through a generator, some convertor, and then
charge a battery. Plus, what about the energy used to manufacture the
batteries?

Please, don't get me wrong, I think the internal combustion engine is LONG
overdue for becoming obsolete. However, I just don't see electrical cars as
the "saviour" that some do, it simply moves the pollution somewhere else.
I'm not sure what the total efficiencies are for the whole internal
combustion engine method versus the electrical car method but I doubt it's
far apart. When comparing things like this one has to look at the WHOLE
picture, not just what you personally fill the car with.

> The benefit I see is $4.00 for electricity vs something like 5x the price
> for gas.

       Again, this is inaccurate. Supply vs. demand. If we all drove electric cars
the cost of electricity would rise, probably by quite a bit.

> BTW, What contries are actively employing solar power?  I thought that it
> hadn't really caught on, and was still in a primarily developmental stage.

       Personally I don't know of any. However there are countries that rely, on a
large part, on hydro and geothermal.

> --Brendan, who thinks that the top of every building in North
> America should
> be covered in some form of solar collector.

       I agree, localised power production is the way to go. TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\08\26@223222 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
> I recently read that the energy required to produce a solar cell was more
> than the cell would ever actually produce within it's lifetime.

       I read that somewhere too, anybody have a source? TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\08\26@223535 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
>      "If it were a standard I'd get even better
>       mileage. Of course in the city it's worse
>       (since I'm never in overdrive in the city)."
>
>
> We've come a LONG ways from the two-speed GM
> "Powerglide" (Slush-o-matic!) that sat behind
> the 283 CID V8 power plant that was in my Dad's
> 1964 Chevy Belair.

       Actually the car I drive isn't that new, an 88 Olds Delta 88.

> Today's lock-up torque converters in today's
> automatic tranmissions aren't as inefficient
> as they once were, and can, against *most*
> drivers probably out-do a manual transmission
> mileage wise.

       I'm not sure about that, in mine the torque converter only engages in third
gear above about 60 km/h, in city traffic it almost never locks.

> Today it's no longer just a case of the mechanical
> levers and linkages or a fluid 'computer' that
> determines which gear is selected - there's a
> micro in the loop ...

       Not in mine, while it does have an ECM it has nothing to do with gear
selection (although it is in charge of the torque convertor lock up). TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\08\26@225701 by Jim

flavicon
face
   "Not in mine,"

Of course not. And yours is not a *new* vehicle
either, Herb. (Neither are Ford model T's.)

Neither is my 1983 Euro-spec (graymarket) 500SEL
that will still take most of the cars discussed
so far today.

Imagine - a fuel injection system implemented using
purely mechanical means - how primitive! But that's
the way it's done in this 500SEL ... and it *also*
has an ECM for spark control *and* it's equipped with
an airbag (years before American cars) ...

Rf Jim



{Original Message removed}

2002\08\26@233634 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
>     "Not in mine,"
>
> Of course not. And yours is not a *new* vehicle
> either, Herb. (Neither are Ford model T's.)

       I never said it was new, I quote:

"Actually the car I drive isn't that new"

TTYL

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


2002\08\27@045347 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> I recently read that the energy required to produce a solar cell was more
> than the cell would ever actually produce within it's lifetime.

In a good location and a good cell per metre^2 that's about 1 kW x 6 hours
say x 10% x 365
= 220 odd kWH/year. Over a very optimistic 20 year lifetime that's around
$400 for a 20 watt panel which costs say $200. All figures and assumptions
are on the optimistic side. I'd guess that's in excess of the energy cost to
manufacture. In a bad location with a bad cell at a bad price I can believe
it.

Fortunately, solar panels are usually "about" being able to do something you
couldn't do otherwise so the energy cost to make them or the cost of power
made are not usually the limiting factors.



       RM

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\08\27@045355 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
>    "The project is being underwritten in part by rebates
>     from the California Energy Commission's Emerging
>     Renewables Buydown program, and incentives from
>     California PUC."
>
> And about as close to realizing 'free energy' as we'll
> ever get - gov't grants paid for by 'pinching' the rest
> of us ... corporate welfare anyone?

Presumably this is an attempt to get those responsible to pay the PERCEIVED
real costs of usage of IC engine vehicles. Such as smog / sickness / general
pollution / Global Warming :-) and their ilk


       RM

* - I say perceived as an (surely ineffective) advance shield against
protest :-)

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\08\27@104236 by llile

flavicon
face
Lee Sez:
>Peter has a Honda Insight.  In real usage, he gets about 65 MPG
on a 32-35 mile daily round-trip commute.

>Ned has a Toyota Prius.  He gets 37-39 MPG on the same 32-35
mile daily round-trip.  I commute with Ned.

Gadzooks, the Toyota Prius is way not worth it!  My old Toyota Corolla
from 1977 got as good a mileage as that. I saw 40MPH highway all the time,
and I could stuff it full of college guys and camping gear.  What is the
point?

-- Lawrence




Lee Jones <@spam@leeKILLspamspamfrumble.claremont.edu>
08/27/02 04:12 AM


       To:     KILLspamllileKILLspamspamSALTONUSA.COM
       cc:
       Subject:        Re: [OT]: Gas & taxes (was Online electronics store)


>> SUV's Yada Yada Yada

> My wife got a job with a 35 mile commute highway each way daily.

> I would love to justify owning a Honda hybrid electric car.
> Anybody know the gas mileage specs of the Honda hybrid electrics
> off the top of their head?

I work with two people who have hybrids.

Peter has a Honda Insight.  In real usage, he gets about 65 MPG
on a 32-35 mile daily round-trip commute.

Ned has a Toyota Prius.  He gets 37-39 MPG on the same 32-35
mile daily round-trip.  I commute with Ned.

> Considering also the "cool" factor of an electric vehicle  ;-)

Downside of the Honda Insight is a total payload capacity of
350 lbs.  It means I should not ride with Peter because our
combined weights are way over 350 lbs (I'm 6'2" and well over
250 lbs).  Two "standard" 170 lb adults with 2 purses are OK.

The Toyota Prius has a much more reasonable total payload.
We have put 4 (I think 5 once) in it for a short lunch run.
Worked OK.
                Lee Jones

P.S. I have a Suburban -- a 3/4 ton truck, not an SUV.

   SUV is a state of mind.  I don't wash it regularly.  I do
   haul concrete, 16' long lumber, pinballs, & video games.
   And I've been stuck in sand up to the axle (real bitch to
   get it out).  I claim justification to have a truck...

P.P.S.  I loved the heating element at 244 volts.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\08\27@104651 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> > Any of that series of machines that does not have a V8 is not worthy
> > of being called a Mustang! :-) :-) :-)


And all REAL Ferraris have 12 cylinders.
No less than Enzo Ferrari himself said that the Dino, with only 8, wasn't
real :-)

       RM

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\08\27@105058 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> > BTW, What contries are actively employing solar power?  I thought that
it
> > hadn't really caught on, and was still in a primarily developmental
stage.

For what it's worth (not much) EVERY form of energy we use is Solar (or at
least, stellar, as some has been routed via other stars than our own). For
starters one can include of Hydro, "Fossil" (Coal, Petroleum), Nuclear,
Wind, Wave, Trees, Biomass, Geothermal. I'm sure one could make a much
longer list.

In some cases the chain from star to you is much longer than in others.


       RM

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\08\27@111404 by Jim

flavicon
face
Lawrence:
           "I saw 40MPH highway all the time"

This I could believe.

"40 MPG" I would have to see your gas receipts and
mileage figures.

RF Jim


{Original Message removed}

2002\08\27@111807 by Jim

flavicon
face
"From each according to his ability, to each
according to his need."

Eh Russel?

(We are making GREAT progress on this 'front' are we not?)

RF Jim


   "Our ability to manufacture fraud has exceeded
    our  ability to detect it."

    - Al Pacino as Viktor Taransky in the movie 'Simone'



{Original Message removed}

2002\08\27@112328 by Dominic Stratten

flavicon
face
I had a 2 litre top of the range Granada Automatic (Biggest hatchback Ford
did in the UK) with cruise control and lots of weight etc and it had over
120,000 miles on the clock. I had to do a run to Devon (260 miles from
here). Including getting stuck on the M5 for the best part of an hour, I
still managed an average (at 56 mph) of 49mpg. I thought this was a bit of a
miracle but the handbook actually states that you can get 45mpg at a steady
56mph so maybe this wasnt too bad after all.

I'd be lucky to get 35mpg in my smaller 1.8 manual astra.

{Original Message removed}

2002\08\27@112818 by Spehro Pefhany

picon face
At 04:25 PM 8/27/02 +0100, you wrote:
>I had a 2 litre top of the range Granada Automatic (Biggest hatchback Ford
>did in the UK) with cruise control and lots of weight etc and it had over
>120,000 miles on the clock. I had to do a run to Devon (260 miles from
>here). Including getting stuck on the M5 for the best part of an hour, I
>still managed an average (at 56 mph) of 49mpg. I thought this was a bit of a
>miracle but the handbook actually states that you can get 45mpg at a steady
>56mph so maybe this wasnt too bad after all.

Don't forget that Imperial gallons are 20% bigger than US gallons.

Best regards,

Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..."            "The Journey is the reward"
RemoveMEspeffTakeThisOuTspaminterlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com
9/11 United we Stand

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\08\27@125044 by Brendan Moran

flavicon
face
> > > BTW, What contries are actively employing solar power?  I thought that
> it
> > > hadn't really caught on, and was still in a primarily developmental
> stage.
>
> For what it's worth (not much) EVERY form of energy we use is Solar (or at
> least, stellar, as some has been routed via other stars than our own). For
> starters one can include of Hydro, "Fossil" (Coal, Petroleum), Nuclear,
> Wind, Wave, Trees, Biomass, Geothermal. I'm sure one could make a much
> longer list.
>
> In some cases the chain from star to you is much longer than in others.

I sometimes wonder about calling geothermal solar.  After all, isn't the
heat in the core of the earth due primarily to the heat created by squishing
large quantities of matter together?  And has anyone done any predictions on
the long-term effects of geothermal power?  Heh... It might actually slow
down plate tectonics, and reduce earthquakes and volcanic erruptions in the
long run... (I know that geothermal is insignificant vs. the unimmaginable
quantity of heat stored in the earth, but someday it might be a problem if
we keep depending on it)

As to all this discussion of solar cells... Who ever said I meant solar
cells?  I said some form of solar collector.  That could be planes of
mirrors and a boiler, which, AFAIK is more efficient, and takes less energy
to build.

--Brendan
"Solar means uses the sun, not solar cell"

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\08\27@134355 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
Careful, a UK gallon is bigger then a US gallon, so if the 49mpg you state
is in UK gallons then in the US your mileage is actually 40.8 mpg, very
good, but not impossible.

This is why I prefer the litres/100km scale, there is no confusion with it.
TTYL

> {Original Message removed}

2002\08\27@143238 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
>As to all this discussion of solar cells... Who ever said I meant solar
>cells?  I said some form of solar collector.  That could be planes of
>mirrors and a boiler, which, AFAIK is more efficient, and takes less energy
>to build.

Most southern countries use solar for warm water and pool heating as a
standard. Water heaters are mounted on the roof and have a 2m^2 panel
attached, also an electrical heater. This country is full of them. For
normal consumption the heater does not run at all for 9 months per year.

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\08\27@143304 by Peter L. Peres

picon face
On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Pic Dude wrote:

>Nope.  You're misquoting me... tch, tch, tch.
>
>I meant "...higher gas mileage *than it currently
>has*...".
>
>That would be rather difficult to get a V8 to have
>better gas mileage than the Insight.

It depends. It could run on hot air ...

Peter

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\08\27@151441 by Andrew Warren

flavicon
face
Russell McMahon <spamBeGonePICLISTspamBeGonespammitvma.mit.edu> wrote:

> Enzo Ferrari himself said that the Dino, with only 8, wasn't real
> :-)

   Not exactly; the 246 Dino has a 2.4-liter SIX-cylinder engine;
   its model number followed the same convention as the 512 Boxer
   (5-liter 12-cylinder) and the 308/328/348 (3.0-, 3.2-, and
   3.4-liter 8-cylinder).

   -Andy

=== Andrew Warren -- TakeThisOuTaiwEraseMEspamspam_OUTcypress.com
=== Principal Design Engineer
=== Cypress Semiconductor Corporation
===
=== Opinions expressed above do not
=== necessarily represent those of
=== Cypress Semiconductor Corporation

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.


2002\08\27@155749 by Hazelwood Lyle

flavicon
face
My wife and I recently bought two Chevy Prizms.
These are basically Toyota corollas with a
domestic nameplate.

We easily average in the high 30 MPG's with
the air conditioner running almost always. I
am NOT known for my miserly driving style.

I find 40 a very believable number.

Of course, I don't go looking for Mustangs
or Ferraris to race, either.

Lyle

{Original Message removed}

2002\08\27@162236 by hard Prosser

flavicon
face
We're consistantly acheiving 42mpg (imperial) around town  in our 1987 /
200,000km Subaru Justy .
But again - long trips are not the most comfortable!
Richard P




My wife and I recently bought two Chevy Prizms.
These are basically Toyota corollas with a
domestic nameplate.

We easily average in the high 30 MPG's with
the air conditioner running almost always. I
am NOT known for my miserly driving style.

I find 40 a very believable number.

Of course, I don't go looking for Mustangs
or Ferraris to race, either.

Lyle

{Original Message removed}

2002\08\27@181913 by Jim

flavicon
face
How are you guys obtaining these mileage figures?

For years I have kept a notebook or the receipts
with the ODO reading scribbled down - are you guys
that meticulous?

BTW - I'm not buying *any* mileage claims until I see
some documentationm first!

RF Jim

   "Our ability to manufacture fraud has exceeded
    our  ability to detect it."

    - Al Pacino as Viktor Taransky in the movie 'Simone'



----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Prosser" <RemoveMERichard.ProsserspamTakeThisOuTENERGY.INVENSYS.COM>
To: <PICLISTEraseMEspam.....MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: [OT]: Gas & taxes (was Online electronics store)


{Quote hidden}

> {Original Message removed}

2002\08\27@183350 by Jim

flavicon
face
Hmmm ... I believe the previous discussion involved
*old* cars, in this case, old Toyotas.

I had a friend who had a 70's vintage Toyota years
ago and I don't recall him ever touting really
good gas mileage.

I don't belive I ever saw even thirty MPG on my Ford
Pinto (inline 4 cyl, 4-speed stick)!

RF Jim

   "Our ability to manufacture fraud has exceeded
    our  ability to detect it."

    - Al Pacino as Viktor Taransky in the movie 'Simone'


----- Original Message -----
From: "Hazelwood Lyle" <EraseMELHazelwoodspamMFGNC.COM>
To: <RemoveMEPICLISTEraseMEspamEraseMEMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: [OT]: Gas & taxes (was Online electronics store)


My wife and I recently bought two Chevy Prizms.
These are basically Toyota corollas with a
domestic nameplate.

We easily average in the high 30 MPG's with
the air conditioner running almost always. I
am NOT known for my miserly driving style.

I find 40 a very believable number.

Of course, I don't go looking for Mustangs
or Ferraris to race, either.

Lyle

{Original Message removed}

2002\08\27@184849 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
Pretty simple, I use the trip odometer. At every fillup I reset the trip
odometer, the next fillup I record how many litres went in and what the trip
odometer said. The rest is math. This works quite well, it is especially
accurate if you stay with the same gas station and even the same pump. It
also helps if you build up a lot of kilometers between fill ups. TTYL

> {Original Message removed}

2002\08\27@185100 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face
Not too surprising, if you have a car with a carb it is much more work to
keep it getting good mileage. With fuel injection and computer control the
user is much less involved. TTYL

> {Original Message removed}

2002\08\27@191405 by Jim

flavicon
face
   "With fuel injection and computer control
    the user is much less involved."

That's the song I sing.

But, I went to some trouble to make some changes to this
little car, like a new, improved higher-velocity (smaller
chamber for the primary barrel) manifold (I went into
detail once on the list once) ... I've been down the
'lane' to recognize something about automotive engineering
and fuel ecomomy ...

The *big* gains seen with FI versus carbs is well known, but,
if cylinder to cylinder distribution of the FA mixture is
correct at cruise I can't see the FI outperforming the
carb ... there other areas where FI outshines a carb as
the carb is limited in adjusting it's mixture due
to altitude changes, temp changes, etc.

This Pinto of mine was also out-fitted with an after
market mileage meter (I also described this once on
the list) which measured fuel flow and was connected
in-line with the odometer. It measured true, nearly
instaneous mileage, within the limits of it's
accuracy ...

And no, anybody who got 40 MPG on a 70's Toyota built for the
US market would have to provide documentation supporting
that claim before anyone extends credible belief to that
claim.

RF Jim

   "Our ability to manufacture fraud has exceeded
    our  ability to detect it."

    - Al Pacino as Viktor Taransky in the movie 'Simone'

----- Original Message -----
From: "Herbert Graf" <RemoveMEmailinglistspam_OUTspamKILLspamFARCITE.NET>
To: <RemoveMEPICLISTTakeThisOuTspamspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: [OT]: Gas & taxes (was Online electronics store)


> Not too surprising, if you have a car with a carb it is much more work to
> keep it getting good mileage. With fuel injection and computer control the
> user is much less involved. TTYL
>
> > {Original Message removed}

2002\08\27@191622 by hard Prosser

flavicon
face
I record the milage, the litres and the price/litre at every fill - then
enter into a spreadsheet to record & check for degradation etc.
(And I do much the same for power usage - but that's a different story!)

Richard P




How are you guys obtaining these mileage figures?

For years I have kept a notebook or the receipts
with the ODO reading scribbled down - are you guys
that meticulous?

BTW - I'm not buying *any* mileage claims until I see
some documentationm first!

RF Jim

   "Our ability to manufacture fraud has exceeded
    our  ability to detect it."

    - Al Pacino as Viktor Taransky in the movie 'Simone'



----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Prosser" <EraseMERichard.ProsserspamspamspamBeGoneENERGY.INVENSYS.COM>
To: <RemoveMEPICLISTKILLspamspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: [OT]: Gas & taxes (was Online electronics store)


{Quote hidden}

> {Original Message removed}

2002\08\27@193313 by Lyle Hazelwood

flavicon
face
> How are you guys obtaining these mileage figures?
>
> For years I have kept a notebook or the receipts
> with the ODO reading scribbled down - are you guys
> that meticulous?
>
> BTW - I'm not buying *any* mileage claims until I see
> some documentationm first!
>
> RF Jim

Well, having just bought the cars, we were curious as to the mileage.

I fill the tank.. I reset the trip odometer.

Next time in a gas station, I fill the tank, note the gallons used.
Note the value on the trip odometer (miles since last fillup).
Divide miles traveled by gallons used.
Reset the trip odometer for the next time.

I kept a notebook for the first few weeks, don't bother
with it much anymore. I still reset the trip odometer with
every fill-up.  Having two trip odometers available in
addition to the regular one makes this pretty easy.

Knowing that this is the piclist, I anxiously await a method
that uses fewer steps. 8^)

Lyle


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim" <jvpollSTOPspamspamspam_OUTDALLAS.NET>
To: <spamBeGonePICLISTSTOPspamspamEraseMEMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 3:18 PM
Subject: Re: [OT]: Gas & taxes (was Online electronics store)


{Quote hidden}

> > {Original Message removed}

2002\08\27@202420 by Scott Touchton

picon face
This reminds me of something funny.  A buddy of mine bought a huge Dodge
pickup that had a gas mileage computer built into it.  At first he thought
it was real neat, but it got so depressing he disconnected it.  Seems the
truck was averaging 12mpg when you babied it, and he wasn't that type!

My truck is weird... it gets 15mpg whether it is tooling around town,
pulling a 5000 lb boat, or crusing on a flat interstate.

Please don't kill me for owning a gas guzzler... I frequently need to haul
things, like the 2 sm placement machines that will be in my basement next
week!!!  YIPPEEEEEE!!!!
----- Original Message -----
From: Lyle Hazelwood <@spam@motoman9@spam@spamspam_OUTBELLSOUTH.NET>
To: <spamBeGonePICLISTspamKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 10:31 PM
Subject: Re: [OT]: Gas & taxes (was Online electronics store)


{Quote hidden}

> > > {Original Message removed}

2002\08\28@032221 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> "From each according to his ability, to each
>  according to his need."
>  Eh Russel?  [[ = Russell]]

ABSOLUTELY NOT !!!!!
I can't imagine that you *really* took that what I said.
(I hope not for your sake :-) ).
I'd be happy to discuss the above famous maxim but I meant almost the
opposite.
Approx "From each according to their otherwise freeloading, to each
according to their reponsible contributions to the cost of other people's
freeloading".

To use a prior example - people who don't take toilet rolls from public
toilets and burn them to heat their homes will be given a rebate on their
taxes, or some such.

I said

> > Presumably this is an attempt to get those responsible to pay the
>>  PERCEIVED
> > real costs of usage of IC engine vehicles. Such as smog / sickness /
>>  general pollution / Global Warming :-) and their ilk

I meant, presumably "the State" has come to the conclusion that the real
cost of various individual conveniences is being supported by others and
theis is an attempt to charge thse who have been freeloading some of the
true cost. I said "PERCEIVED" because there is always (as recent discussions
here show) large debate about whether any individual freedom costs others.



       Russell McMahon

__________________________________________________






{Quote hidden}

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email RemoveMElistservspamspamBeGonemitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\08\28@032637 by Russell McMahon

face
flavicon
face
> As to all this discussion of solar cells... Who ever said I meant solar
> cells?

Not me. I was just pointing out that the Sun lifts the water for our hydro
systems, some unknown Super Nova(e) (if current theories are correct) kindly
provided all the elements above iron including our Uranics and beyond, and
so on. If we argue that planetary formation is not star related per se (even
though we revolve around one) then perhaps we may just about avoid
associating geothermal with stars.

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email spamBeGonelistserv@spam@spamspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body


2002\08\28@102734 by llile

flavicon
face
I was the one with the '70's toyota.  Memory leaks are a big problem with
me these days.  I used to specifically drive for better mileage - coasting
down hills, avoiding lugging, keeping speeds low, no jackrabbit starts,
drafting trucks (don't ever do this) and so on.  Had a manual transmission
car with NO options and the smallest available engine.  Read books about
driving for better mileage and practiced it.  I seem to remember mileages
between 35 and 42 when the car was new and I was trying to use these
mileage-increasing techniques.  Mileage was measured by odometer change
divided by pump gallons, at the same pump, using the same shutoff level.
But memory leaks are a big problem with me these days (did I already say
that?)

-- Lawrence Lile





Jim <TakeThisOuTjvpollspamspamDALLAS.NET>
Sent by: pic microcontroller discussion list <PICLISTEraseMEspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
08/27/02 06:13 PM
Please respond to pic microcontroller discussion list


       To:     RemoveMEPICLISTEraseMEspamspam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU
       cc:
       Subject:        Re: [OT]: Gas & taxes (was Online electronics store)


   "With fuel injection and computer control
    the user is much less involved."

That's the song I sing.

But, I went to some trouble to make some changes to this
little car, like a new, improved higher-velocity (smaller
chamber for the primary barrel) manifold (I went into
detail once on the list once) ... I've been down the
'lane' to recognize something about automotive engineering
and fuel ecomomy ...

The *big* gains seen with FI versus carbs is well known, but,
if cylinder to cylinder distribution of the FA mixture is
correct at cruise I can't see the FI outperforming the
carb ... there other areas where FI outshines a carb as
the carb is limited in adjusting it's mixture due
to altitude changes, temp changes, etc.

This Pinto of mine was also out-fitted with an after
market mileage meter (I also described this once on
the list) which measured fuel flow and was connected
in-line with the odometer. It measured true, nearly
instaneous mileage, within the limits of it's
accuracy ...

And no, anybody who got 40 MPG on a 70's Toyota built for the
US market would have to provide documentation supporting
that claim before anyone extends credible belief to that
claim.

RF Jim

   "Our ability to manufacture fraud has exceeded
    our  ability to detect it."

    - Al Pacino as Viktor Taransky in the movie 'Simone'

----- Original Message -----
From: "Herbert Graf" <@spam@mailinglistRemoveMEspamEraseMEFARCITE.NET>
To: <EraseMEPICLISTspam@spam@MITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: [OT]: Gas & taxes (was Online electronics store)


> Not too surprising, if you have a car with a carb it is much more work
to
> keep it getting good mileage. With fuel injection and computer control
the
> user is much less involved. TTYL
>
> > {Original Message removed}

2002\08\28@102952 by llile

flavicon
face
'S OK Scott, real men drive trucks.


-- Lawrence Lile





Scott Touchton <@spam@Scott.Touchtonspam_OUTspam.....COMCAST.NET>
Sent by: pic microcontroller discussion list <spamBeGonePICLISTEraseMEspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
08/27/02 07:19 PM
Please respond to pic microcontroller discussion list


       To:     PICLISTspamBeGonespamMITVMA.MIT.EDU
       cc:
       Subject:        Re: [OT]: Gas & taxes (was Online electronics store)


This reminds me of something funny.  A buddy of mine bought a huge Dodge
pickup that had a gas mileage computer built into it.  At first he thought
it was real neat, but it got so depressing he disconnected it.  Seems the
truck was averaging 12mpg when you babied it, and he wasn't that type!

My truck is weird... it gets 15mpg whether it is tooling around town,
pulling a 5000 lb boat, or crusing on a flat interstate.

Please don't kill me for owning a gas guzzler... I frequently need to haul
things, like the 2 sm placement machines that will be in my basement next
week!!!  YIPPEEEEEE!!!!
----- Original Message -----
From: Lyle Hazelwood <RemoveMEmotoman9@spam@spamspamBeGoneBELLSOUTH.NET>
To: <.....PICLIST@spam@spamEraseMEMITVMA.MIT.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 10:31 PM
Subject: Re: [OT]: Gas & taxes (was Online electronics store)


{Quote hidden}

1987
/
{Quote hidden}

> > > {Original Message removed}

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2002 , 2003 only
- Today
- New search...