28th Oct 2010, 09:59
It's the gearing in the V8s that achieve high mpg. If you have 6 gears, it's almost an idle on the interstate.
As far as homes, if you have cash to buy, you are foolish to rent unless you relocate. There were 6 pages of foreclosures in my paper today. I drive really great cars today because of real estate. Renters paid off my primary home within 15 years, and the last rental, I bought 2 new vehicles even after recaptured gains. Same renter for 16 years. It's great to be able to buy nice new cars this way. Good luck.
28th Oct 2010, 11:57
Houses where we live cost over $500,000 on average. Meanwhile our rent is a $1,000. The math doesn't add up to buy here. On the other hand, we're moving to another state where homes are $150,000. I'm also not a believer in real estate as the best investment. Stocks have outperformed real estate on average for the past 100 years. Once we buy our home outright, we might think about getting a new car. But it's not going to be some $50,000 overrated rapidly depreciating car either. Probably be another Toyota that'll last 15-20 years with few if any problems.
28th Oct 2010, 14:09
I've always been surprised at people who can't get the EPA estimated mileage from their cars, especially when it was recently downrated because it was considered unrealistically high! I always beat the OLD EPA estimate by at least 5 mpg. I don't know how people manage to complain that it was too high, but I can guess ---- stoplight dueling, aggressive acceleration to and from every stop sign, aggressive acceleration in virtually every driving circumstance. It's true, actual mpg comes down to driving style.
I personally never rely on the computer to give me gas mileage. I always base it on the odometer, and consistently filling up the gas tank to the same level, and hand calculating.
28th Oct 2010, 17:02
I don't want to belabor this, but the '93 Cadillac STS of which I spoke, was getting 28 mpg on a 950-mile trip from Minnesota to Pennsylvania. Of course, granted, this was on relatively flat interstate rolling at steady speed, which represents optimum conditions. The '07 Cadillac DTS was getting 28 mpg on a 100-mile interstate trip, also on relatively flat ground rolling at a steady speed. Both relatively optimum conditions, but hardly a short period of time that would represent some anomalous, instantaneous reading.
Again, I'm not trying to start anything, since I agree that this is exceptional gas mileage for a full-sized V-8 sedan, but it goes to show that driving carefully can make it possible to exceed EPA estimates, and also manufacturer's estimates. They are not gospel, only estimates of what an average person might achieve in a range of driving conditions. Still, I would like to meet somebody who has a hard time achieving 20 mpg highway with a Cadillac DTS, when I can get 28 mpg. I might think they have a little trouble driving.
I don't rely on the on-board computer, and agree that they can be inaccurate. I calculate gas mileage by hand, using the odometer and filling the tank to a consistent level.
I agree with the other person who said that with a six-speed transmission, even a V-8 is barely working at 65 mph. My old 3-speed V-8's ran at 2,500 rpm's doing 65 mph on the highway, while the '07 Cadillac DTS of which I spoke, turns about 1,500 rpm's doing 65 mph. By contrast, the Hyundai's I've been renting for travel recently, like the Elantra and Sonata, as well as the Kia Forte, have only given me 33 mpg on the highway.
29th Oct 2010, 01:42
But still; 30 mpg for the Cadillac, isn't that somewhat stiff? I've done mpg down in the twenties using the cruise control for some Cadillac rentals (I don't own one), but I'd consider 30 more or less impossible. I mean, if you do a 24 mpg average on a flat route using the cruise control, how is 30 mpg possible?
29th Oct 2010, 08:38
Houses where we live cost over $500,000 on average. Meanwhile our rent is a $1,000. The math doesn't add up to buy here. On the other hand, we're moving to another state where homes are $150,000. I'm also not a believer in real estate as the best investment. Stocks have outperformed real estate on average for the past 100 years. Once we buy our home outright, we might think about getting a new car. But it's not going to be some $50,000 overrated rapidly depreciating car either. Probably be another Toyota that'll last 15-20 years with few if any problems."
Okay, I am all for straying off topic here and there, but now we are rating home prices??
29th Oct 2010, 11:49
Wow, if your rent is 1000, I wonder why the rent is so low where an average home is 500000? Unless you are in an apt building, which would exceed 500000. Stocks are a gamble more risky than fixed land and a building on it. You have to live somewhere. Buy a foreclosed flip it and buy some new cars. I bought 2 new cars, sold a townhouse rental with 4k down and settlement was paid! Deals galore right now if your credit and job holds
29th Oct 2010, 14:44
It's low because we have been living in the same house for 7 years, and we take good care of the place, thus the landlord doesn't raise the rent.
Real estate is every bit as much of a gamble as stocks - and are more of a financial liability. Why do you think we're in a recession? It was caused by the crash in real estate prices. If you look at historical averages, stocks generally gain 7-10% in value annually over the past 100 years. On the other hand, real estate has barely kept up with inflation at 4% over the same period.
The truth that most people don't realize is that if they were to place 20k into retirement by the time they were 25, they would have close to a million dollars by the time they were 60. Real estate can't even come close to that. Unlike houses, someone investing in stocks is not going to be placed in a position where they might be forced to sell due to a job loss or some other unforeseen event.
If I had bought a house in the area I live in over the past 5-6 years, I would be sitting underwater with a very expensive mortgage that would be tying up all my income. As it is, now I have a comfortable amount of cash and retirement savings - enough to retire by the time I'm 55 or younger, and do so very comfortably. Real estate shows no signs of going up anytime soon. But at the same time, a lot of my investments have been doing very well. Sure - there might also be "deals" out there, but most of those houses are cheap for good reason: They are in bad neighborhoods where the prices should never have been high like they were a few years ago. If anything, most are priced to where they should be. They aren't what I would call deals. People still want to be near good schools and life safely. Those areas are still expensive.
Anyway, we're wayyyy off subject here, but getting back to the point I was previously making, I own two older Toyota vehicles because they offer reliable trouble free transportation, and the vehicles themselves don't age or deteriorate very much at all. This to me is valuable given the grand scheme of things: Which would you rather do? Drive newer cars or retire sooner? Personally I'd take the latter, but then again some people feel it's really important to drive a nice car - which is fine, because we're all wired differently.
28th Oct 2010, 00:51
Mpg figures often boils down to driving style, and I guess that it's theoretically possible to achieve 30 mpg for a shorter period of time for a Cadillac DTS with a V8, but generally mpg on these cars is in the 15-20 region for most users.
Cadillac themselves claims 22-23 mpg highway and 15 city for the DTS, and as most people know, manufacturer's fuel efficiency claims are often not achievable for regular users.
Also, on board car computers can be very inaccurate, and the reported fuel calculations may be off the mark.
In general; if Cadillac says the mpg is about 22 for the DTS, that's generally what the optimum mpg for this type of car is.