4th Apr 2006, 20:13
He's not complaining about the relatively low mileage with four people aboard, he's saying there are equally frugal cars out there that are cheaper to maintain. What's the point of buying an overly technical hybrid when there are diesel and petrol alternatives which achieve similar or better mileage? Also, how do you know his tires didn't wear out like he said? Have you seen the tires on hybrids? Very tiny and not necessarily built for the rigors of crappy American roads. Give the guy a break. You people act as if hybrids are the second coming.
5th Apr 2006, 11:44
What are you talking about?
Exactly which cars IN AMERICA get 41 mpg with four people aboard that are NOT hybrids? I think there are like two (Golf/Jetta diesel) and I bet they can't match that.
As for the tires, sorry, but the Prius has low resistance tires (which means they wear out LESS) and are supposed to last 30K miles plus. I know because similar tires are on subcompacts I have owned and they lasted at least 25k miles if not more.
5th Apr 2006, 15:16
What good is a low resistance tire if it's constantly being beaten to death by bad roads? I'm sorry, but little tires like that don't take the abuse bigger tires do.
As for your fuel economy argument: There are quite a few diesel and petrol alternatives which achieve greater or close enough (to 41 mpg) mileage to justify NOT paying the premium for a hybrid (or risk having future problems with an overly complicated automobile).
5th Apr 2006, 16:43
So rather than answer my points you simply repeat yours?
I have owned small cars with low resistance tires since 1980 and those cars have tackled the horrors of western New York and New England weather. I know what I'm talking about.
And I would be glad to know which vehicles IN AMERICA get 41 mpg REAL WORLD while carrying four passengers.
The answer is actually zero since new diesel cars are not legally allowed in California in 2006 thanks to stricter emissions requirements.
5th Apr 2006, 20:24
Wait all you like. Wait till you're blue in the face. You keep swerving around the poster's original point: 41 mpg is not enough to justify buying a hybrid when a comparable gas or diesel powered vehicle will do.
5th Apr 2006, 20:29
Our old 96' Neon got 44 miles to the gallon on the highway, and was less than five grand when we bought it. So There!
6th Apr 2006, 08:45
Let's see. We have one poster that has confused liters with gallons (either that or they are the same poster that claimed their Escalade got 50 mpg).
Then we have yet another poster that refuses to answer the point at hand (again!) and obviously only has an agenda against hybrids.
EPA mileage figures are being REDUCED AGAIN because they do not reflect real world mpg, which means that NO car in America that is not a hybrid and is sold in ALL states can achieve 41 mpg with four people aboard in real world conditions.
6th Apr 2006, 12:21
Obviously the reason you are bashing the original reviewer is because he dared to say something bad (even if it was true) about the almighty Prius. I still have yet to hear someone address the point that the #2 April 4th commenter made. Whether you like it or not, there are cars in America that get mileage not far from the hybrids, which are much cheaper and don't have complicated equipment that could quite possibly be failing in a few years and is very expensive to repair.
6th Apr 2006, 16:20
I 'bashed' the original poster because what he was saying was ridiculous. And NO ONE buys a Prius because they think they are going to recoup the price in gas savings. Even Toyota admits. that.
And you people STILL cannot name ONE car that is sold in ALL 50 states that gets 41 mpg WITH four people aboard that is not a hybrid.
The Neon claim was untrue since even its EPA highway rating isn't even 40, much less 44. And EPA ratings are NOT based on cars carrying an extra 500+ lbs of passenger weight.
And just for the record, I would never own a Prius since I like cars with a sports car feel.
9th Apr 2006, 13:15
According to the fueleconomy.gov website, a '96 Neon with a manual transmission is listed as 38 MPG highway. Because these values are an average, based on a variety of experiences, it seems to me that it could be possible that on a good day, under ideal conditions and very careful driving, he could have gotten 44 MPG. I myself almost always get better mileage than the posted EPA estimates because of my driving habits. Even if he didn't get 44 MPG, the listed 38 MPG for the Neon is essentially close enough to the 41 MPG given for the Prius to support one of the commenter's claims that a simple, conventional gasoline car can be closely comparable to that hybrid. However, the new Prius is being listed at 51 highway/60 city, although at least one source is saying they have only gotten 45 city out of it in test drives.
9th Apr 2006, 17:11
I don't have ANY agenda against Hybrids. I just refuse to acknowledge them as the second coming. I think Hybrids are a step in the right direction. And with their warranties, Hybrids are a pretty safe bet. I'm just not impressed with all the pumped up mileage estimates I see in magazines and other trades. They simply DO NOT get the mileage advertised. Diesel and other gasoline alternatives exist.
10th Apr 2006, 11:11
Once again, if the Neon (a car which I was familiar with as I had to hear all my sister's horror stories about it) is rated at 38 mpg according to the EPA, PLEASE explain to me how under ANY condition such a car could get 44 mpg with FOUR people aboard, which IS the discussion point here.
Prius EPA mileage claims are ridiculously overestimated and that is a well established fact. But there is still NOTHING that sells in all 50 states (California has essentially banned all diesel cars) that can return 41 mpg with four people aboard. NOTHING.
For American, hybrid cars are a great alternative. And, AGAIN, we are talking about America, not Europe where the situation is much different and the Prius is seen as a novelty because it cannot return the mileage achieved by such cars as Peugot diesels.
10th Apr 2006, 15:14
Hi, I wrote the original Neon comment on April 5. Whether you believe me or not we DID get 44 MPG on a trip to Arizona, with three people and luggage, it was a 5-speed manual with the completely stock 132 horsepower engine. The main point you people continually refuse to address is Why would you buy a hybrid that has potentially unreliable parts that would be ridiculously expensive to fix, and is thousands of dollars more than a new economy car with a traditional engine? You even admit that the hybrid claims are considerably bloated, yet there are cars out there that are much cheaper, and return comparable mileage for the price.
10th Apr 2006, 15:59
I guess there is some confusion about how the EPA comes up with those mileage estimates. When they say "38 mpg" is doesn't mean that is the maximum it can get. Those estimates are based on numerous tests under various driving conditions. A cumulative curve is constructed of the mpg values derived under all of those conditions. That 38 mpg estimate, or any other, represents the average value of a normal distribution of mpg values. That means some people have and will get higher than 38, and some will get lower than 38. So it is entirely reasonable that the person who reported 44 mpg is on the high end of the mpg curve, even if that value is out under the tail of the 3rd standard deviation of the normal distribution. If you've ever looked at the window sticker on a new car, it gives the EPA city/highway estimates in huge black letters. Next to them in the fine print it states "This is an average value. The majority of drivers will achieve between X and X." Like for a value of 21 mpg, it says the majority of users will achieve between 17 and 25 mpg. I am not the other guy that you have been arguing with, so I hope that you'll accept this is an unbiased statement. Really, I don't quite understand your vehement opposition to the fact that somebody had a good experience with a Neon, but whatever.