long term fuel costs?

In reply to jere:

Your "fun car"...

So, your solution to the world's problems are that everyone should own 2 or more cars, right?

That will save lot of resources.

Now you are including trucks....

So you are suggesting that your NX2000 is an adequate substitute for a truck because you can fit a couple of 2x4's in it? That's completely ridiculous. And your numbers are fabricated too. The F-150 (#1 selling truck in America) starts at $23,000, not $30K (assuming everyone bought a new one. Most do not). It is rated at 23 mpg (not the 13 mpg you claimed earlier).

Your criticisms are unfounded.

SVreX wrote: In reply to jere: Your "fun car"... So, your solution to the world's problems are that everyone should own 2 or more cars, right? That will save lot of resources. Now you are including trucks.... So you are suggesting that your NX2000 is an adequate substitute for a truck because you can fit a couple of 2x4's in it? That's completely ridiculous. And your numbers are fabricated too. The F-150 (#1 selling truck in America) starts at $23,000, not $30K (assuming everyone bought a new one. Most do not). It is rated at 23 mpg (not the 13 mpg you claimed earlier). Your criticisms are unfounded.

If you finish trolling I would happily discuss this with you. I obviously never said F-150, and you are pulling statements from other posts out of context.

I filled up my '85 C-30 Dooley today. I don't usually bother to check the mileage, but since I just modified the exhaust a little, I figured I'd check it. It usually pulls down around 9 mpg. Today it was 11.1 mpg. Yes, that's right, eleven point one. With my single 16 gallon tank, I can cruise for over 150 miles, baby!

Now, what were we talking about?

In reply to mguar:

I knew enough never to buy used from a dealer but WOW ...mindblowing stuff.

In reply to 1988RedT2:

That illustrated my point well thank you and ouch! That's worse than a few of the Crown Vics I've driven missing on a few cylinders

I average 18 in my frontier, only avg'd 20 in my Mazdaspeed 3 on premium. So it's close toy a wash.

jere wrote: If you finish trolling I would happily discuss this with you. I obviously never said F-150, and you are pulling statements from other posts out of context.

What truck were you referring to?

You said truck/SUV. Since the F-150 is the most sold truck in America, I figure it is quite reasonable to assume you were including it.

Did you mean an F-450?

Maybe you should decide what it is you are trying to communicate and attempt to do so clearly without all the drama and cryptic garbage.

Name calling is certainly not going to earn you any points.

This is really simple. I responded in this thread to ONE statement that mad_machine made about how he was looking forward to the end of SUV's. I supported mguar's clear and accurate recognition that SUV's are useful and serve a purpose.

If anybody's trolling, that would be you with comments about pissing in the pool and claiming that an NX2000 can be an adequate substitute for a truck.

If you'd like to contribute, try to do so intelligently. If you didn't mean F-150's, what the heck are you talking about?

jere wrote: In reply to 1988RedT2: That illustrated my point well thank you and ouch! That's worse than a few of the Crown Vics I've driven missing on a few cylinders

It's an '85. That's 27 year old technology. The average life of a truck is 9.4 years.

It was a joke. It didn't illustrate anything at all, unless you are trying to campaign against 27 year old trucks.

There are no new trucks that average that poorly.

In reply to mguar:

Somethings not right with your numbers.

You said a "pretty basic" Ford Ranger. Then you said list price $25,000.

Ford Rangers start at a list price of $18K. Sport models start at $22K.

Then you said, "4X4 V6 5 speed manual AM/FM/CD player, A/C, Power steering, brakes, windows, Extended Cab, etc". Base models don't come with V6's, OR 4x4. OK, so maybe it isn't so basic...

But a V6 Ranger is EPA rated at 16/21 mpg. My F-250 does better. That's a tough nut for me to swallow in a thread about fuel economy.

Doesn't really matter- I'm not buying new. But the reason I didn't buy a Ranger (or an S-10, or a Tacoma, or a Frontier) is because I realized that their fuel economy wasn't any better than I can get with my F-250 (which allows me a towing capacity of 13,100 lbs, a full sized bed, and seating for 6).

Small trucks should be able to get a lot better fuel economy.

This thread is funny. I guess I should've read the other pages before I posted. To whomever it was that seemed to get a bit ruffled that I personally don't like SUV's, all I can say is that either I didn't type what I was thinking clearly or you didn't read it correctly. I was not trying to condemn SUV's or their drivers. I was pointing out that my small (Miata) and regular sized car (WRX) get crappy mileage and require premium fuel and yet I choose to drive them. It is no different than someone who chooses to drive an SUV. We all make our choices and have to live with the consequences.

"What truck were you referring to?"

There are a lot of them, I wasn't referring to a specific vehicle or I would have said as much when I referred to 13 it was just some number that stuck in my head . I had a job at gas station once people talk about this stuff whether you want to here it or not. The exact numbers within a few MPG aren't even relevant to the discussion just that they are bad. In the real world with different drivers and loads numbers vary. Look at the Cadillac Escalade AWD if you want to see another Truck/SUV that has bad MPG besides a Suburban with the larger motors.

"You said truck/SUV. Since the F-150 is the most sold truck in America, I figure it is quite reasonable to assume you were including it.

Did you mean an F-450? " And if you are going to quote gas mileage statistics at least get the HIGHS AND LOWS right because just assuming you are getting the highway mileage when you buy a truck is foolish and ignorant. The 2012 Ford gets 13 city and 18 highway for a combined...14mpg http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/32112.shtml

"Maybe you should decide what it is you are trying to communicate and attempt to do so clearly without all the drama and cryptic garbage."

Maybe you should try adding to the conversation instead of nit picking and being dramatically saying others are wrong with biased numbers. If any word that I am saying is too cryptic you should try typing the word in google search it will give you a definition.

"Name calling is certainly not going to earn you any points."

I was not "name calling" name calling would be "Hey you are a grotesque dim witted monster". Trolling is fishing from a moving boat, or the slang is trying to get someone to believe something that you don't believe yourself in order to get a rise out of them.

"This is really simple. I responded in this thread to ONE statement that mad_machine made about how he was looking forward to the end of SUV's. I supported mguar's clear and accurate recognition that SUV's are useful and serve a purpose." No you responded to multiple posts and said different inflammatory statements. My main point is that SUV/trucks are misused in general even if they are designed for a purpose and sometimes used accordingly. And that the misuse makes problems for everyone.

"If anybody's trolling, that would be you with comments about pissing in the pool and claiming that an NX2000 can be an adequate substitute for a truck."

I never said the the NX is a "substitute for a truck" not even close, I suggested it or one like it as a second car for truck/SUV owners or for those that don't need the utility of the large less efficient vehicle.

"If you'd like to contribute, try to do so intelligently. If you didn't mean F-150's, what the heck are you talking about?"

I could suggest the same to you but you sounds like you are trolling still.

<

mguar wrote: Well stated. You're correct I should have written more carefully and used the exactly correct adjective.Clearly I didn't make the correct impression because instead of noting the large amount dealers had to work with on discounting the price of some vehicles. you corrected my adjectives..

This thread is truly a festival of misunderstanding.

I didn't even notice your "adjectives". As I said, I was trying to understand your numbers.

You said dealers could discount a car that lists for $25K by $13,000. But then you referenced a car that list for $18K. Or maybe $22K, or maybe... whatever.

I'm done. Nothing but pointless babble here.

Since there are no Rangers that sell for $25,000, your credibility goes down the toilet when you claim a $13K discount from a base model Ranger.

It sounds like you are making up stuff.

Clear?