"Gordon McGrew" <gRmEcMgOrVeEw@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:j6qh43t32k5uhbc8qqc7lojs1h73iutndk@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 14 May 2007 06:21:05 -0600, "Earle Horton"
> <earle@angloburgues.usa> wrote:
>
> >If you keep the vehicle more than a couple years you may need
> >that $2,100 to replace the batteries and electronics after they wear
> >out.
> >
> >Earle
>
>
> Batteries guaranteed for 8 years and 80K. In CA and some other
> states, it's 10/100.
>
> I see gas is up to $3.60 near me.
>
It's almost that high here. 80k is just broken in on a Honda, admit it. My
'02 HX has 83k, looks like new, runs like a top, and gets 45 mpg. So far,
major repairs have been a timing belt and a door skin. For me to trade in
on relatively new untested technology at this point would be idiocy. I see
a '92 VX with 124k in the paper for $3,200, where the seller claims 55 mpg.
I think that's the EPA rating it had when new. Why did they stop making a
perfectly good 55 mpg car, and then a perfectly good 45 mpg car, and replace
them with a similar performing model, but costing more to manufacture? No
idea, and I am not into conspiracy theories, but the Emperor's New Clothes
story comes to mind. "Batteries are good, we are wasting so much energy
going downhill..." I wonder if anyone even did the math.

According to Nevada State Patrol, the HX is capable of 127 mph too. I
wasn't there, but I paid the fine.

Another thing about hybrids. In the winter, when you want heat, and you are
driving in the city, the engine comes on with the battery fully charged just
to warm your toes and windshield. Mpg plummets to about 20, just like my
Jeep.

Saludos,

Earle