Honda Car Forum

"dgk" <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:c4483414eolj7m8eadmc73d9am9s3uk3g1@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 19 May 2008 07:15:44 -0500, "Enrico Fermi" <noone@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>> And you are delusional enough to think there is, or ever will be,
>>> enough solar power available to fuel all the cars onthe road? Then
>>> there is the issue of how much energy it takes to make the solar
>>> cells.....
>>
>>Mental Health Care professionals call this "a statement posed as a
>>question". What he meant to say was, "You, Sir, are completely
>>delusional!"
>>to which I am able to respond. This "question" is meant to confound.
>>Emotionally challenged people pose their statements as questions in order
>>to
>>provide themselves "cover" from more intelligent, more aggressive or
>>perhaps
>>more nearly sane people. This is passive/aggressive behavior. I believe
>>the
>>most energy we need to expend as a species is the novel, creative human
>>energy it will take to make our planet a garden instead of a garbage dump.
>>I
>>believe all humans are served poorly by their "leaders". I also believe
>>that
>>each person awakens each day with the intention of making their lives, and
>>their children's lives, as prosperous, comfortable and happy as their
>>circumstances allow. We'll be OK unless the nukes fly. Then it'll be 'They
>>are on their way in and no one can bring them back. For the sake of our
>>country and our way of life, I suggest you get the rest of SAC in after
>>them. Otherwise, we will be totally destroyed by Red retaliation. My boys
>>will give you the best kind of start, 1400 megatons worth, and you sure as
>>hell won't stop them now. So let's get going. There's no other choice. God
>>willing, we will prevail in peace and freedom from fear and in true health
>>through the purity and essence of our natural fluids. God bless you all.'
>>Then he hung up.
>>
>
> Does that mean the Corolla or the Civic?
Civic

On 2008-05-19, Tomes <ask.me@here.net> wrote:
> "Joe" ...
>> It's also fair to point out that there are Federal tax breaks
>> available to those that buy hybrids. If those tax breaks are still in
>> existence (and I believe they are), they greatly enhance the economy
>> of these vehicles.
>>
>
> If one is stuck paying the AMT (alternative minimum tax), there is no break
> for them.
> Tomes
>

If one is "stuck" paying the AMT, the price shouldn't be that big of a
deal to them... ;-)


--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X

"Joe" <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> wrote in message
news:slrng39mpi.lp8.joe@barada.griffincs.local...
> On 2008-05-19, Tomes <ask.me@here.net> wrote:
>> "Joe" ...
>>> It's also fair to point out that there are Federal tax breaks
>>> available to those that buy hybrids. If those tax breaks are still in
>>> existence (and I believe they are), they greatly enhance the economy
>>> of these vehicles.
>>>
>> If one is stuck paying the AMT (alternative minimum tax), there is no
>> break
>> for them.
>> Tomes
>>
> If one is "stuck" paying the AMT, the price shouldn't be that big of a
> deal to them... ;-)
>
I don't disagree. It remains that the tax break is not for everyone, and
more folks need to know that then know it today.
Tomes

On Thu, 22 May 2008 21:33:58 -0400, "Tomes" <ask.me@here.net> wrote:

>
>"Joe" <joe@nospam.hits-buffalo.com> wrote in message
>news:slrng39mpi.lp8.joe@barada.griffincs.local. ..
>> On 2008-05-19, Tomes <ask.me@here.net> wrote:
>>> "Joe" ...
>>>> It's also fair to point out that there are Federal tax breaks
>>>> available to those that buy hybrids. If those tax breaks are still in
>>>> existence (and I believe they are), they greatly enhance the economy
>>>> of these vehicles.
>>>>
>>> If one is stuck paying the AMT (alternative minimum tax), there is no
>>> break
>>> for them.
>>> Tomes
>>>
>> If one is "stuck" paying the AMT, the price shouldn't be that big of a
>> deal to them... ;-)
>>
>I don't disagree. It remains that the tax break is not for everyone, and
>more folks need to know that then know it today.
>Tomes

My understanding of the tax incentive is that it is limited to the
first 60,000 cars of each model, or maybe the auto maker. The Prius
has gone over that so there is no more incentive.

In article <OuiWj.677$l97.113@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>
> > Don't forget the size. The Prius is larger than the Corolla; if you
> > think you'd want something larger that also gets good gas mileage,
> > that's the Prius. If you think you're stuck with a Corolla-sized car,
> > you're not. Not necessarily.
>
> It's a little larger, though it's misleading because the cargo capacity
> is higher only if you pile things up so you can't see out the back! It's
> still closer to the Corolla in size than the Camry.
>
> Corolla
> -------
> 92.0 cubic feet: passenger compartment
> 12.3 cubic feet: cargo
>
> Prius
> -----
> 96.2 cubic feet: passenger compartment
> 16.1 cubic feet: cargo
>
> Camry
> -----
> 101.4 cubic feet: passenger compartment
> 16.7 cubic feet: cargo

That's correct, the Corolla and Prius are similar, but if you pile
things high in the Prius it has more space for cargo.
I would not do that due to the safety concern of luggage flying forward
in a fast stop.

The Prius has a lot of passenger Cu Ft. forward of the dash, which is
unusable.
Having been a passenger in both, with two & three others, I suggest
they are similar for practical purposes.
As for the driver the previous Corollas didn't fit me comfortably; I'm
5'-11". A similar height friend of mine who has the previous Corolla
confirms that it wouldn't fit me very well as a driver, his shorter wife
drives his.
I've not tried the new Corolla for size.

In article <482ab78d$0$20197$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
Crabman <C@dud.net> wrote:

> I have seen some automatics that were close in mileage, but I would like
> for you to point out one that surpasses the manual.

CVTs.

In article <IcTWj.3149$ah4.1758@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com>,
"Enrico Fermi" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:

> On the topic of my 2003 Civic Si engine spinning too fast at 80mph: Is it
> possible and affordable to put a 6 speed in that little car? I'd be happier
> if its revs were closer to 2000 at 80 mph. Anyone have a referral for that
> project?

I doubt it's engine would have enough torque for less revs at 80 mph.
That's not a legal speed anyway.

In article <qRhXj.35$GV3.25@newsfe08.phx>,
"Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox.net> wrote:

> Wiki does indeed report fuel efficiency was a considered
> factor for Volkswagen's, starting as early as the 1930s, and
> possibly under orders from Hitler.

I had three VW Beetles, two 1.1L and one 1.3L; '55, '56, '61.
I've keep very accurate mileage records.

My '95 3.3L Concorde of twice the weight gets the approx. the same
city/hwy MPG as I got with the VWs and of course at a much more
consistent and higher speed, particularly up hills and against the wind.

The VW Beetle had a top speed of about 65mph, it took some time to get
there, couldn't maintain 60mph into a medium head wind, but with a
strong tail wind it could maintain 75-80mph.

In article <DP-dnSUuF6aeDrbVnZ2dnUVZ_rzinZ2d@earthlink.com>,
AS <donot@spame.com> wrote:

> You are rightly concerned about the batteries.
>
> These 270 or so volt batteries have a list price in the $2500 range.
> They have 228 cells in series and only one needs to go bad to ruin your
> battery assembly. Newer models only use 201.6 volt batteries,
>
> Besides you have the $3400 list price for the inverter and $1100 for the
> generator module.
>
> Though the warranty should do good, imagine getting hit with the
> prorated prices.
Yes, those batteries are expensive as well as being dangerous in an
accident.
>
> Think about all the dead weight you carry around, pollution issues
> (disposing of the battery), and then, having your system repaired in
> case of a failure. We all have heard the stories about a battery not
> charging, alternator issues etc with conventional cars. Think about a
> system many times more complex...
In spite of the weight hybrids do very well. There are many reasons for
this, and some of the technology can be applied to mild hybrids to get
much of the fuel savings, without having a huge battery.
>
> With all the problems fuel cells still have, I think hydrogen is the way
> to go.
I live 1km from Ballard, a fuel cell developer.
A few years ago a tanker delivering H to their plant developed a leak
and fire at the hose fitting. The area 0.5km around was shut down for
12+ hrs until it burned off.
Fuel cells need much further development and then there is the high
cost, plus a required refueling network for this dangerous fuel.

IMO the new diesels, developed in Germany will be the next fuel saving
hot vehicle. Over 50% of people in Europe are now buying them.
The 2L VW diesel performs very well in the small mid size cars.

On 2008-05-24, Josh S <Josh@clean.spam> wrote:
> In article <IcTWj.3149$ah4.1758@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com>,
> "Enrico Fermi" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>> On the topic of my 2003 Civic Si engine spinning too fast at 80mph: Is it
>> possible and affordable to put a 6 speed in that little car? I'd be happier
>> if its revs were closer to 2000 at 80 mph. Anyone have a referral for that
>> project?
>
> I doubt it's engine would have enough torque for less revs at 80 mph.
> That's not a legal speed anyway.

That depends on where you are. There are a few states with speed
limits of 75, which means 80 would be a pretty normal speed. In some
parts of Texas, the posted limit is 80.

I'd agree, though, that the engine would be able to provide enough
torque to keep the car going 80 @ 2000 RPM. Just not a big enough
engine.


--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X