BrunoPuntzJones
Lifer
- Feb 24, 2001
- 14,513
- 4
- 81
Mom's husband had one. Averaged high to mid 40s. Car was an electronics nightmare. More than once just died in the middle of Interstate, requiring a flatbed tow hundreds of miles to a dealer.
Mom's husband had one. Averaged high to mid 40s. Car was an electronics nightmare. More than once just died in the middle of Interstate, requiring a flatbed tow hundreds of miles to a dealer.
I'm slightly biased towards the Insight. 
'06 Insights will have a 8yr/80k mile warranty on the battery. '00 to '04 Insights have a 10yr, 150k mile warranty on the battery.
It honestly sounds like the perfect car for you, though it's unfortunate that you do mostly city driving. They get respectable city mileage, but really shine out on the highway.
They're very reliable cars overall, though do have their quirks and problem areas. The thing is that even if you factor in generous maintenance costs, they're still the cheapest car to drive on a cost per mile basis.
I'll tell you one thing, the Insight should get better city mileage than most of the cars listed in here. My worst tank EVER was 38MPG, and that was due to extremely short trips during a very cold winter. I'll never be able to consider 30mpg city "good" again.
I will admit they don't have many amenities.. PW and PDL being about it. But who needs all that other crap anyway?
'06 Insights will have a 8yr/80k mile warranty on the battery. '00 to '04 Insights have a 10yr, 150k mile warranty on the battery.
It honestly sounds like the perfect car for you, though it's unfortunate that you do mostly city driving. They get respectable city mileage, but really shine out on the highway.
They're very reliable cars overall, though do have their quirks and problem areas. The thing is that even if you factor in generous maintenance costs, they're still the cheapest car to drive on a cost per mile basis.
I'll tell you one thing, the Insight should get better city mileage than most of the cars listed in here. My worst tank EVER was 38MPG, and that was due to extremely short trips during a very cold winter. I'll never be able to consider 30mpg city "good" again.
I will admit they don't have many amenities.. PW and PDL being about it. But who needs all that other crap anyway?
Last edited:
I gotta say the new refreshed Yaris looks good.
I like it quite a bit.
Of the choices though, CR-Z because it looks great.
I would buy something like a 2003-2008 toyota corolla myself.
$10k even should easily get you a 2005 with under 80k miles,i know i will be purchasing a 04-05 corolla myself for about $7.5k-$8k with about 70- 80k miles in a few weeks.
Toyota for reliability or a newer ford focus or fusion for that styling the corolla lacks,but my daily driver is a 94 corolla 5 speed 1.6 with 252k and it still rips the tires and refuses to die with zero issues,so there's my testament.
$10k even should easily get you a 2005 with under 80k miles,i know i will be purchasing a 04-05 corolla myself for about $7.5k-$8k with about 70- 80k miles in a few weeks.
Toyota for reliability or a newer ford focus or fusion for that styling the corolla lacks,but my daily driver is a 94 corolla 5 speed 1.6 with 252k and it still rips the tires and refuses to die with zero issues,so there's my testament.
http://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-...=100&searchRadius=0&listingId=318789132&Log=0
Put the rest in savings. You'd come out way ahead. Still under warranty for another 50k miles or until 2014.
Depending on your specific city driving conditions, it shouldn't be too difficult to get 60mpg, I'd say 50mpg minimum. Unless it's 10mph stop and go while using the A/C all day...
Put the rest in savings. You'd come out way ahead. Still under warranty for another 50k miles or until 2014.
Depending on your specific city driving conditions, it shouldn't be too difficult to get 60mpg, I'd say 50mpg minimum. Unless it's 10mph stop and go while using the A/C all day...
Just thinking about this, it all seems pretty silly. A 1998 CR-V gets EPA rated 19/23. Say you spend $10k to buy a car that gets 30/40.... $6k differential since you sold the CR-V for $4k. So you're getting 11MPG more in the city, and 17MPG more on the highway. Let's split the difference and say that you get 14MPG more on average, so let's peg the average fuel economy in the CR-V at 21 and the new car at 35. Now let's say that you drive 10k miles per year.
10k miles at 21MPG is 476 gallons of gas. 10k miles at 35MPG is 286 gallons of gas. That is a difference of 190 gallons. Multiply 190 gallons times $4/gallon and you get a grand total of savings of.... *drumroll* $760 per year. Take gas at $5/gallon, you're still under $1000/year. Double the driving to 20k miles per year, and you're looking at roughly $1500 a year. At the 20k/year level, you will have to drive the new car for 4 years before you break even with the $6k that you spent to buy it. Not to mention, your CR-V has surely already depreciated almost as much as it's going to, while the newer car will have a lot of depreciation still ahead of it. So tack on another couple of years for depreciation.
Of course, there are intangibles and other benefits from having a newer car. If you want a newer/smaller car, that is certainly your prerogative. But trying to make it all about gas mileage is just fooling yourself. Penny wise, and pound foolish. You could see how small the difference was even with a major (67%) MPG improvement from 21 to 35.... trying to split hairs with the cars that you're considering (e.g. 38MPG for Car A, vs. 35MPG for Car B) is a waste of time and money. Get what you want, get what appeals to you, and don't go for something you don't like just to save a few bucks on gas, because that's all it is, a few bucks (when compared to the cost of the car). (Unless you do a truly large amount of driving, like 40K a year, which I doubt you do since you've been driving a '98 CR-V.)
10k miles at 21MPG is 476 gallons of gas. 10k miles at 35MPG is 286 gallons of gas. That is a difference of 190 gallons. Multiply 190 gallons times $4/gallon and you get a grand total of savings of.... *drumroll* $760 per year. Take gas at $5/gallon, you're still under $1000/year. Double the driving to 20k miles per year, and you're looking at roughly $1500 a year. At the 20k/year level, you will have to drive the new car for 4 years before you break even with the $6k that you spent to buy it. Not to mention, your CR-V has surely already depreciated almost as much as it's going to, while the newer car will have a lot of depreciation still ahead of it. So tack on another couple of years for depreciation.
Of course, there are intangibles and other benefits from having a newer car. If you want a newer/smaller car, that is certainly your prerogative. But trying to make it all about gas mileage is just fooling yourself. Penny wise, and pound foolish. You could see how small the difference was even with a major (67%) MPG improvement from 21 to 35.... trying to split hairs with the cars that you're considering (e.g. 38MPG for Car A, vs. 35MPG for Car B) is a waste of time and money. Get what you want, get what appeals to you, and don't go for something you don't like just to save a few bucks on gas, because that's all it is, a few bucks (when compared to the cost of the car). (Unless you do a truly large amount of driving, like 40K a year, which I doubt you do since you've been driving a '98 CR-V.)
^^
Do the math at 50-60MPG to include the Insight.
10k miles at 21MPG is 476 gallons. 10k miles at 55MPG is 182 gallons. That is 294 gallons difference or $1176 at $4/gallon. If he buys the $9000 Insight that you linked (a difference of $5000 from his CR-V) it will take him over 4 years to save that much in gasoline. Again, assuming 10k miles per year, and assuming $4/gallon.
In the bargain, he'd be going from 3 passengers to 1, and a lot of cargo space to very little. I'm not denigrating the Insight; I think they're cool, and I'd actually like to have one. But I don't think that the price/convenience differential is worth it to get a roughly 20MPG improvement over my $3000 Saturn which can carry 4 adults comfortably plus several suitcases in the trunk. The Insight may be optimal for certain usage patterns (e.g. if I commuted 100+ miles daily) but for most people it is not.
Oh, I agree. I'm just really rooting for the Insight in this instance since he specified a small car. They're truly amazing automobiles in many respects, but obviously not for everyone.
They're truly amazing automobiles in many respects, but obviously not for everyone.
mmntech
Lifer
- Sep 20, 2007
- 17,501
- 12
- 0
Fiesta gets good mileage because it has no balls. At least with the automatic version. Transmission is glitchy and shifts are sluggish. I'd go manual.
What about the Kia Rio5 or Hyundai Accent? Both get the same millage as the Fiesta but they have the power if you need it.
I like the Yaris a lot, but I'd go with the five speed over the automatic. It really needs that fifth gear on the highway.
Oh, I agree. I'm just really rooting for the Insight in this instance since he specified a small car.
I agree, and I think it's weird that more cars don't come with some of the same features (which would be very cheap to manufacture) to increase MPG. E.g. the essentially flat wheels and the fairings over the rear wheels. Makes me wonder if there might be a market for an aftermarket rear-wheel fairing, custom made for different car models, in OEM paint colors. I know all the hypermilers do it with cardboard and duct tape, but that's a *little* too ghetto for me. Hmmm....
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter