Trade it in or drive it to the ground?

[obamanation]

.308 HK91/G3 begs to differ.

Go preach your leftist communist shit in P&N, they will welcome you with open arms there.

A gun isn't going to help you when there isn't any more oil to burn you retard.. Also, you won't have a .308 to get what you want because the dems will have taken that away already so they can hand over this country to the fascists and dictators to exploit..

 

[obamanation]

I've disabled VSC in my 280 HP 2GR-FE Avalon XLS and guess what, it "has to do what I tell it to do" and I beat the snot out of it when testing it, including WOT launches side stepping the brake loading up the converter (which has a pathetically low stall RPM under 2,000 RPM btw, nothing to do with computers or electronics). I'm more worried about the stock motor mounts and rubber suspension bushings than I am the transmission. Almost 300 HP and similar torque in a FWD car = violent wheel hop, and it's the ONLY reason they put torque limiting in software for the average dumb ass who thinks the pedal only has two positions. The transmission is *more* than up to the task. Heat kills auto transmissions 1000:1 over raw horsepower.

I much prefer to spin or hop a little and respond to that signal myself by backing off with my foot a hair but at least able to stay in it and still move forward under the commanded throttle with some slight rubber, than just having the engine die completely for no reason and do absolutely nothing at all. Traction control/VSC/etc in any form blows, and it has nothing to do with babying the transmission (unless we are talking about the Nissan GT-R).

If you think my Cobra had (I stress *had*) traction control to protect and baby the T-56 trans, then all I can do is ROFLMAO @ your ignorance.

Not all transmission failures are immediate, some take longer than others to occur.. In fact, some transmissions in cars failed early and so, to prevent any further failures, manufacturers have been known to reflash the ECU programming of the transmissions in order to prevent that. You may have disabled the VSC on your cars or what ever, but that doesn't mean you've totally disabled the torque limiting of the computer's software. There isn't really a way to know that unless you've dissected the transmission's control software yourself. A good example of that would be the GTR where it used to disable all torque limiting when you disabled traction control but now when you disable traction control, it still torque limits the engine in order to prevent damage.

I know it's hard for you to fathom, but your car isn't running as fast as it could because it's more economical to get a smaller transmission with less frictional losses and torque limit the engine than it is to get a larger, more durable transmission and not torque limit the engine.. It's just the way it is. All modern automatics today have some sort of torque limiting on the transmission's software no matter how fast you think your car is. If it doesn't, then that transmission isn't long for this world because engines today are far too powerful for the drivetrains they're paired up with unless there is some limiting of power at certain times.

I think you people give companies too much credit for their product which is why most reviewers today when comparing manual vs. automatic in terms of fuel economy, think that the only reason why automatics get better mileage than manuals is because "they're advanced, or have advanced to the point of being more economical" when really, it's just marketing where they gear the automatics to be taller than the manuals to the point of getting better mileage. The marketers figure that you're getting a manual for performance, not economy.

 

[CupCak3]

GD, stop feeding the trolls. I was enjoying the thread until it went into the toilet.

 

[obamanation]

GD, stop feeding the trolls. I was enjoying the thread until it went into the toilet.

How do you enjoy a thread without trolls? This isn't a babe thread you know and the topic wasn't terribly interesting.. Also I've posted in this thread since the beginning so if you're talking about any one being a troll, it can't be me.

 

[jlee]

lol @ this thread.

Pretty sad though, in a way...

 

[CupCak3]

How do you enjoy a thread without trolls? This isn't a babe thread you know and the topic wasn't terribly interesting.. Also I've posted in this thread since the beginning so if you're talking about any one being a troll, it can't be me.

Well considering I did not point to who I thought was the troll(s), I take it from your post you must make posts to get a reaction and attention.

Go outside and play.

 

[kornphlake]

I'm pretty much saying this:
Have a sports car and SUV for the weekend, drive the Prius for everything else. If you continue to drive the SUV and sports car all the time, there will be a point in time where you won't be able to have the SUV or the sports car and you'll HAVE TO drive the Prius for everything.

This kind of thinking sounds a lot like this:

Because if people continue to make irresponsible choices in life, there is going to be a time where all the "nice things" are

You don't think owning 3 vehicles, 2 of which are rarely used is some how going to save the world, do you? Unless that is a plan to save the auto industry, I'd say you're thoroughly confused.

The debate started when I said don't buy a new car if you don't need one, consumption is consumption, your using up resources that are limited for your own selfish reasons. Is it wrong to do so? That's very much a personal decision not suitable for this forum.

 

[obamanation]

This kind of thinking sounds a lot like this:



You don't think owning 3 vehicles, 2 of which are rarely used is some how going to save the world, do you? Unless that is a plan to save the auto industry, I'd say you're thoroughly confused.

The debate started when I said don't buy a new car if you don't need one, consumption is consumption, your using up resources that are limited for your own selfish reasons. Is it wrong to do so? That's very much a personal decision not suitable for this forum.

I'd much rather people own three cars but drive the most fuel efficient one most of the time than own one car that is fuel inefficient all the time. The things cars are made of can be recycled, the fuel you burn cannot.

Well considering I did not point to who I thought was the troll(s), I take it from your post you must make posts to get a reaction and attention.

Go outside and play.

Like I said, it can't be me.. I got called a troll in another thread so I'm very defensive right now.

 

[kalrith]

Smart thing would be to drive it as long as you can.

I agree. I'm planning to do that with my '92 Mercury Cougar with 125k miles and '01 Mazda Tribute with 150k miles. They both run great and have for the most part just needed regular maintenance.

OP, figure out how much you would spend on a car payment, and start putting that much in savings every month. If you stick aside $400/month for 5 years, you'll be able to pay cash for a $24k car once this one dies. That's what I'm planning to do, but it'll probably more like $5k saved up before my Tribute croaks.

 

[zCypher]

Entertaining thread! My 2 cents are as some have already said: keep the current ride, drive it till it's good and dead. In a couple of years you'll be glad you did!

 

[exdeath]

Not all transmission failures are immediate, some take longer than others to occur.. In fact, some transmissions in cars failed early and so, to prevent any further failures, manufacturers have been known to reflash the ECU programming of the transmissions in order to prevent that. You may have disabled the VSC on your cars or what ever, but that doesn't mean you've totally disabled the torque limiting of the computer's software. There isn't really a way to know that unless you've dissected the transmission's control software yourself. A good example of that would be the GTR where it used to disable all torque limiting when you disabled traction control but now when you disable traction control, it still torque limits the engine in order to prevent damage.

T-56 doesn't have a computer or software, idiot.

I know it's hard for you to fathom, but your car isn't running as fast as it could because it's more economical to get a smaller transmission with less frictional losses and torque limit the engine than it is to get a larger, more durable transmission and not torque limit the engine.. It's just the way it is. All modern automatics today have some sort of torque limiting on the transmission's software no matter how fast you think your car is. If it doesn't, then that transmission isn't long for this world because engines today are far too powerful for the drivetrains they're paired up with unless there is some limiting of power at certain times.

Wow... you're full of it. With VSC off on the Avalon, stepping on it from a stop damn near tears out the front suspension with extremely violent wheel hop, there is NOTHING else inhibiting it, and it certainly has nothing to do with the transmission. I know the internal workings of the mechanics, electronics, and computer software are a mysterious black box to you that is open to your wildest imagination and conspiracy theories, but they aren't to the rest of us here. The transmission does it's job putting the power to the wheels effortlessly with VSC disabled, it's the wrong wheel drive and sedan suspension that fails at planting the tires. I promise you with 100% certainty that the CVs and half shafts will give out to oscillations from hard launch abuse long before the transmission, with VSC disabled. The other car is a manual and has zero software nannies and one of the most bullet proof transmissions known to man, and I assure you it is running as fast as it can be without dumping more money into the engine for more horsepower.

What's the point of having power just to limit it? I'd rather have lots of power, put a transmission behind it that can handle it so you don't have to nerf it, and go to town. It's called FAST AND POWERFUL, not economical. I know that's hard to grasp for your A to B utilitarian mindset.

You know nothing about cars, stop talking already.

 

[jlee]

I know it's hard for you to fathom, but your car isn't running as fast as it could because it's more economical to get a smaller transmission with less frictional losses and torque limit the engine than it is to get a larger, more durable transmission and not torque limit the engine..

Wait, what?

Fast != economical

 

[shortylickens]

In the OP's case I would drive it into the ground. I intend to do the same thing with my S-10. Its an overall crummy truck and the Colorado replaced it years ago anyway. No point in trading it in for chump change just to turn around and blow lots of cash on something else. Do NOT let other peoples decisions have any influence on what you do. I dunno if you've noticed or not but despite the fact the economy was slowing down for many years AND we had a bad recession, this nation is still full of morons who have to have a new vehicle they clearly cant afford.

You know why theres so many 50 thousand dollar cars on the road? Same reason so many people live in 400 thousand dollar houses.
The banks gave them loans. It has nothing to do with their paychecks. They are just in debt up to their eyeballs and are too stupid to care. Be sensible and save your money.
Of course, had I got the job I wanted last month I too would have dumped my car and looked into something new.

 

[foghorn67]

Drive it in the ground. Good ol' Jules posted something similar a while back. Why make car payments when you don't have to?

 

[AMCRambler]

Could always keep it for your beater car and buy a nice new one.

 

[Bignate603]

Depends on the tires you have and how you drive, same with the brakes.. There are Michelin tires that are warranted to last 90K miles..

If that person plans to drive that Prius until the wheels fall off, then I disagree. The Prius is significantly cleaner car overall than the GS or any Lexus for that matter.. Now if you were comparing a 1998 GS with a 2010 GS, you'd be correct but with a Prius? No. If the OP had a Geo Metro and was pining for a Prius, your argument would be correct but a Lexus GS vs a Prius, the Prius still wins. I'm assuming the OP doesn't care about mileage anyhow so he'd probably get a newer vehicle that is a direct replacement for the GS so just sticking with the GS makes more sense.

The point is though that the GS already exists but if he went and bought a Prius he'd be paying them to make him a new car. Avoiding the energy and environmental costs of producing a new car is far greater than the amount of environmental impact from any gas savings he would see by moving to a Prius.

I'd much rather people own three cars but drive the most fuel efficient one most of the time than own one car that is fuel inefficient all the time. The things cars are made of can be recycled, the fuel you burn cannot.

If you think there is no non-renewable resources or energy used to create cars, even from recycled materials, you are absolutely crazy. Even if someone gave you all the scrap steel you needed the environmental cost of making extra vehicles is very large. If you don't understand that you have no idea what actually is needed to make a car.

 

[obamanation]

The point is though that the GS already exists but if he went and bought a Prius he'd be paying them to make him a new car. Avoiding the energy and environmental costs of producing a new car is far greater than the amount of environmental impact from any gas savings he would see by moving to a Prius.
If you think there is no non-renewable resources or energy used to create cars, even from recycled materials, you are absolutely crazy. Even if someone gave you all the scrap steel you needed the environmental cost of making extra vehicles is very large. If you don't understand that you have no idea what actually is needed to make a car.

I don't know why you think it's "greener to keep the GS" but the Lexus GS is significantly less efficient than the Prius and consequently the efficiency improvement should outweigh the production cost of the Prius. There has to be a point where making a new, efficient vehicle would be "more green" than keeping an existing, inefficient vehicle. I don't know what this point is but I feel the Prius already exceeds that point when you compare it with the GS.

 

[EightySix Four]

I don't know why you think it's "greener to keep the GS" but the Lexus GS is significantly less efficient than the Prius and consequently the efficiency improvement should outweigh the production cost of the Prius. There has to be a point where making a new, efficient vehicle would be "more green" than keeping an existing, inefficient vehicle. I don't know what this point is but I feel the Prius already exceeds that point when you compare it with the GS.

The efficiency improvement does not outweigh the cost of the creation of a new Prius. have you ever seen the shit those batteries are made out of?

Please go away. We're tired of you, hence why you were banned.

 

[Kirby]

Could always keep it for your beater car and buy a nice new one.

Find some nice big hills or build a ramp and jump the old like rednecks. :awe:

 

[jlee]

I don't know why you think it's "greener to keep the GS" but the Lexus GS is significantly less efficient than the Prius and consequently the efficiency improvement should outweigh the production cost of the Prius. There has to be a point where making a new, efficient vehicle would be "more green" than keeping an existing, inefficient vehicle. I don't know what this point is but I feel the Prius already exceeds that point when you compare it with the GS.

http://hubpages.com/hub/Prius

Read.

 

[Bignate603]

I don't know why you think it's "greener to keep the GS" but the Lexus GS is significantly less efficient than the Prius and consequently the efficiency improvement should outweigh the production cost of the Prius. There has to be a point where making a new, efficient vehicle would be "more green" than keeping an existing, inefficient vehicle. I don't know what this point is but I feel the Prius already exceeds that point when you compare it with the GS.

And you would be wrong. The amount of non-renewable energy and resources that goes into making a vehicle is huge, even more so for the prius because of the batteries.

 

[exdeath]

A gun isn't going to help you when there isn't any more oil to burn you retard..

Things naturally running out for everyone (which is a load of crap btw) vs. people taking those things from you are two totally different things. One is simply nature taking it's course and humanity dealing with it, the other is someone violating someone else and deserving of swift retribution.

Also, you won't have a .308 to get what you want because the dems will have taken that away already

I already have it, and it isn't going anywhere no matter what happens in the future. It's a done deal whether the dems like it or not, and there is nothing they can do to get it back from me. I can play "foot in the one way door" politics just as well as Pelosi *puke*.

so they can hand over this country to the fascists and dictators to exploit..

You mean people like you?

I'd much rather people own three cars but drive the most fuel efficient one most of the time than own one car that is fuel inefficient all the time.

 

[obamanation]

http://hubpages.com/hub/Prius

Read.

That article is just summarizing exactly what "study" I've been constantly referring to in this thread. It's about that 2007 CNW "Dust to Dust" article where they incorrectly assume the Prius will get 100K miles out of it while the Hummer will get 300K miles out of it. I think the Prius in the OP's case may have a better chance of lasting longer than his GS as the GS is a semi-luxury car which tend to be expensive to repair, with 150K miles on the clock, there is going to be a point where the vehicle is trashed as it's unlikely he'll rebuild the engine.

And you would be wrong. The amount of non-renewable energy and resources that goes into making a vehicle is huge, even more so for the Prius because of the batteries.

There is going to be a point where people are going to build a new vehicle because they're so sick of their old vehicles. Anyway the point was about if he was to get a new vehicle, he should get a Prius but otherwise he should stick with what he has and continue to maintain it. Any new car is going to "pollute" but the Prius in the end will come out ahead. Even better, if anything goes bad in the Prius, you can treat it the same way you would with the GS, rebuild and replace what's necessary. The Prius has very durable parts and should last quite awhile.

Things naturally running out for everyone (which is a load of crap btw) vs. people taking those things from you are two totally different things. One is simply nature taking it's course and humanity dealing with it, the other is someone violating someone else and deserving of swift retribution.

It's a "load of crap" because you're like all AGW deniers, you're only in denial because it's uncomfortable to face the realization that things are going to dramatically change, for "better" or "worse". You just want to maintain the status quo and couldn't care less what damage your behaviors cause because it utilizes too much of what limited brain power you have.

I already have it, and it isn't going anywhere no matter what happens in the future. It's a done deal whether the dems like it or not, and there is nothing they can do to get it back from me. I can play "foot in the one way door" politics just as well as Pelosi *puke*.

Sure you will.. I think that's just wishful thinking on your part. Even if they don't take your guns, they'll take your bullets and make your guns worthless. http://gunalertsupdates.com/go.php/707765/1619384/4632775
"Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton and President Obama have said the U.S. will commit to and sign the UN Small Arms Treaty that will set the stage for foreign gun control laws in the U.S. "
What are you doing about preventing the prez from agreeing to such resolutions?

You mean people like you?

I'm a facist because I scorn people who don't do the right thing? There is a difference between scorn and ostracizing and just being a plain old dictator, spending all your time trying to get laws passed because you incorrectly believe that's the only way to get shit done. It's like with the ban on incandescents, yeah it's great that finally we're working towards improving energy efficiency but incandescents have their place and banning them is just going to make shit difficult for those who need them for the specific application. These "bans" and "laws" get passed because of apathetic people like you who not only fail to fight legislation like this, but don't bother to take it upon yourselves to devise any solutions because you don't feel there is a problem in need of being solved...

I'd rather people take it upon themselves and do the right thing instead of standing idle, pissing and moaning when things are changing without their consent. This is why I brought up the point about that if people don't take it upon themselves to do the right thing, that eventually an authority will step in and force you to do something to accomplish a goal, even if it's inconsiderate and isn't the most affective way of doing things.

 

[radioouman]

That article is just summarizing exactly what "study" I've been constantly referring to in this thread. It's about that 2007 CNW "Dust to Dust" article where they incorrectly assume the Prius will get 100K miles out of it while the Hummer will get 300K miles out of it. I think the Prius in the OP's case may have a better chance of lasting longer than his GS as the GS is a semi-luxury car which tend to be expensive to repair, with 150K miles on the clock, there is going to be a point where the vehicle is trashed as it's unlikely he'll rebuild the engine.

I doubt it. The Prius will need new batteries by 100,000 miles and will probably only last until 150,000 where the typical driver will start to feel "nickel and dimed to death". The Hummer, which is built to take some off road abuse, will likely last a lot longer than 150,000 if its life is solely on-road.

 

[obamanation]

Oh I just found this article about the energy in the manufacture of a 2008 Toyota Prius:
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2008/05/the-ultimate-pr/

"As Matt Power notes in this month’s issue of Wired, hybrids get great gas mileage but it takes 113 million BTUs of energy to make a Toyota Prius. Because there are about 113,000 BTUs of energy in a gallon of gasoline, the Prius has consumed the equivalent of 1,000 gallons of gasoline before it reaches the showroom. Think of it as a carbon debt — one you won’t pay off until the Prius has turned over 46,000 miles or so."

I know 113 million BTUs or 1,000 gallons of gasoline sounds like a lot, but that's about 10 tons of CO2.

The jtvang125's GS400 is suppose to average around 18MPG, which according to "fueleconomy.gov", at 15K miles, is 10.4 tons of CO2. A 2010 Prius which averages 50mpg emits 3.8 tons of CO2 for the same distance.. Alright, so let's just say the Prius emits 13.8 tons of CO2 for the first year of driving (combine fuel consumption + manufacture of car). Ok, so the Prius is worse than the GS400 that already exists, but that's for the first year. After another 15,000 miles, the GS400 will emit another 10.4 tons of CO2, making a total of 20.8 tons of CO2 while the Prius will emit another 3.8 tons of CO2, making for a total of 17.8 tons of CO2.

So tell me, how is a NEW Prius "less green" than a used GS400? After 30K miles, the brand new Prius is already more green than the already existing GS400.. The point of that "wired" article is to point out that used vehicles that are already efficient are more green in the short term than the Prius, i.e, they're more "cost effective".

I doubt it. The Prius will need new batteries by 100,000 miles and will probably only last until 150,000 where the typical driver will start to feel "nickel and dimed to death". The Hummer, which is built to take some off road abuse, will likely last a lot longer than 150,000 if its life is solely on-road.

The Prius has a warranty of 150K miles on the batteries for California cars and 100K elsewhere, and the vehicles' batteries have shown to last as long as 300K miles serving as taxis in various cities. The Prius vehicles could have lasted longer than 300K miles but they're retired as required by law once the odometer reaches 300K miles. (Applies to all taxis in New York and I believe California)

http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencarad...ery-replacement-boost-as-1st-hybrids-age.html

After mentioning that a number of Prius taxis have racked up more than 300,000 miles on their original battery packs, Thompson notes that the batteries are warranted for 150,000 miles or 10 years in states using California emissions standards and for 100,000miles or eight years in the rest of the U.S.

http://green.autoblog.com/2009/12/04/e-tu-clarkson-top-gear-names-prius-the-city-car-of-the-year/

Jeremy Clarkson seems to hate anything that greens up or in any other way adds an eco label to his cars – and some environmentalists don't exactly appreciate the television host either – so it's with some amusement that we learn that the Top Gear team has named the Toyota Prius the "City Car of the Year." Turns out, the Prius really can appeal to almost everyone.