Would you buy a new car just for better gas mileage

[huberm]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: So
According to wikipedia, a 1983 civic got 55mpg on the highway and a 2006 hybrid civic only gets 51. If you wanted to be good to the environment, you'd buy the car that was produced 24 years ago (no new factory emissions) and has better fuel mileage.

this whole question is a loaded strawman and contrived.

no where can you get a 1983 civic new, so it will cost time, money and energy to keep it running.

this of course ignores the fact that a 1983 civic is not as safe, smaller and less usable than a new hybrid.

the emissions standards might have been a lot different in 1983 as well. Even if the older vehicle gets better mileage, it may be emitting more harmful substances into the atmosphere.

 

[Corporate Thug]

NO

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: GrantMeThePower
Would you still do it, just for the enviornment (and convinences' sake)?

My wallet is more important than the environment.

 

[chuckywang]

Yes, I would hide some sort of payment to help out the environment.

 

[PAB]

Originally posted by: huberm

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: So
According to wikipedia, a 1983 civic got 55mpg on the highway and a 2006 hybrid civic only gets 51. If you wanted to be good to the environment, you'd buy the car that was produced 24 years ago (no new factory emissions) and has better fuel mileage.

this whole question is a loaded strawman and contrived.

no where can you get a 1983 civic new, so it will cost time, money and energy to keep it running.

this of course ignores the fact that a 1983 civic is not as safe, smaller and less usable than a new hybrid.

the emissions standards might have been a lot different in 1983 as well. Even if the older vehicle gets better mileage, it may be emitting more harmful substances into the atmosphere.

Who's the better enviromentalist? The guy who drives his prius 150 miles to work and back every day or the guy who drives the 454 suburban 2 miles?

With the reasoning most Enviromentalists use, the suburban driver wins.

 

[SampSon]

I'd consider buying a small diesel car new.

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: So
According to wikipedia, a 1983 civic got 55mpg on the highway and a 2006 hybrid civic only gets 51. If you wanted to be good to the environment, you'd buy the car that was produced 24 years ago (no new factory emissions) and has better fuel mileage.

this whole question is a loaded strawman and contrived.

no where can you get a 1983 civic new, so it will cost time, money and energy to keep it running.

And yet, those maintenance charges will still be cheaper than buying a new car.

only if downtime on your time is worthless to you.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: So
According to wikipedia, a 1983 civic got 55mpg on the highway and a 2006 hybrid civic only gets 51. If you wanted to be good to the environment, you'd buy the car that was produced 24 years ago (no new factory emissions) and has better fuel mileage.

this whole question is a loaded strawman and contrived.

no where can you get a 1983 civic new, so it will cost time, money and energy to keep it running.

this of course ignores the fact that a 1983 civic is not as safe, smaller and less usable than a new hybrid.

I think the point you accidentally made was even better than the one you intended to.

We found the formula to fuel-efficient cars decades ago: small size and less powerful engines. Throw in diesels and you're really onto something :thumbsup:

 

[Svnla]

No way, I could get a brand new 4 cylinders Civic with great milage but I already paid for my crossover SUV = no monthly payments.

 

[Tom]

i never tried it, but can you youngsters make out in the back seat of a Civic ?

 

[radioouman]

No. I buy a new car only so that my wife has a safe car that is very reliable.

For myself, I drive 10+ year old cars/trucks and the difference that I save on insurance outweighs all benefits on fuel economy alone.

 

[IGBT]

..has nothing to do with prudent cost effective decision. And it's all about reckless liberal "feel good" politics.

 

[JDub02]

I did.

When I switched jobs and went from driving 6 to 60 miles a day, I dropped my 1/2 ton Dodge and bought a car. Over double the gas mileage. With the number of miles I rack up, it's like getting the car for 1/2 price.

9-10 mpg to 22-23 mpg 🙂

 

[MBentz]

Originally posted by: Svnla
No way, I could get a brand new 4 cylinders Civic with great milage but I already paid for my VAN = no monthly payments.

Fixed.

 

[sygyzy]

What an original thread. Hybrid owners are stupid! Keep to the right, in line with the sheep. I think your overlord, Bush, is holding a session.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I'd definitely consider it. I can't wait for the hybrid technology to grow. It's not just the mileage, it's the reduction of greenhouse gasses.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: So
According to wikipedia, a 1983 civic got 55mpg on the highway and a 2006 hybrid civic only gets 51. If you wanted to be good to the environment, you'd buy the car that was produced 24 years ago (no new factory emissions) and has better fuel mileage.

Not only that, but you don't have all the energy costs of manufacturing a brand new vehicle.

This option, or to simply drive less, is the only positive course of action for the OP -- both for his wallet economically and for the world environmentally.

I'll be blunt (as usual 😛) -- anyone who tells you that you can help the environment through the otherwise unnecessary consumption of products is either an idiot or a flat-out liar. The ONLY way to impact less is to consume less.

Originally posted by: sygyzy
What an original thread. Hybrid owners are stupid! Keep to the right, in line with the sheep. I think your overlord, Bush, is holding a session.

Case in point, an idiot. Without any valid argument to explain why the otherwise unnecessary consumption of brand new car is beneficial for the environment, he straw mans the "we must all love the Great Satan Bush" argument. What a fsckin' joke! Go park your brand new Prius next to your brand new Hummer in front of your brand new McMansion, dumbass.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Tom
i never tried it, but can you youngsters make out in the back seat of a Civic ?

Depends on what generation and the age of the kids in question. It's all about position choice and flexibility. 😉

Even so, given the popularity of the older Civics with high-school students, and the shrinking height of said students, I'd say there wouldn't be any problems. 😛

Or you could just get a Fit, and put those flat-fold seats to good use. :evil:

- M4H

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JDub02
I did.

When I switched jobs and went from driving 6 to 60 miles a day, I dropped my 1/2 ton Dodge and bought a car. Over double the gas mileage. With the number of miles I rack up, it's like getting the car for 1/2 price.

9-10 mpg to 22-23 mpg 🙂

Your individual case is not typical. It would have been far better for the environment (though not necessarily for you personally, I understand) if you had not taken the job with the 10 times longer commute. However, with no other option, you did the best thing, although your overall environmental impact is still markedly increased (by a factor of at least 5, I would say, based on the figures you provided, not counting anything beyond the increased energy consumption).
The best way to look at it is by the impact on your pocketbook. You might be getting double the gas mileage, but you're driving 10 times as far. You might have a new car, but you have a new car payment(s). And then there's the increase in your maintenance costs caused by putting on the miles 10 times faster than before. All of this is designed to tell you that you're not helping the environment, except in relation to if you had kept the old gas-guzzling truck. Had you not dramatically increased the amount of miles you drive (read: your base consumption level), and had kept your old vehicle (and ideally drive it less or as little as possible), you most likely would not have saved money, not even in the long term.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Oh, and

http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/pw/50-litre.htm

On 50L of gas (13.2 US gallons) the following compact cars delivered the following mileage:

Suzuki Aerio (2.3L AT) - 636km - 36mpg
Saturn Ion (2.4L AT) - 711km - 40mpg
VW Golf (2.0L MT) - 744km - 42mpg
Mazda 3 (2.0L MT) - 755km - 43mpg
Chevrolet Cobalt (2.2L AT) - 771km - 43mpg
Nissan Sentra (1.8L AT) - 780km - 44mpg
Kia Spectra (2.0L AT) - 786km - 44mpg
Ford Focus (2.0L AT) - 786km - 44mpg
Toyota Corolla (1.8L MT) - 911km - 51mpg
And delivering the wtfpwnage, as usual
Honda Civic (1.7L MT) - 1022km - 58mpg

- M4H

 

[LordMorpheus]

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: GrantMeThePower
just for the environment ?

no, i am not a dirty smelly hippie

That, and I'm not an idiot. Buying a new car is hands down worse for the environment than continuing to drive whatever you've got now.

 

[OVerLoRDI]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: So
Nope. TCO is what it's all about. Even if you want to help the environment, the smart thing to do is buy the cheapest, smallest econobox you can find. A civic from the 80s is surprisingly competitive with the best hybrid.

Exhibit A

Screw hybrids then, I didn't know they got that good of gas mileage.

 

[Pepsi90919]

lol. false economics ftl