Automobile Forums  Where Car Enthusiasts Go to Discuss Cars Online

Hi...

Don't know if this is the right section, since my comment doesn't really fit in the "This Month in Automobile" section, since it has to do with an article in the August '09 issue.  Specifically, the article "The Maverick" on pages 93-95.  I find Bill Reinert's assertion "... I realized that we're above the level of diminishing returns at 50 miles per gallon..." to be a false assertion.  If gas costs five dollars a gallon, and my car holds ten gallons, then 50 mpg will take me five hundred miles on my fifty dollars worth of gas.  However, if my car gets 100 mpg, I can go 1000 miles on that same fifty dollars.  Or five hundred miles worth of commuting on only twenty-five dollars.  Double the miles per gallon, cut my fuel bill in half!  Mister Reinert's not the only one I've heard spout this nonsense, either, so I'm not just poking my finger at him.  Why is it we have such obvious untruths from people who should know better?  Especially when a little simple math makes it quite evident that more miles per gallon saves me... and you... more money at the pump.  Which is all that matters.  Take that MPG figure up to 150 miles per gallon, and you've cut your fuel bill down to a third of what a 50 mpg vehicle provides.  I don't see how this is a diminishing return.

Every little bit saved, helps....  

I'm with you!

Although I love cars, I'm getting tired of the misinformed BS car mags spout.  I probably won't renew any of my subscriptions (Automobile, C/D, R/T, and Autoweek) at the end of this year.  After all, 90% of what they include are repackaged press releases!

Did you notice the sidebar on page 59 of the Nov '09 issue?  It includes only enough math to "prove" that the Tesla gets 19 or 33 MPG.  Even though it states that electricity can be bought as cheaply as $0.05/kWh, it doesn't do the calculations to show that the Tesla can get the equivalent of 162 MPG!  How convenient that they left this off!!

In many ways the mags are responsible for the mess Detroit is in - they continued to demand faster and more powerful cars, rather than better ones.  Has anyone else noticed that in the 60's and 70's cars that did 0-60 in 8 seconds were more than fast enough?  Now, a car that doesn't break 5 seconds is talked about like it's a slug!  And, how many times do YOU drive faster than 75 MPH?

The most fun I ever had driving was my 1981 Honda Civic.  I enjoyed that car so much I bought a 2008 Fit... and I love this car too!  It's plenty quick, handles great, drives solid, and is very comfortable.   The day someone produces an electric car that matches the numbers of my old Civic, I'll buy one!

BTW, my dream car:
- Plug in hybrid, with an on-board engine/generator for emergencies.
- 100 miles battery range.
- Small (30 HP in front, 20 in the rear)) electric motors at all four wheels.  These could be used for 'instant-on four wheel drive' on slick roads.  And, better yet, since only a small amount of power is necessary for most driving, only one or two of these motors would be used at any one time.  During coasting one could regenerate, during light breaking two could, and during heavier breaking they all could.  Thus this car would consume electricity at the rate of a 20 or 30 HP engine during light loads (highway cruising, for example), but have as much as 100 HP on tap for when it's needed (yes, I know this car would be a lot more powerful and faster than my Civic was).