Comments on: Cheapest Fuel Efficient Cars: Fit Is Go!

By: pjkPA

pjkPA — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 01:13:51 +0000

In a article in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette “Bigger is Safer” it states ” .. about twice as many people are killed or serious injured when two small cars hit than when two big cars hit.”

Big cars being 3500lbs to 4,000lbs.
(Chevy Impala range)

The new CAFE standards will cause more people to be killed and seriously injured, that is a fact.

We obviously care more about gas mileage than we do human life. The US auto manufacturers have long stated this and are being overridden by radicals who have their own agenda.

It has long been known that if we stopped building cars that weigh less than 3,000lbs (Chevy Cobalt weighs 3,000lbs) we could save 10,000 lives a year. Instead we will be killing more people by forcing the auto industry to build smaller cars.

The last thing the US has to worry about is “global warming”. Half the scientists are now saying the earth is cooling but the radicals insist on forcing our industry to add senseless costs. If you don’t have a job …you can care less about some eccentric scientists theories especially when half of them disagree. What we need is some common sense.

By: Traciatim

Traciatim — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 12:01:48 +0000

Guys,ignoring the stats doesn’t change the fact that you are far more likely to be injured or killed in a sub-compact car over a mid-sized to large-sized car.

Another quick google finds this fascinating chart, though the data is old I’m just doing quick searching here to show the points. People get hurt/killed less in bigger cars (I’m talking cars only here, SUVs and Trucks roll and junk so have higher death rates and contrary to popular belief are not safer).
http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa229/Traciatim/CarDeatheAndInjuries-ByClass-1980.png
or
http://tinyurl.com/62mr2r

Another quick search finds this stat sladdin, I just found it on a list of odds site so I’m not sure how accurate it is or where they got their data.
dying from a car accident: 18,585 to 1
being struck by lightning: 576,000 to 1
being killed by lightning: 2,320,000 to 1

By: saladdin

saladdin — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 01:25:07 +0000

Odds of being struck by lightning in your lifetime 1 in 5000.

saladdin

http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/medical.htm

By: jim

jim — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 00:25:34 +0000

Traciatim, while I’m sure the statistics are accurate… you’re bending them to fit your logic. The probability of being in a fatal accident is low and that should factor more into your decision than what happens in the event you are in one. That’s my take anyway, I personally feel you can drive whatever you want but you lose the right to complain about fuel prices (not that you have, just saying I laugh to myself when people driving huge trucks for no reason complain about $4/gal gas).

By: Traciatim

Traciatim — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 21:31:33 +0000

saladdin, it could have something to to with the fact that small cars have FAR higher death rates in accidents. A quick google found a chart on crashtest.com that shows death rates per million vehicles per year in cars less than 2500lbs were 109, from 2500-2999 were 83, 3000-3499 were 60, and from 3500-3999 were 53 . . . less than half the rate of small cars.

I would call that a fairly good reason.

By: saladdin

saladdin — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 20:11:28 +0000

I just don’t understand the “safety” reason that people bring up to justify buying those large tanks. It’s not like older 10 year old Saturns just spontaneously combust while driving down the road. I think it is like the old faithful “I need more room” reason some us.

saladdin

By: ChristianPF

ChristianPF — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 19:14:14 +0000

I bought the fit sport (auto) 2 years ago and while I have loved the car, Honda jacked up the MPG estimates… I believe the estimates were 33/37 and as a very conservative driver I would occasionally get 31 mpgs with a lot of highway driving. The best tank I have gotten yet was 34 mpg … nonetheless, I am excited that the Fit is at the top of the list!!

By: jim

jim — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 17:59:19 +0000

Very true, but I do think that you can still use it as a basis for comparison amongst vehicles since you’re speaking in generalities. Sure, your actually TCO on a vehicle won’t match the Edmunds determined value but I’d imagine it’d be close enough to make a good comparison.

It’s always tricky dealing with these sorts of things but I think TCO, while imperfect, is a more complete measure than sticker price.

By: Rick Morley

Rick Morley — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:12:11 +0000

I have an answer why TCO isn’t what’s used most often. Because it’s difficult to calculate. Anyone can look at a invoice sticker on a car and see what the purchase price is. Anyone can see what MPG the car gets. But how can you calculate, say, what the repair costs will be over the next 5-10 years? Your car might break down. It might not. How can you see what the insurance costs of the vehicle will be? You insurance company may or may not appreciate if you gave them a list of 10 cars and asked for quotes. How can you know what the depreciation of the car will be over the next 5 years? Especially if it is a new model? Does depreciation even matter? I personally don’t plan on selling my car, but keeping it for 10-15 years until it dies. For me, depreciation is irrelevant.

This is kind of like megapixels on a camera, or GHz on a computer. The number is just a quick way to evaluate how good the device is. But determining the overall quality of a camera is a much more involved and opinionated process. What’s good for one may not be good for another.

So by all means, try to calculate the TCO of your new car, but realize it’s probably different for you than for your friend who might have the same car, or the reviewer in the latest issue of Consumer Reports.

By: James

James — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 13:02:23 +0000

Traciatim,
are you really worried about 144 deaths per million? if you do the math it’s unbelievably unlikely you’ll be killed in any size car ( based on the numbers given):
144/1,000,000=0.000144 67/1,000,000=0.000001

“I’d also like to point out that when rated in deaths per million registered vehicles in 2005 Mini cars were at 144, small cars at 106 and Large at 67. I’m not sure where the Grand Am and Taurus sit, but I sure don’t want to be the person that turns in to a pinball in an accident. Can you imagine my 3300lb Taurus smacking head long at 60MPG in to a 2500lb Fit?”

By: Traciatim

Traciatim — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 21:53:16 +0000

awDude, If you in fact read my post you would realize why I would get 22MPG when my car is rated at 20MPG city and 27MPG highway.

What my point was is that I find it very interesting that this little 2500lb car with an engine making 109HP is rated to get 34MPG on the highway when my 3300lb 200HP car is rated at 27MPG. You would think in 6 years with all the push to get cars more efficient that the progress would be better.

Take for example a cheaper Ford Focus S, it puts out 140HP and lugs around an extra 200lbs over the fit . . . yet is rated at 35MPG on the highway. How can an engine push 200 extra lbs, in a bigger car down the highway and get slightly better gas mileage? Cause it’s more efficient.

How come the $14,755 35MPG focus ($421 / MPG) isn’t on top of that list . . . If you include the $1000 rebate then it’s a 13,755 35MPG focus, or $393 / MPG . . . I guess we skip over ford because we like sending our money away.

By: jim

jim — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 21:08:39 +0000

Rick: The cost to change is pretty high, but I agree with you.

Dave: Thinking about it some more, and with your explanation, there’s no reason why TCO wouldn’t be a better metric whether it included fuel or not.

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 21:01:34 +0000

Jim,

I don’t see why you can’t just use the TCO (or the equivalent Cost per Mile) to compare. Fuel is included in the TCO and it should be. Example:

2008 Toyota Prius (base) vs. Honda Fit
True Cost to Own (based on first 5 yrs), assumes 15000 miles per yr, purchased with 10% down
MSRP $22875 vs $13950
Depreciation $15918 vs $8568
Financing $5442 vs $2780
Insurance $10323 vs $8993
Taxes & Fees (for MD) $1974 vs $1128
Fuel $6700 vs $9722
Maintenance $4629 vs $3403
Repairs $797 vs $797
—————————-
Total $45783 vs $35391
Dividing by 15000×5yrs gives you:
$.61 a mile for the Prius vs $.47 for the Fit.

By: Rick Morley

Rick Morley — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:44:18 +0000

Low as in fuel efficiency. My car is a 2004 model, which I believe is before the new EPA guidelines were released (I think). The sticker on the window had said 32 city / 41 highway, and yet I do average more than that, even in the city.

In any case, I’m still surprised on the number of people that still drive vehicles under 25mpg, which the price of gas as it is these days.

By: jim

jim — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 19:39:16 +0000

Dave: You’re right, the TCO is a more accurate measure from a cost perspective but we need a modified TCO that excludes fuel. I believe TCO includes fuel right? (I’m not 100% sure about this) Otherwise, you have a self-referential measure…

Rick: Low as in price or low as in fuel efficiency? Remember that the EPA changed how they calculated it so it is lower than what you might be accustomed to.. though more accurate. I’d rather the estimate be low (how it appears now), than the reverse (how it used to be). As long as they’re all accurate…