Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org

"Elle" > wrote in message ...
> "Pszemol" > wrote
>> How can you explain old car with leaky cylinders and
>> not perfect compression, dirty/worn out fuel injectors
>> etc, etc, using up less fuel than when they were new?
>
> Engine rings do not fail nearly as soon as they used to,
> that's all. Without googling, I'd say technology has
> improved additives to gas and engine oil, along with engine
> materials, so engines last longer. You can google and find
> more on why engines last longer these days. Even American
> manufacturers' cars are lasting longer.

I am not saying they last shorter, I am just saying
they consume little more than when they were new
and all was clean, matching perfectly and in order.

I simply cannot compute the argument that the car
with 185 thousand miles on the odometer can consume
less fuel than when it had - let's say - 10 thousand and
everything else was brand new and in perfect adjustment.

> Trip odometer set to zero at every fillup. Fill to one
> click. Divide miles by gallons. Average over many fillups,
> or a few.

This is very unreliable method and you have many
sources of error factored to your calculations!

> MPG often falls off for many people simply due to poor basic
> maintenance habits like not changing out the plug wires,
> plugs, distributor cap, PCV valve, air filter, etc. Also,
> failing to use OEM for these parts (air filter excepted) can
> be detrimental to MPG, IMO.

I see I am unable to convince you... that is ok, too :-)

"Pszemol" > wrote
> I simply cannot compute the argument that the car
> with 185 thousand miles on the odometer can consume
> less fuel than when it had - let's say - 10 thousand and
> everything else was brand new and in perfect adjustment.

Then you are not acquainted with changes in technology. Just
the use of unleaded fuel in the last 30 years has altered
engine life dramatically.

>> Trip odometer set to zero at every fillup. Fill to one
>> click. Divide miles by gallons. Average over many
>> fillups, or a few.
>
> This is very unreliable method and you have many
> sources of error factored to your calculations!

Nonsense, but thank you for convincing me you are a bull****
artist.

"Elle" > wrote in message ...
> "Pszemol" > wrote
>> I simply cannot compute the argument that the car
>> with 185 thousand miles on the odometer can consume
>> less fuel than when it had - let's say - 10 thousand and
>> everything else was brand new and in perfect adjustment.
>
> Then you are not acquainted with changes in technology. Just
> the use of unleaded fuel in the last 30 years has altered
> engine life dramatically.

Sure, and car after 200 thousand miles consumes less fuel
than the same car when it was brand new... of course :-)

>>> Trip odometer set to zero at every fillup. Fill to one
>>> click. Divide miles by gallons. Average over many
>>> fillups, or a few.
>>
>> This is very unreliable method and you have many
>> sources of error factored to your calculations!
>
> Nonsense, but thank you for convincing me you are a bull****
> artist.

Here we go with name calling game... How mature is it? :-)

You simply do not realize where are the sources of BIG errors
in your method. For example, starting at your shut-off nozzle,
it will shut-off in very random place near the top of the tank.
It will depend on the brand of the dispenser, velocity of the
fuel in the hose (how strong is the submersible on the site)
even the same nozzles will differ in the shut-off reaction time.
Shut off time will even depend on how deep you put nozzle in...
It will also depend on the particular fuel was delivered that
day on the site you refuel... If the gasoline happens to be
specially foamy that day, it may actuate the release mechanism
in the nozzle prematurely, with the result that you end up with
less than a full tank of gas. If you stop fueling in the middle
and let the foam settle, then fuel to the top it will be different.

Mixing city and highway milleage is also a huge factor in error
estimation. Ambient air temperature, weather condition (rain),
holiday period and less cars on the road, less stops&go.
Averaging can only help a little.

Well, good luck with your car! :-)

Elle wrote:
> "Pszemol" > wrote
>
>>I was not talking about you but in general about car
>>choosing process.
>
>
> Use the word "one" in place of "you," then.
>
>
>>cars with high mileage will require a lot of work to reach
>>that original, factory levels.
>
>
> Nonsense. My 91 Civic's mileage actually improved with age
> and is better than the EPA's stated values. I watch it like
> a hawk for the last five years, and it has not changed. You
> are not the least bit up to date on what old cars can do
> these days.
>
>


I'm offended!

What would he call my '82 'n '83 junkers? Scrap???

Grrrrr

JT

(Just pokin' along with my ol' 42mpg junker...)

Pszemol wrote:
> "Elle" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Pszemol" > wrote
>>> I simply cannot compute the argument that the car
>>> with 185 thousand miles on the odometer can consume
>>> less fuel than when it had - let's say - 10 thousand and
>>> everything else was brand new and in perfect adjustment.
>>
>> Then you are not acquainted with changes in technology. Just the use
>> of unleaded fuel in the last 30 years has altered engine life
>> dramatically.
>
> Sure, and car after 200 thousand miles consumes less fuel
> than the same car when it was brand new... of course :-)
>
>>>> Trip odometer set to zero at every fillup. Fill to one click. Divide
>>>> miles by gallons. Average over many fillups, or a few.
>>>
>>> This is very unreliable method and you have many
>>> sources of error factored to your calculations!
>>
>> Nonsense, but thank you for convincing me you are a bull**** artist.
>
> Here we go with name calling game... How mature is it? :-)
>
> You simply do not realize where are the sources of BIG errors
> in your method. For example, starting at your shut-off nozzle,
> it will shut-off in very random place near the top of the tank.
> It will depend on the brand of the dispenser, velocity of the
> fuel in the hose (how strong is the submersible on the site)
> even the same nozzles will differ in the shut-off reaction time.
> Shut off time will even depend on how deep you put nozzle in...
> It will also depend on the particular fuel was delivered that
> day on the site you refuel... If the gasoline happens to be
> specially foamy that day, it may actuate the release mechanism
> in the nozzle prematurely, with the result that you end up with
> less than a full tank of gas. If you stop fueling in the middle
> and let the foam settle, then fuel to the top it will be different.

but that doesn't make a damned bit of difference to an average!


>
> Mixing city and highway milleage is also a huge factor in error
> estimation. Ambient air temperature, weather condition (rain),
> holiday period and less cars on the road, less stops&go.
> Averaging can only help a little.

no dude, the average /defines/ the whole exercise.


>
> Well, good luck with your car! :-)

good luck with your math.

Pszemol wrote:
> "AZ Nomad" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:51:06 -0500, Pszemol > wrote:
>>> "AZ Nomad" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:28:41 -0700, Elle
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>> "Pszemol" > wrote
>>>>>> Lets say you compare a car making 30mpg to a car making 35mpg.
>>>>>> 12000/30 is 400 gallons. 12000/35 is 343 gallons. Difference
>>>>>> is 57 gallons. With todays price less than $5 per gallons it
>>>>>> is 57*5 = 285 dollars PER YEAR. 23 dollars per month...
>>>>
>>>>> ~$20/month is something a lot of people do mind. That's a nice
>>>>> lunch somewhere once a month. There's no point in paying it, if it
>>>>> can be avoided. Twenty bucks here, twenty there each month adds up.
>>>>
>>>> Save it all up and you might be able to afford a new battery when
>>>> the time
>>>> comes. The payback period for most hybrids is greater than the life
>>>> of the
>>>> car. You'll have more money in your pocket if you simply get a
>>>> standard
>>>> car. Better yet, get a one year old standard engine car. The
>>>> difference
>>>> in cost will be more like $150/month.
>>
>>> And when buying an old car you really does not have a way testing
>>> how good is this particular car on mpg. It might require some
>>> money spent to get to the desired target mpg values - if it costs
>>> couple hundreds to replace sensors or make some tuning up than
>>> it again defeats the purpose of saving these 5-10 bucks a month
>>> which the mileage improvement can save you. Tricky subject... :-)
>>
>>> Also - with an old car, a single expensive unexpected repair can
>>> kill all your pre-calculated "profits" you expect, so choosing
>>> right car is extra tricky and is more in the hands of luck/fate.
>>
>> I was talking about a year old car, not a twenty old junker.
>
> I know :-) You were talknig about one year old... :-)))
> But we were talking here in this thread about the sense in
> making mpg comparisons when buying almost 20 years old junker
> (93 civic).

1. 2008 - 1993 = 15. see my earlier comment about your math.

2. you don't seem to understand that modern cars are much heavier than
the older ones, and thus, because the extra weight takes more energy to
move around, many modern cars lose their fuel efficiency advantage
compared to older ones. or at least, older hondas. a literally 20 year
old crx hf can out-perform the current civic hybrid by some margin in
fuel economy ratings.

"jim beam" > wrote in message t...
>> I know :-) You were talknig about one year old... :-)))
>> But we were talking here in this thread about the sense in
>> making mpg comparisons when buying almost 20 years old junker
>> (93 civic).
>
> 1. 2008 - 1993 = 15. see my earlier comment about your math.

15 years old junker or 20 years old junker - what is really the difference?

> 2. you don't seem to understand that modern cars are much heavier than
> the older ones, and thus, because the extra weight takes more energy to
> move around, many modern cars lose their fuel efficiency advantage
> compared to older ones. or at least, older hondas. a literally 20 year
> old crx hf can out-perform the current civic hybrid by some margin in
> fuel economy ratings.

I was never comparing her 93 to todays 2008 models but I was comparing her
93 now with 185k miles to *the same car* when young, with 10k miles in 1993.
Do you really think her 93 with 185k burns less fuel than when it had 10k miles
on the odometer? I certainly doubt it.

"jim beam" > wrote in message ...
>> You simply do not realize where are the sources of BIG errors
>> in your method. For example, starting at your shut-off nozzle,
>> it will shut-off in very random place near the top of the tank.
>> It will depend on the brand of the dispenser, velocity of the
>> fuel in the hose (how strong is the submersible on the site)
>> even the same nozzles will differ in the shut-off reaction time.
>> Shut off time will even depend on how deep you put nozzle in...
>> It will also depend on the particular fuel was delivered that
>> day on the site you refuel... If the gasoline happens to be
>> specially foamy that day, it may actuate the release mechanism
>> in the nozzle prematurely, with the result that you end up with
>> less than a full tank of gas. If you stop fueling in the middle
>> and let the foam settle, then fuel to the top it will be different.
>
> but that doesn't make a damned bit of difference to an average!

It does if you want to extract city mpg from highway mpg.
If you take too much data into the average you will blurr
the difference between city/highway mileage and for some
cars it makes a huge difference.

>> Mixing city and highway milleage is also a huge factor in error
>> estimation. Ambient air temperature, weather condition (rain),
>> holiday period and less cars on the road, less stops&go.
>> Averaging can only help a little.
>
> no dude, the average /defines/ the whole exercise.

It introduces some problems, too...

Pszemol wrote:
> "jim beam" > wrote in message
> t...
>
>>> I know :-) You were talknig about one year old... :-)))
>>> But we were talking here in this thread about the sense in
>>> making mpg comparisons when buying almost 20 years old junker
>>> (93 civic).
>>
>>
>> 1. 2008 - 1993 = 15. see my earlier comment about your math.
>
>
> 15 years old junker or 20 years old junker - what is really the difference?
>
>> 2. you don't seem to understand that modern cars are much heavier than
>> the older ones, and thus, because the extra weight takes more energy
>> to move around, many modern cars lose their fuel efficiency advantage
>> compared to older ones. or at least, older hondas. a literally 20
>> year old crx hf can out-perform the current civic hybrid by some
>> margin in fuel economy ratings.
>
>
> I was never comparing her 93 to todays 2008 models but I was comparing her
> 93 now with 185k miles to *the same car* when young, with 10k miles in
> 1993.
> Do you really think her 93 with 185k burns less fuel than when it had
> 10k miles
> on the odometer? I certainly doubt it.


You really don't know much do you?

A car with 10K on it will almost always be less fuel efficient than one
with 50K or more...

<sigh>

JT

Pszemol wrote:
> "jim beam" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> You simply do not realize where are the sources of BIG errors
>>> in your method. For example, starting at your shut-off nozzle,
>>> it will shut-off in very random place near the top of the tank.
>>> It will depend on the brand of the dispenser, velocity of the
>>> fuel in the hose (how strong is the submersible on the site)
>>> even the same nozzles will differ in the shut-off reaction time.
>>> Shut off time will even depend on how deep you put nozzle in...
>>> It will also depend on the particular fuel was delivered that
>>> day on the site you refuel... If the gasoline happens to be
>>> specially foamy that day, it may actuate the release mechanism
>>> in the nozzle prematurely, with the result that you end up with
>>> less than a full tank of gas. If you stop fueling in the middle
>>> and let the foam settle, then fuel to the top it will be different.
>>
>> but that doesn't make a damned bit of difference to an average!
>
> It does if you want to extract city mpg from highway mpg.
> If you take too much data into the average you will blurr
> the difference between city/highway mileage and for some
> cars it makes a huge difference.

spot data is not average data. spot data is used to compile average data.


>>> Mixing city and highway milleage is also a huge factor in error
>>> estimation. Ambient air temperature, weather condition (rain),
>>> holiday period and less cars on the road, less stops&go.
>>> Averaging can only help a little.
>>
>> no dude, the average /defines/ the whole exercise.
>
> It introduces some problems, too...

eh? you don't seem to have a very good grasp of math principles. but
the education system today is not very effective so it's probably not
your fault.