Hahahahahahaha!!!!
#1
08-20-2007, 06:34 PM
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 5,613
Hahahahahahaha!!!!
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2...as-mileag.html
Hummmm, 6.5 years ago would be . . . 2001 or about the same time that Honda brought the Insight and Toyota brought the Prius to our shores.
So let's see, we'll take the Insight:
2001 Insight: 64 MPG @ 15k miles/yr * 6.5 years -> 1,524 gallons
2001 SUV: 18 MPG @ 15k miles/yr * 6.5 years -> 5,417 gallons
3,892 gallons * $3 -> $11,946 dollars
Sure the math is wrong but then we are dealing with CNW Marketing whose concept of reality is:
"No matter the problem, buy a big SUV!"
Good thing Exxon is no longer funding hybrid misinformation . . .
Bob Wilson
. . .CNW Marketing Research, a company that studies why people buy the cars they do, found that those who purchase new full-size SUVs actually get nearly 2 mpg more in the new car than they did in their old one (19.9 mpg vs. 18 mpg).
At $3 a gallon, that's not only a savings of $186 in gas over a year's driving, it's a savings of more than 60 gallons of fuel.
Since the trade-ins were, on average, 6.5 years old, that's another low-mileage, high-emission-belching relic off the road.
Those who bought a new midsize SUV are now getting an average of 21.7 mpg, up from 19.9 mpg on their 6.4-year-old trade-in. Savings there is $136 a year and about 44 gallons of gas.
- - -
At $3 a gallon, that's not only a savings of $186 in gas over a year's driving, it's a savings of more than 60 gallons of fuel.
Since the trade-ins were, on average, 6.5 years old, that's another low-mileage, high-emission-belching relic off the road.
Those who bought a new midsize SUV are now getting an average of 21.7 mpg, up from 19.9 mpg on their 6.4-year-old trade-in. Savings there is $136 a year and about 44 gallons of gas.
- - -
So let's see, we'll take the Insight:
2001 Insight: 64 MPG @ 15k miles/yr * 6.5 years -> 1,524 gallons
2001 SUV: 18 MPG @ 15k miles/yr * 6.5 years -> 5,417 gallons
3,892 gallons * $3 -> $11,946 dollars
Sure the math is wrong but then we are dealing with CNW Marketing whose concept of reality is:
"No matter the problem, buy a big SUV!"
Good thing Exxon is no longer funding hybrid misinformation . . .
Bob Wilson
Last edited by bwilson4web; 08-20-2007 at 06:37 PM.
#2
08-21-2007, 05:17 AM
Re: Hahahahahahaha!!!!
Hehehe.... that's humorous.
Makes you wonder how many politicians who have their hands in the oil fields are in these people's pockets.
How can people be excited about 1.8 gallons better of ESTIMATED fuel efficiency? I mean, when you are getting over 50MPG that makes a huge difference, but when are you are talking figures in the teens and 20's, phh....
Makes you wonder how many politicians who have their hands in the oil fields are in these people's pockets.
How can people be excited about 1.8 gallons better of ESTIMATED fuel efficiency? I mean, when you are getting over 50MPG that makes a huge difference, but when are you are talking figures in the teens and 20's, phh....
#3
08-21-2007, 09:44 AM
Re: Hahahahahahaha!!!!
It WOULD be funny---- if it weren't so SCARY!
How do people come up with this nonsense? 'don't sneer at our dear friends who buy new SUVs' my foot!
How do people come up with this nonsense? 'don't sneer at our dear friends who buy new SUVs' my foot!
#5
10-15-2007, 04:44 PM
Re: Hahahahahahaha!!!!
To be a real gas saver, you should buy a new SUV or heavy-duty pick-up every three years, while the engines are still in their prime. If you can't sell the old one then just dump it. They're more environmentally friendly, dust-to-dust than greenie cars, don't 'ya know? In fact, you should buy them more often to help offset the growing environmental impact of those dang nu-metal hybrids. The perfect gun can be rearranged in all possible combinations. Jesus is on Facebook and He wants to be your friend.
