In 2001, we compared a $21 k Prius to a $14 k Echo and decided to go with the Echo. But we've never gotten better than 32/38 with the Echo. When we lost our '91 Camry, we bought a used, 2003 Prius for $17.3 k, just $924 more than the Echo replacement, the Scion xB, 30/34.

We are now getting an average of 48+ mpg with our 2003 Prius and know how to keep our city mileage better than 50 mpg. Neither the Echo nor the Scion will ever meet those numbers. We expect to save that $924 purchase premium before the first year of ownership is over.

Bob Wilson

 

I don't buy the argument that LESS OIL used EQUALS LESS terrorism. Our foreign policies are at issue here, not the amount of oil we consume. Also, there are plenty of Tim Mcveighs out there too.

If the argument is less oil consumed, the better the standard of living... then yes I agree. Mother Earth can only take so much.

 

Why in the world would this Honda Fit get such poor FE?A Civic EPA's 30-40,the FIT is smaller,lighter why wouldn't it get better FE than an auto Civic?
Anyone have any hard numbers?What is the problem-weight-drag-crummy motor??
1)Weight?A 2006 Civic weighs-2800 lbs or so?
2)Width,height?
3)Does it use a non Honda motor?A very old design?
I just don't picture Honda producing a smaller car with poorer FE.Honda has always been sooo pigheaded about FE that they have sacrificed market share because of their corporate FE stance.No V-8 essentially seeded the near Luxury market Acura "invented"to Lexus.
I'll be surprised if they come out with a car that doesn't slightly "beat" Civic FE.
Of course,the Scion doesn't really "beat" the Corolla FE wise,but it isn't really being sold as an economy car(like the Echo was-actually it didn't sell very well-it would now).This Fit will be sold as an economy car,right?Thanks.Charlie

 

If the U.S. stopped importing oil, al Queda would still be hard at work. I do think using less oil might limit their revenues a bit.

 

This thread needs pics!



Link to short description

 

The CIA will keep funding the terrorists even if we stop using middle eastern oil, it suits their goal of having a terrorized domestic population that then will support any number of overseas adventures that stir up real terrorists, those without CIA or Saudi funding, but desperate to strike out at a tyrannical empire.

One could argue that if America didn't need so much oil then there would be less reason to be in Afghanistan and Iraq, and therefore the oppression of those people would be less, and terrorists wouldn't be able to recruit, BUT you have to understand the reason the US is in there: control of the oil. That doesn't mean the oil is coming to the US, but it means the US will have it's hand on the tap, so oil flowing to China and India could be cut off if they get out of hand or needed to be provoked into attacking us. That's the power of control of resources, and that's why we are in the middle east pissing everyone off, making new terrorists. It's a big complicated mess, unfortunately.