Gas Prices and MPG...

[silvrsvt]

I was bored today and was curious about how much money I could save if I got a new car to replace the current Mustang when it came to gas prices. There is a really nice set up on http://www.fueleconomy.gov to compare cars ratings. I plugged the cars I'm interested in, which where a Volvo S40 T5 AWD with stick, Escape hybrid and for ****s and giggles a 07 Focus. My findings where pretty surprising after entering my mileage I drive and the prices of gas in Jersey. Out of the Mustang GT, S40, Escape and Focus, the Focus got the best MPG and cost the least to fuel, but after doing the math and breaking it down, it would only save me about $25 bucks a week in fuel costs over the Mustang I have now. The other surprising thing was the S40 was only about $4 more a tankful with super over the Mustang, but its about $200 dollars cheaper a year to fuel up!

 

So let me get to the point here, unless you have a seriously bad gas guzzler, your not going to see a huge savings in gas by moving to another car. For me, I'd rather spend the extra $25 a week to drive what I want to drive, then settling for something I'm not quite happy with...

[hoss96racing]

yep... thats what I keep telling the wife... she complains about the price of gas but she won't get rid of her truck and it would be stupid to make a payment and insurance over paying more for gas...

 

and I was just on that site the other day... I was comparing a 5 year old taurus vs. 4cyl fusion vs. a jetta TDI... then did some searching and i could get the taurus for 6K.. the fusion for $16K and the jetta for $26K... the $10K premium for better fuel economy wasn't worth the little bit of savings...

[TomServo92]

It's funny that you should start this thread because that's exactly what I'm doing. I have an '06 Escape Limited. I average about 20MPG with a combination of city & highway. My wife has an '02 Lincoln LS V8 (which we love and want to keep). Since we carpool most of the time and we really don't have a need for an SUV, we're looking to trade the Escape for a Fusion SEL I4. According to the website you linked, the Fusion will save us about $748 per year vs. the Escape.

[sranger]

I agree, traiding cars for gas milage alone is not a good idea. If you buy a new car, I doubt that you would even recover the loss in depeciation in fuel milage saving alone. Realistically, the only time to make the "FUN" vs "MPG" argument is when you are ready for a new car for other reasons.

 

And don't even get me started on the hybrid vs conventional argument. Typically you have to drive 80,000 - 100,000 miles to get back the price premium you pay for the hybrid...

[Michael Reynolds]

I agree, traiding cars for gas milage alone is not a good idea. If you buy a new car, I doubt that you would even recover the loss in depeciation in fuel milage saving alone. Realistically, the only time to make the "FUN" vs "MPG" argument is when you are ready for a new car for other reasons.

 

And don't even get me started on the hybrid vs conventional argument. Typically you have to drive 80,000 - 100,000 miles to get back the price premium you pay for the hybrid...

 

Ditto.

[TomServo92]

I agree, traiding cars for gas milage alone is not a good idea. If you buy a new car, I doubt that you would even recover the loss in depeciation in fuel milage saving alone. Realistically, the only time to make the "FUN" vs "MPG" argument is when you are ready for a new car for other reasons.

 

And don't even get me started on the hybrid vs conventional argument. Typically you have to drive 80,000 - 100,000 miles to get back the price premium you pay for the hybrid...

 

That's why we're keeping the Lincoln. The Escape (which was on a 3 year lease and is going back next year anyway) wasn't used any differently than a sedan. I can only think of two instances where we actually needed the extra space in the back.

[silvrsvt]

I agree, traiding cars for gas milage alone is not a good idea. If you buy a new car, I doubt that you would even recover the loss in depeciation in fuel milage saving alone. Realistically, the only time to make the "FUN" vs "MPG" argument is when you are ready for a new car for other reasons.

 

 

Well I'm not looking at getting rid of the Mustang any time soon, my dream is to be able to retire it to weekend only duty in a couple years and finally have an "adult" car I as I like to joke around with my family about...and I wouldn't mind getting something with better MPG, but from what I see and like, I'm really not gonna have huge improvement in savings when it comes to gas.

[swenson88]

Exactly. It may make sense to trade in if you're going from say a Suburban to a Civic, but for most people the smart way to do things is to wait until your current vehicle is fully paid off and then move to a more fuel-efficient vehicle. Actually it makes sense to drive the fully paid off gas-guzzler more than a new gas-sipper from a money perspective, just maybe not an environmental/oil independence perspective. I traded in from a 2002 SuperDuty (really had no reason to be driving one other than I loved it) to a 2001 Cherokee last fall. Sold the SD for $15K, bought the Cherokee for $10K. I didn't do it for mpg, more of a maneuverability issue given I'll be moving to Boston soon, but as a benefit I do get probably 5-7mpg better. Granted, the little Cherokee doesn't exactly sip gas, probably averages 17mpg combined, but there just weren't any fuel-efficient cars that appealed to me in the price range I was looking for.

[sranger]

Exactly. It may make sense to trade in if you're going from say a Suburban to a Civic, but for most people the smart way to do things is to wait until your current vehicle is fully paid off and then move to a more fuel-efficient vehicle. Actually it makes sense to drive the fully paid off gas-guzzler more than a new gas-sipper from a money perspective, just maybe not an environmental/oil independence perspective. I traded in from a 2002 SuperDuty (really had no reason to be driving one other than I loved it) to a 2001 Cherokee last fall. Sold the SD for $15K, bought the Cherokee for $10K. I didn't do it for mpg, more of a maneuverability issue given I'll be moving to Boston soon, but as a benefit I do get probably 5-7mpg better. Granted, the little Cherokee doesn't exactly sip gas, probably averages 17mpg combined, but there just weren't any fuel-efficient cars that appealed to me in the price range I was looking for.

 

 

Goo point, if you buy a used car to get better gas milage, it might make sense...

[macattak1]

Goo point, if you buy a used car to get better gas milage, it might make sense...

 

Greetings,

 

I have a 96 Tahoe that has been paid for, for a couple of years.

I sure would love to have a new car. Only getting about 14 mpg over all.

 

But, No payments, + Tax, Title, License, and even insurence adds up on a new car or even buying a used one.

Cheeper to keep the old one. Till the CA Enviros offer me an extra $2k to crush it. Or they just take it or set it on fire...

 

Peace and Blessings

[BlackHorse]

Yeah, who needs an extra $100 a month? lol I mean I'd much rather burn it up in gasoline then say put it towards retirement, or take my girl out for a couple of nice dinners or just about anything far more useful than just burning it up in a tank of gas.

 

To each his own I say, but for my money there's far to many really fun to drive cars that get good gas mileage on the market for me to be wasting money in gas. I'd much rather spend that $100 a month on something worth while. Gasoline is not a worth while thing to me.

[goingincirclez]

Yeah, who needs an extra $100 a month? lol I mean I'd much rather burn it up in gasoline then say put it towards retirement, or take my girl out for a couple of nice dinners or just about anything far more useful than just burning it up in a tank of gas.

 

Feh. Who needs another $300+ a month? I mean I'd much rather blow it on a knee-jerk car payment and insurance, rather than save it up, spend it on a house or my kids or hell even a couple meals out. :rolleyes:

 

My cars have been paid off for years and are still reliable and serviceable while meeting my needs. They are now assets I can sell instead of debts I have to pay. Gas will have to get pretty damn expensive to offset that. No sense wasting my money until the cars finally explode for their "Bluesmobile moment of silence" - anything before then is a frivolous fashion statement and ultimately unnecessary.

 

Ironically, many of these newly efficient over-engineered cars still don't do much better than my battletank 1988 T-bird v6 did (33mpg highway, verified many times by multiple parties, on a car that was 15 years old at the time). The reasons are well-known and understood but my point is, we've all been down this road before and it's nothing new; it's just worse and here to stay because as a society we just don't care. So go ahead and just spend more money on a new car you don't need, to save a little on gas. Just

like buying extra groceries and other dumb crap ya didn't really need and probably wouldn't have bought except that it was "on sale" and you couldn't pass it up... and so you saved money by spending it, didn't you?

 

Besides, people who buy more efficient and do nothing else are missing the point. Efficiency is a good start but if you really want to reduce our dependency, stop driving so much overall. Imagine the effect that one-two doublewhammy would have.

 

I just traded jobs for one that saves 200 miles and 6 hours of commuting per week. I even took a slight temporary pay cut on the new pay scale, and still come out way ahead. Win for reduced consumption, win for more family time, win for money saved... Hellz yeah! :happy feet:

[armadamaster]

I'll keep driving my paid for cars as well...besides the only new thing out there that is a suitable replacement (to me) is a Panther. I don't get people that "save money" on gas while taking on a car note they didn't have to begin with.

 

Just had a female co-worker trading in her paid off V6 Mustang ask me, the resident "car guy" what new passenger car was the best for the $$$, I told her a fullsize V8 RWD Grand Marquis for 18K after rebates....she goes and buy a midsize 4 banger FWD Accord with cloth seats for 26K. And I'm the crazy one.

Edited May 24, 2007 by Armada Master

[BlackHorse]

Feh. Who needs another $300+ a month? I mean I'd much rather blow it on a knee-jerk car payment and insurance, rather than save it up, spend it on a house or my kids or hell even a couple meals out.

I hear what you're saying going and it's true. In your case with cars paid off and what not it makes sense to just keep them. The problem is, as I read what silvrst wrote it sounded (at least to me) like he was saying "If I can get brand new car X that burns $200 a month in gas or brand new car Y that burns $300 a month I'd still rather have car Y because I like it better."

 

I'm sure most of us when we buy a new car figure in all the cost of ownership into the monthly budget. The payment, the cost in gas and the insurance. Silvrst's post made it sound like people don't consider all of that together when buying the car. What was the first thing he said?

 

I was bored today and was curious about how much money I could save if I got a new car to replace the current Mustang when it came to gas prices.

 

So he's talking about replacing his current Mustang that he's apparently still paying for with another brand new car. So as I said, for my money, if it comes down to new cars and buying a new car, there's too many new cars that are plenty fun to drive and appealing that also get good mileage. So all things being equal, I'd opt for new car X.

[Ovaltine]

I'm sure most of us when we buy a new car figure in all the cost of ownership into the monthly budget. The payment, the cost in gas and the insurance. Silvrst's post made it sound like people don't consider all of that together when buying the car.

 

A very good point!

 

Folks need to do a FULL "TCO" calculation (Total Cost of Ownership) when contemplating what OR if to buy a new car.

 

State license tags can be much higher for a new high value car.

 

Insurance will vary dramatically by make and model of car (and record of primary driver), *especially* for imports.

 

Also be sure to figure in the length of warranty and potential for problems (using the consumer problems reported on the Edmunds.com forums) to "guesstimate" your maintenance and repair costs past the warranty period.

 

-Ovaltine

[taxman100]

All of our cars are paid off, and have not had a car payment in four years. We are waiting for a child to arrive in order to buy a short wheelbase minivan, but there are other options to consider since I want to pay cash for our next car as well - that should keep us out of the car market another 6-7 years or so.

 

The way to save money on vehicles is to go against conventional wisdom, especially when it is wrong. People are dumping SUV's for chicken feed to save on gas. My wife wants an SUV - since she won't get herself a Grand Marquis, I've been kicking around the idea of, instead of a small SUV, buy a 3-4 year old Explorer/Grand Cherokee/Trailblazer via private party, and keep the Corolla around as a commuter car. The Grand Marquis would continue as our highway car. The downside is that, other than gas, the Grand Marquis is an excellent commuter car - quiet, smooth, relaxing, and people rarely cut you off or refuse to let you merge because they think you are 80 years old and blind.

 

The biggest expense in a car is depreciation, hands down. If you save $700 a year in gas, but spend $1,000 a year extra in depreciation, how have you saved any money?

 

The correct option is replace a worn out car with a more fuel efficient model, but it rarely makes financial sense to trade in a perfectly fine vehicle to save on gas, unless you are driving a Super Duty or something crazy.

[BlackHorse]

The biggest expense in a car is depreciation, hands down. If you save $700 a year in gas, but spend $1,000 a year extra in depreciation, how have you saved any money?

 

If you figure in depreciation as a part of the expense you might as well never buy a car, not even a used car. A car is the worst investment you will ever make. They never gain in value unless you happen to have a collectible car that is at least 20 years old, by which time you've sunk as much money into keeping it in good repair as you're likely to get for it. Never buy a car with the idea of actually making money on it unless it happens to be an old collectible car that is junked and you happen to have a restoration shop. Cars are a necessary evil. We have to have them to get to work, to go see our families, to get around in general.

Edited May 27, 2007 by BlackHorse

[marc-o]

The biggest expense in a car is depreciation, hands down. If you save $700 a year in gas, but spend $1,000 a year extra in depreciation, how have you saved any money?

 

The correct option is replace a worn out car with a more fuel efficient model, but it rarely makes financial sense to trade in a perfectly fine vehicle to save on gas, unless you are driving a Super Duty or something crazy.

 

Very true. The thing is, as expensive as gas now is, the extra cost is still a small part of the total cost of owning an automobile. It is however the only cost you see on a frequent, regular basis and on top of that it fluctuates! People really need to do a rational analysis of their fuel costs instead of mouthing off about fill up being an extra 10 bucks.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

You are lucky in the States; at least you have a Classic Fun car like the Mustang to buy. If you live in Europe all Ford are dishing up is eternal boredom, owning a Transit is the nearest Ford come to classic Fun with modern European Fords, l think its about time Ford stopped pressing out dull boring jellymould steel body panels, and moved back to a more classic elegance. Ford might find that its fortunes might change with it at the same time.

A Mondeo might hold price like a Cortina did, and not drop in price like a lead ballon in value like it does at the moment.

Edited May 27, 2007 by Ford Jellymoulds

[jpd80]

Seems to me if they bring in stiff economy rules. people will have a A car for commutes and an SUV and F Truck for recreation. That's why CAFE is no good at fighting Carbon emissions. Britons like Jellymould pay $10/gal for gas because they are forced to but it still doesn't work. The only way is for everyone to set reasonable Carbon limits. What the US Government complains about is China and India producing heaps of Co2 wipes out any good and sacrifices made by US and Europe.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Seems to me if they bring in stiff economy rules. people will have a A car for commutes and an SUV and F Truck for recreation. That's why CAFE is no good at fighting Carbon emissions. Britons like Jellymould pay $10/gal for gas because they are forced to but it still doesn't work. The only way is for everyone to set reasonable Carbon limits. What the US Government complains about is China and India producing heaps of Co2 wipes out any good and sacrifices made by US and Europe.

 

You don't mind paying $10 a gallon, or the proposed 3$ a mile road-pricing scheme the UK government want to introduce. If the money was going to help the environment or improve better public transport you would not mind paying for it, but not 1 cent will go back into either helping the environment or improving public transport, it's just another tax raising rip-off which clobbers the motorist with nothing back in return to show for it, the tax raised helps fund failed government policies and it will be coming to a place near you after the June 6th-8th G8 Summit, once George gets to hear about it, he will like the Tax you for nothing tax cash cow, revenue he keeps to use elsewhere, you become the captive car owning cash cow to be milked. With not a single $ going back into combating global warming or helping improve the environment.

Edited May 27, 2007 by Ford Jellymoulds

[armadamaster]

Seems to me if they bring in stiff economy rules. people will have a A car for commutes and an SUV and F Truck for recreation.

 

People already do that...drive down a middle class neighborhood street and you'll find the a-typical Honda Civic and a Ford Expedition in the same driveway.

[jpd80]

People already do that...drive down a middle class neighborhood street and you'll find the a-typical Honda Civic and a Ford Expedition in the same driveway.

 

Like Jellymoulds says, Europeans are prepared to shell out $10/gallon just to drive.

Euro Governments know this and are striking at the heart of vehicles available for sale.

So what does CAFE hope to achieve? Short of banning the cars most Americans buy, very little.

 

The whole thing is an ill conceived joke.

[Savetheplanet]

24 post's on this thread and not one mention of Anthropogenic climate change, it's all about YOU isn't it? I love it that gas is almost 4$ here in Chicago, and I am looking forward to all the environmental legislation that will be passed by the Democrat's and republicans like McCain and Arnold Shwartz and company. Carbon cap's, CAFE, and California's 25% reduction of Co2 by 2009, 11 more states wil follow. The supreme court is forcing the EPA to do their frikin job, but when will Joe six pack take responsability for his over consumption?

 

But it doesn't really surprise me, most of the members from this site live in the midwest, and they don't believe the majority of the worlds top scientist's who believe in ACC. But those same midwesterner's believe in the invisible sky god, who's mother was a virgin, and the invisible sky god died to save the human race, but came back to life 3 day's later and went up into the sky.

[jpd80]

24 post's on this thread and not one mention of Anthropogenic climate change, it's all about YOU isn't it? I love it that gas is almost 4$ here in Chicago, and I am looking forward to all the environmental legislation that will be passed by the Democrat's and republicans like McCain and Arnold Shwartz and company. Carbon cap's, CAFE, and California's 25% reduction of Co2 by 2009, 11 more states wil follow. The supreme court is forcing the EPA to do their frikin job, but when will Joe six pack take responsability for his over consumption?

 

But it doesn't really surprise me, most of the members from this site live in the midwest, and they don't believe the majority of the worlds top scientist's who believe in ACC. But those same midwesterner's believe in the invisible sky god, who's mother was a virgin, and the invisible sky god died to save the human race, but came back to life 3 day's later and went up into the sky.

 

It's pointless singling out ACC when China and India continue massive expansion unabated. By comparison, vehicle CO2 emisslion are a piddle!

Australia alone exports over 200 million tonnes of coal to Asia and is set to double this in 3 years. 400 million tonnes of carbon into the air, that's over 900 million tonnes of CO2 each year from one source alone.

 

Really, it's like bailing out the Titanic with a bucket.

Edited May 28, 2007 by jpd80