A new winner!...amazing.

In article <160720101627424398%[email protected]>,
[email protected]d says...
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Jolly Roger <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > It does well in crash testing.
> >
> > ...against cars the same size.
> >
> > Here in the real world, there are much larger and heavier vehicles on
> > the roads for the Stupid car to contend with.
>
> that's what they said about subcompact cars many years ago. there was
> no massacre.


My Rio replaced a brand-new 2008 Spectra that was totaled in a
collision, where the guy that hit me had to be going at least 50-55 mph.

The car was totaled, and the side airbags deployed.

I walked away from the accident with nothing more serious than some pain
from a jammed index finger.

All Kia vehicles are 5-star safety rated by the IIHS.

I can't say enough about Kia... yes, Hyundais and Kias used to be utter
trash, but Hyundai Motors has made huge strides in improving both
brands. Between my wife and I, my Rio is our fourth Kia vehicle (and our
second Rio) since 2004.




--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California, USA
[email protected]

---

› See More: A new winner!...amazing.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...


> EPA says this is 32 city 41 hwy and I'm getting 41 in the sprawling
> suburbia that's not in dense streets. Very nice, but that's not why I
> bought it. I have no fuel expense on either of my diesel vehicles, a
> Mercedes 300TD wagon or my big Union City Body stepvan with its diesel
> V-8 6.2L monster. They run on veggie oil from 3 Chinese restaurants I
> get free.

Now, biodiesel is pretty effin' cool, but there haven't been many newer
cars that can run on it... VeeDub and some of the luxury manufacturers
have just started introducing diesels back into the U.S. (due to pretty
strict federal regs).

(Mmmmmmm, Jetta TDI)

> The Rio is a really nice car but has LESS room than the Smart, which is
> VERY deceiving! The difference is I only have two seats and a small
> hatchback rear with liftgate and tailgate. The right front seat does
> fold flat to become a long storage area from the rear gate to the dash.

I will have to take your word for that. The Smart LOOKS much smaller.



--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California, USA
[email protected]

On 16/07/10 3:42 PM, Steve Sobol wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>
>> The logic of the Smart Car, other than the low initial price, escapes
>> me. The Smart is rated 41 highway, 33 city, not nearly as good as the
>> Prius or Civic hybrid.
>
> Well, price is a big factor. You WILL pay a premium to drive a hybrid,
> and even long-term, you may not save enough money to make up the
> difference, especially with gas hovering around $3 per gallon.

Yes, it's extremely rare indeed for the additional cost of the hybrid to
_ever_ be made up in fuel savings. People buy them for other reasons.

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:37:19 -0500, in
<[email protected]>, Jolly Roger
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:19:57 -0500, in
>> <[email protected]>, Jolly Roger
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:55:49 -0500, in
>> >> <[email protected]>, Jolly Roger
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> >Again, some people have their priorities wrong. Those cars are death
>> >> >traps, plain and simple.
>> >>
>> >> Feel free to prove that, if you can, with actual safety data.
>> >> You'll not that easy, because it's actually good in terms of safety.
>> >
>> >Yeah? Well "good" ain't good enough for me.
>> >
>> >Smart gets so-so U.S. safety ratings:
>> >
>> ><http://www.autoweek.com/article/20080404/FREE/193517855>
>> >
>> >"Comparison of frontal impact scores is valid only for vehicles of
>> >similar size and class. That means the scores do not indicate how a
>> >Smart would fare in a head-on collision with a much bigger or heavier
>> >vehicle."
>>
>> That's not proof of your claim.
>
>My opinion is they are death traps. I don't have to prove my opinion to
>you. I really don't care if you disagree with me.

Roger that.

--
John

"Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level
and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:37:44 -0500, in
<[email protected]>, Jolly Roger
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:06:18 -0500, in
>> <[email protected]>, Jolly Roger
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> > Klaus Schiller <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 16.07.2010 17:55, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> >> > [...]
>> >> > Bull****. It may have good safety ratings among cars that are _the same
>> >> > size_, but it certainly isn't anywhere near as safe as my BMW 335i.
>> >> > Pfft! Get real. The article you mentioned even says it outright:
>> >> >
>> >> > "Frontal ratings can't be compared across weight classes, meaning a
>> >> > small car that earns a good rating isn't safer than a large car that's
>> >> > rated less than good."
>> >>
>> >> And you're still driving that dangerously lightweight BMW instead of a
>> >> Hummer? Or, better yet, a tank?
>> >
>> >Nice try, but the point is the Stupid car doesn't meet my particular
>> >base expectations with respect to the range of safety features and
>> >ratings.
>>
>> In other words, a car is good if you drive one, and bad if you don't.
>> Simple.
>
>That's not at all what I said. Nice try though.

Sure sounded like it to me.

--
John

"Never attribute to malice that which can be
adequately explained by stupidity." [Hanlon's razor]

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:37:44 -0500, in
> <[email protected]>, Jolly Roger
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:06:18 -0500, in
> >> <[email protected]>, Jolly Roger
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <[email protected]>,
> >> > Klaus Schiller <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 16.07.2010 17:55, Jolly Roger wrote:
> >> >> > [...]
> >> >> > Bull****. It may have good safety ratings among cars that are _the
> >> >> > same
> >> >> > size_, but it certainly isn't anywhere near as safe as my BMW 335i.
> >> >> > Pfft! Get real. The article you mentioned even says it outright:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Frontal ratings can't be compared across weight classes, meaning a
> >> >> > small car that earns a good rating isn't safer than a large car
> >> >> > that's
> >> >> > rated less than good."
> >> >>
> >> >> And you're still driving that dangerously lightweight BMW instead of a
> >> >> Hummer? Or, better yet, a tank?
> >> >
> >> >Nice try, but the point is the Stupid car doesn't meet my particular
> >> >base expectations with respect to the range of safety features and
> >> >ratings.
> >>
> >> In other words, a car is good if you drive one, and bad if you don't.
> >> Simple.
> >
> >That's not at all what I said. Nice try though.
>
> Sure sounded like it to me.

Apparently you should have paid more attention in school then.

--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:37:57 -0500, in
<[email protected]>, Jolly Roger
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:37:44 -0500, in
>> <[email protected]>, Jolly Roger
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:06:18 -0500, in
>> >> <[email protected]>, Jolly Roger
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> > Klaus Schiller <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On 16.07.2010 17:55, Jolly Roger wrote:
>> >> >> > [...]
>> >> >> > Bull****. It may have good safety ratings among cars that are _the
>> >> >> > same
>> >> >> > size_, but it certainly isn't anywhere near as safe as my BMW 335i.
>> >> >> > Pfft! Get real. The article you mentioned even says it outright:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "Frontal ratings can't be compared across weight classes, meaning a
>> >> >> > small car that earns a good rating isn't safer than a large car
>> >> >> > that's
>> >> >> > rated less than good."
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And you're still driving that dangerously lightweight BMW instead of a
>> >> >> Hummer? Or, better yet, a tank?
>> >> >
>> >> >Nice try, but the point is the Stupid car doesn't meet my particular
>> >> >base expectations with respect to the range of safety features and
>> >> >ratings.
>> >>
>> >> In other words, a car is good if you drive one, and bad if you don't.
>> >> Simple.
>> >
>> >That's not at all what I said. Nice try though.
>>
>> Sure sounded like it to me.
>
>Apparently you should have paid more attention in school then.

You're right -- I skipped Gullibility 101.
Oh well.

--
John

If the iPhone and iPad are really so impressive,
then why do iFans keep making excuses for them?

In article <9q12465q9qab4uta2p86p3ptc4v***[email protected]>, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:37:19 -0500, in
> <[email protected]>, Jolly Roger
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 15:19:57 -0500, in
> >> <[email protected]>, Jolly Roger
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <[email protected]>,
> >> > John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:55:49 -0500, in
> >> >> <[email protected]>, Jolly Roger
> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >Again, some people have their priorities wrong. Those cars are death
> >> >> >traps, plain and simple.
> >> >>
> >> >> Feel free to prove that, if you can, with actual safety data.
> >> >> You'll not that easy, because it's actually good in terms of safety.
> >> >
> >> >Yeah? Well "good" ain't good enough for me.
> >> >
> >> >Smart gets so-so U.S. safety ratings:
> >> >
> >> ><http://www.autoweek.com/article/20080404/FREE/193517855>
> >> >
> >> >"Comparison of frontal impact scores is valid only for vehicles of
> >> >similar size and class. That means the scores do not indicate how a
> >> >Smart would fare in a head-on collision with a much bigger or heavier
> >> >vehicle."
> >>
> >> That's not proof of your claim.
> >
> >My opinion is they are death traps. I don't have to prove my opinion to
> >you. I really don't care if you disagree with me.
>
> Roger that.

You wouldn't get me driving or riding in a Smart car (nor similar
spaghetti can cars like the Mitsubishi i-Car or Tata's cheapo) for any
amount of money!

According to the curent issue of Top Gear New Zealand magazine, the Smart
ForTwo got an ANCAP rating of 3 (out of 5).

ANCAP is rating for:
Crash test results of the 64k/h offset front impact. Updated
as more results are recorded. For more safety information
and ratings on child and pedestrian safety, visit
http://www.ancap.com.au

Other small(ish) car ratings (out of 5) for comparison:

- Alfa Mito not yet rated
- Fiat 500 rating of 5
- Kia Picanto not yet rated
- Mercedes A-class rating of 4
- Mini (new model) rating of 4
- Mitsubishi i-Car not yet rated
- Nissan Micra rating of 5
- Suzuki Swift rating of 4
- Toyota Yaris rating of 4

Some of those cars may have different names or not be available in America.

SMS <[email protected]> wrote in news:4c40f1e4$0$22111
[email protected]:

> On 16/07/10 3:42 PM, Steve Sobol wrote:
>> In article<[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] says...
>>
>>> The logic of the Smart Car, other than the low initial price, escapes
>>> me. The Smart is rated 41 highway, 33 city, not nearly as good as the
>>> Prius or Civic hybrid.
>>
>> Well, price is a big factor. You WILL pay a premium to drive a hybrid,
>> and even long-term, you may not save enough money to make up the
>> difference, especially with gas hovering around $3 per gallon.
>
> Yes, it's extremely rare indeed for the additional cost of the hybrid to
> _ever_ be made up in fuel savings. People buy them for other reasons.
>

They buy them under the false assumption they are doing something good to
"save the planet" from the horrible Americans who feed the world. It's a
greenie touchy-feeley thingy. The sky is falling, as they are told all
their lives, and they want to help stop it. Of course, the sky is right
where it was 70 years ago, albeit a lot cleaner now than it was then, but
that doesn't matter. We're poisoning the planet and they're going to spend
$25,000 on 7 barrels of oil for the plastic, 10 barrels of oil for the
manufacturing and reduce oil consumption buying a new car every time the
payment book gets empty. It's the American way!



--
iPhone 4 is to cellular technology what the Titanic is to cruise ships.

Larry

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 09:44:11 -0400, bj <[email protected]> wrote:

> ...
> My Dad had an Itallian Isetta 50+ years ago. ...

Ah, the Isetta! The inverted tea-cup car :-) .
Never had one, but I remember it well.

It, and the German Messerschmidt (three-wheeler
of a beast: quasi car, quasi motorized tricycle,
quasi Messerschmidt cockpit :-) ).

Fond memories: thanks! And cheers,

-- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP

In <[email protected]> SMS <[email protected]> writes:

>Actually the Prius hybrid will function just fine with a battery with
>reduced capacity, with very slightly reduced MPG.

umm, no. "reduced capacity" won't, until it gets pretty, pretty,
low, have any effect on mileage.

Think of your regular car battery, which is used for starting
the engine and also as a moderator (term used very loosely) for
all the 12V demands in the car.

When new it'll start the car at zero degrees perhaps 50 times (number
chosen for illustration). Even when down to 1/3rd capacity it'll
still start the car a dozen times in a row with no problem.



--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
[email protected]
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

On 16/07/10 9:18 PM, Larry wrote:

<snip>

> They buy them under the false assumption they are doing something good to
> "save the planet" from the horrible Americans who feed the world.

They buy them because they use less fuel. They feel the benefits of
using less fuel with the corresponding lower emissions are worth it. Few
people buy them thinking they'll save money.

A base automatic Corolla has a street price of around $14K and has a
combined, MPG of 29. A base Prius has a street price of around $21K and
has a combined MPG of 50. At $3 a gallon, the Prius costs 6.0 cents a
mile in fuel, the Corolla about 10.3 cents a mile for a difference of
4.3 cents per mile. The break even point is 163,000 miles, not
unreasonable for a Toyota.

For a Camry (26mpg) versus a Camry Hybrid (34mpg), the street prices for
the base models are around $18,000 versus $23,000 for the hybrid. That
$5000/8mpg difference would take 184,000 miles to make up the difference.

Those buying hybrids are the least likely to be buying a new car every
three years or when the payment book is done, in fact they're the most
likely to be paying cash.

The point is that there's no need to buy something as tiny as a Smart
Car to reduce fuel usage. You can buy a diesel VW or diesel Mercdes, or
a hybrid.

On 18/07/10 10:34 AM, danny burstein wrote:
> In<[email protected]> SMS<[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Actually the Prius hybrid will function just fine with a battery with
>> reduced capacity, with very slightly reduced MPG.
>
> umm, no. "reduced capacity" won't, until it gets pretty, pretty,
> low, have any effect on mileage.
>
> Think of your regular car battery, which is used for starting
> the engine and also as a moderator (term used very loosely) for
> all the 12V demands in the car.

Completely irrelevant.

The traction battery in the hybrid is charged by regenerative braking as
well as from the gasoline engine. The lower the capacity of the battery,
the less the vehicle can store from regeneration and hence the less time
it can operate from battery power.

> When new it'll start the car at zero degrees perhaps 50 times (number
> chosen for illustration). Even when down to 1/3rd capacity it'll
> still start the car a dozen times in a row with no problem.

You don't understand the difference between a battery used for starting
an engine, and a battery actually used to power the electric motor used
in the hybrid synergy drive.

The way Toyota manages the traction battery minimizes the effects of
reduced capacity. They neither discharge the battery very far, nor
charge it completely, keeping the charge level between 45 and 75
percent. They may, as the battery ages, change the level to which they
allow the battery to discharge to make up for the lost capacity due to
aging. Outside the U.S. the Prius had an "EV Mode" button to press to
allow deeper discharge, and some people installed it in their U.S.
Priuses, but doing so would void the battery warranty. Not sure if the
new 2010 Prius has the EV Mode in the U.S..

In <[email protected]> SMS <[email protected]> writes:

>Completely irrelevant.

Extremely relevant.

>The traction battery in the hybrid is charged by regenerative braking as
>well as from the gasoline engine. The lower the capacity of the battery,
>the less the vehicle can store from regeneration and hence the less time
>it can operate from battery power.

In real life the regenerative braking is only a modest portion
of the battery's capacity.


>> When new it'll start the car at zero degrees perhaps 50 times (number
>> chosen for illustration). Even when down to 1/3rd capacity it'll
>> still start the car a dozen times in a row with no problem.

>You don't understand the difference between a battery used for starting
>an engine, and a battery actually used to power the electric motor used
>in the hybrid synergy drive.

Sorry, steve. Usually you're pretty accurate in your analyses
but I (and my wife) actually have Honda Insights, and I've got
a little sticker on the back that says "55 mpg on a bad day."

I'm fully aware of all the intricacies of what the hybrid systems
do, how the batteries operate, and the various teaks thereof.

>The way Toyota manages the traction battery minimizes the effects of
>reduced capacity. They neither discharge the battery very far, nor
>charge it completely, keeping the charge level between 45 and 75
>percent. They may, as the battery ages, change the level to which they
>allow the battery to discharge to make up for the lost capacity due to
>aging. Outside the U.S. the Prius had an "EV Mode" button to press to
>allow deeper discharge, and some people installed it in their U.S.
>Priuses, but doing so would void the battery warranty. Not sure if the
>new 2010 Prius has the EV Mode in the U.S..

Well, they've certainly been advertising it. And it was featured
in an episode of "Bones" last week. (The Good Guys were coming
up on the Bad Guys, and one of them said "this has a quiet electric
mode, we can sneak right up before they know it").

Anyway, there's no magic to how the hybrid system works. The
key points are:

a: it lets you use a smaller gasoline engine, thus saving
all that weight, metal, and basic overhead from carrying
all that additional weight. And not just the engine itslef,
but the related vehicle parts. And similarly you've got
a physically lower surface area, thus less heat lost to
the environment...

b: it moderates the gasoline engine shifts. Fossil fuel
engines work best at their "sweet spot", and they work
second best if changes are gradual. What kills them is
the rapid ups and downs.

c: it lets you recover a fair amount of the moemntum
when you slow down/stop, thus reducing the need for
fossil fuel to re-accelerate.

d: it shuts off the fossil fuel engine when you come
to a red light. (And in the Toyota, it'll also turn
off when you're crawling around a parking lot). This
cuts down on a lot of overhead.

e: in the case of the Honda Insight, the engineers also
tweaked quite a few other advances. The frame is aluminium
and the aerodynamics are phone^hh pheno^h^ are superb.
Curb weight is under 2,000 pounds. Toyota was a bit behind
in this aspect, but they've been catching up.

f: oh, and brake pads last just about forever...

ob telecom: the motor/generator/battery/inverter assembly
in these cars puts out enough electricity to easily handle
any and all portable and luggable equipment you could imagine,
including all those ancient MTS and IMTS boxes, as well
as the ones that, when you keyed them up, would light
up all the lamps for a mile around...


--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
[email protected]
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

"tlvp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 09:44:11 -0400, bj <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > ...
> > My Dad had an Itallian Isetta 50+ years ago. ...
>
> Ah, the Isetta! The inverted tea-cup car :-) .
> Never had one, but I remember it well.
>
> It, and the German Messerschmidt (three-wheeler
> of a beast: quasi car, quasi motorized tricycle,
> quasi Messerschmidt cockpit :-) ).
>
> Fond memories: thanks! And cheers,

Around the 1960s and early 1970s there were quite a few tiny cars made by
various companies. The Smart car, Tata's car, etc. aren't really new ideas
.... just like the movie industry and the toy companies, the car industry is
turning to history to get ideas.