By the time farmed fuels become cost effective energy prices will be astronomical and the average person won't be able to afford to drive a car anyways.

I don't think we're that far.

In Brazil right now it's costing only 0.22c USD per liter to produce and is profitable. It makes up 50% of the gasoline market for the country. I think we're only scratching the surface of what may be possible.

US government just injected billions into GM's financial lending institution: GMAC.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/29/news...gmac/index.htm

^ and in turn, gm stock went up $2.

HAHAHAHA Jesus Christ. That quote made me almost fall out of my chair at work. :thumbsup: If Leo drives one, it's gotta be God's gift to mankind!

I'm gonna fight the massive lines at GM stealerships and buy me one right now!!!!!!

Fuck you can be ignorant. The point of the comment is that one has been on the road since 05, meaning GM is definately leading the way for Hydrogen technology. BTW, looks like Toyota had the biggest slip for 08 with a 37% slide in sales, big 3 were only in the 33% range. Sounds like everyone is sharing the pain.

Did you not see Chrysler's 50%+ drop in sales?!?!?!

Look, man. Just 'cuz you have a crush on Leo, you don't have to swear. It's okay. There are plenty of other housewives who share your somewhat outdated infatuation.

why don't they just rerelease old honda crx's HF that get 55mpg.

Reason : north america sucks.

Theres alot of places in the world that sell car sjust like these, little cars, 2/4stroke motors that get anywhere from 60-120mpg.

Commuters, just to go around town.

Everything is changing from living in the suburbs and driving downtown to buy things to just living in the suburbs and buying stuff there. They are making it so that everyone lives in condos and flats and townhouses and the tradition home is slowly being destroyed.

B it a good thing who knows but we need change and the big 3 need to die. Their deaths ensure our future. :P

Well, they have to build in more safety shit these days which makes a heavier car.

For example:

The HF CRX weight under 1800lbs, a new Honda Fit weighs 2500lbs.

700lbs is a huge amount of extra weight a motor has to push.

You think because a company has put out technology to the public first, means it is leading the way in development?


Okay...

Exactly...I'm guessing a CRX HF vs. F350 wouldn't be a pretty scene.

Besides, the Fit gets 50+mpg too...at least my g/f's does :D And it seats 5, can carry a shitton of gear, looks good, has A/C, power windows, locks, remote entry, tilt, blah blah blah...

50 MPG eh?
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/Feg/noframes/24922.shtml

If you look through that site, you'll see that everyones MPGs for 2009 vehicles are significantly lower then what manufacturers state. You'll also notice the banners everywhere that say "click here to find out about our tests". This then reveals that in 2008, they changed their rating system to include faster acceleration / driving, air conditoner use, and driving during colder weather. Of course this would probably give a more accurate view of how many drive their vehicle, but it doesn't discount the fact that you might be able to get better gas mileage if you drive like a grandma.

Don't forget that US and Imperial gallons are different sizes. 50MPG in Canada isn't hard. 50 MPG in the states is a little trickier.

Yes, 50 mpg.

Read Dustin's and Chris's posts ;)

Fueleconomy.gov is nowhere near accurate. I think it says my Zuk should get something like 22/24 city/hwy where I'm getting in the 30 city/35hwy range...same with my old Foxes, etc.

Of course the MOST accurate one (where you don't have to worry about the type of gallons you're using or the inaccuracies presented by converting L to gal and km to miles) is L/km...my g/f's Honda Fit Sport auto with a weekend's worth of camping gear, not watching the speed with the A/C on gets sub-6L/100km numbers :p When my buddy and I drove his '08 Civic LX 4-door from Grande Prairie to Merritt and back one weekend, had the A/C cranked every metre of the way, sped where we could get away with it, etc and got under 6L/100km.

That's well within EG Civic VX / EF CRX HF territory with a thousand times the comfort, looks, safety and practicality...

Either way, this thread is not about old vs. new gas mileage it's about how much GM sucks. The answer is: a lot.

Though I hear Leo DiCaprio might disagree.

They certainly aren't trailing in development. Waiving a GM banner on a predominantly ricer board is like shooting yourself in the foot. I just figured some members here thought outside the box. I do know they won n/a car of the year for 07 & 08, and that has to say something.

Looks like honda's having some difficulties too. From dropping out of F1 to this..

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/01/06/h...am-rwd-acuras/

I don't think anyone can argue the fact that all auto manufacturers are not having problems in this economy, but Honda, Toyota, etc, are in FAR better condition then GM is. They have capital to get them through a month.

Yes they changed the tests to real world conditions.

EPA highway rating we done at like 50mph on flat ground and zero engine load.

The new US EPA ratings are far more accurate to what you will average throughout most of your driving. So while yes you might hit close to 50mpg in pretty much any small 4 cylinder car, while coasting on a flat stretch of road.



Tamas: My 530 has a fuel economy gauge that says i can do 7L/100k on the highway. Doesn't mean its true.

http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/jk/070321.htm

Article with how fuel economy tests are done.

Why are we beating this dead horse? We all already know every one is feeling this crunch but like Dustin said Honda and Toyota aren't in a position of bankruptcy like GM and Dodge. Do we need to post a link everytime Dodge or GM make the news about their poor future?

oh come on...you used to be the biggest ricer on here...don't think we'll forget your gay little Team Legend Racing attempt at looking fast and going nowhere. Get real, man.

As for thinking outside the box...I've owned more GMs than you have and more imports than you have. Maybe YOU should open your mind sometimes and not just push the corporate rhetoric they crammed into your head in those 2 hours they called training at the Poncho stealership.

exactly...Honda and Toyota, so far, have not gotten a cent of my hard-earned money without my consent. GM has. That's why the discussion is about GM.

Obviously you haven't bothered asking me how I calculated the numbers.

Fill up, make a note of the kms. Drive. Fill up again, make a note of the kms.

Divide difference in after and before kms by 100, we'll call it X.

then... # of litres filled up, divided by X. PRESTO! You have a gas mileage number as reliable as it gets. (For mpg conversions, I just use one of the many readily available converters on the Internet).

I usually do this every other fill up, to get a good general idea.

Oh, and the number in my g/f's Fit was certainly not on flat, straight ground...it was on a trip from Kamloops to Jasper. :thumbsup:

Yay, for splitting hairs.

So back to the original topic... do GM/Chrysler cars have similar MPG compared to their Toyota/Honda counterparts?