58 new of 66 responses total.
Re #8: A 'station wagon' is probably not a bad match for our needs, but doesn't offer better ground clearance (useful in winter, on roads that are flooded, being dug up or are just plain crap). My Civic has been great fun to drive, but it's way too easy to bottom out, or just clip debris. Your observation about 4WD makes sense, there's more there to go wrong. In cars and other things I tend to prefer simplicity.
Re #7: 15 miles doesn't get me anywhere useful, but an electric bike is an interesting idea. Out of interest, do they charge the battery when you're coasting downhill or braking? My next pushbike (pedal bicycle) will be leg-powered. I'll just have to ride it locally until I (hopefully) become fit enough to extend my range a bit. A rented truck wouldn't satisfy my wife's expectation of instant, on-demand cargo space. When we buy a house, it's likely to be a "fixer upper" and I daresay she'll have me driving furniture, building materials and other large (or just odd-shaped) stuff around. I actually quite like hatchbacks and really enjoyed driving a rented Vauxhall Corsa with an interesting 3-cylinder 1 litre engine when I was getting ready to return to the U.S. in 1999. I think it's a distant cousin of the Geo Metro over here, but with more elegant design. My wife's inevitable veto aside, that was probably better suited to British driving anyway.
An Outback station wagon offers better ground clearance - plus AWD. (The 2005 model has even been raised more - but mainly to be a cop-out from "car" to "light truck" in order to bypass CAFE.) I drive a Legacy wagon myself, for most of the benefits of a station wagon, better clearance than US wagons, and AWD.
I've been thinking about the Outback wagon for a while. The AWD is attractive when you live on roads that don't get plowed and that turn to ice frequently. Mainly the problem I've had with a 2WD truck is getting started at icy intersections (especially those on hills). It really doesn't take much to get stuck with 2WD if you aren't careful. So, the idea of a little more traction to get going in those circumstances sounds good, as does much better gas mileage. We, too, would not want to give up the ability to haul stuff (groceries, bags of mulch, lumber, golf clubs, furniture, etc.) and carry a passenger (spouse), but would like to get better MPG. I live 25 miles from work, 5 miles from the grocery store & pharmacy, and 10 miles from the doctor's office. Biking is not an option, especially on the roads I drive (narrow) and very especially with the kind of auto drivers I see on the road every day. I've owned two Subaru wagons in my lifetime. Both of those had shiftable 4WD (full time front wheel drive) and were excellent for getting around in the winter. Both had a decent amount of space for hauling. A luggage rack helps, too. Ground clearance was fine, though nothing like a truck. Gas mileage was excellent for a 4WD vehicle. I've never had an AWD vehicle. It seems they are getting more sophisticated about applying power differentially to the wheels. Our neighbor has an AWD Audi and got stuck on the icy hill near our house this past winter. We were finally able to get the car up the hill by taking a slightly faster run at at (there's a corner at the bottom of the hill that makes gaining speed on the ice difficult unless you want to slide into the big trees near the bridge). So, I'd be curious how they fare in the icy SE MI winters. (The night my neighbor got stuck with her AWD, I took the back way into my house, which avoided taking the hill with my truck (I've been stuck on the icy hill before, too, and that was also a result of not being able to take a good enough run, but due to gawkers looking at the car in the creek beside the bridge). Note that I put 600# of sand in the back of the truck in winter and that helps a lot with maintaining control and getting started (but puts a dent your mileage). You definitely can't make jack rabbit starts, though. And if you're going too fast and try to stop quickly, you'll slide real nice.)
It would be cheaper to get building materials delivered (it is $25 charge around here) than to buy a large and wasteful vehicle to do it yourself. The electric bike regenerates when you are braking, which could include downhill. If you pedal most of the time and use the motor only for assist going up hills it will take you more than 15 miles. The cheaper models do not regenerate.
I had an older Subaru with on-demand 4WD, which I thought was great in winter. I was also leery of AWD when the option of 4WD ended, but it certainly has still been an improvement over 2WD on snowy streets in winter. However *nothing* will do you much good on glare ice: 4WD slips just as much as 2WD in a skid on ice.
I had the starter replaced in my Civic ($220 including labour). I'll try to wring another year out of it if I can. Whatever four-wheeled vehicle I eventually replace it with, I'll miss its fuel economy (40 miles per (US) gallon, which napkin maths suggest is about 5.7 litres per 100 km). Perhaps I'll eventually get another motorcycle. I would like a pushbike too. At present I can afford neither (but perhaps the new house has a money tree growing in the garden ;-) Re #11: What's CAFE? Re #12: The difference between 4WD and AWD has never been explained to me (and I've never before found myself in the market for either). Is AWD the (permanent?) provision of less drive to the rear wheels? Am I right in thinking that AWD<4WD?
I've never driven an AWD vehicle, so all I know is what I've read on the vehicle manufacturers web sites and from watching that AWD Audi get stuck and eventually make it up the hill. There are a number of AWD vehicles being manufactured now. Actually I was kind of disappointed that Subaru switched from on-demand 4WD to AWD. But, they seem to think it works better, probably because it can react quicker to changes in road conditions than a driver who has to consciously switch on 4WD. And you had to do so at less than 50 mph, if I remember correctly. AWD would be available at any speed.
I was also disappointed that Subaru dropped 4WD. It was a plus that you could run in 2WD (front) for better fuel economy on dry, even, roads, and engage 4WD only when you needed it. It also had an extra-low gear in 4WD - much lower than "first", which would let you climb rough rocky roads at very low speed. A drawback of the Subaru version of 4WD was that you could not make tight turns on dry pavement because the wheels were not 4W-differential (and if you forgot, and found the car resisting turning, it was difficult to disengage the 4WD). AWD is quite different. The wheels are NOT linked with a differential. The differential tries to distribute power so that each wheel receives equal torque. Therefore the wheel(s) with the least *resistance* turn(s) the fastest and receive(s) the majority of the power. That means that you can't budge with one wheel spinning in a mudhole. AWD provides the torque (and power) to the wheel(s) with the *most* resistance. Hence even with three wheels on glare ice and getting no traction, if the fourth wheel does have traction, it will move you. AWD has therefore been called "best wheel drive". A drawback is that the additional mechanism for AWD consumes some power, and hence one gets slightly poorer gas mileage than with 2WD alone. Another drawback is that you cannot tow the car on just its front or rear wheels: you have to call a garage with a flat-bed wrecker to move your car is disabled.
At this point I'd make no assumptions about the price of gas... Aside from that, I really can't see the need for a personal truck for most people. You can get lumber delivered, you can park a regular car much more easily, SUVs have known safety issues, etc. If you bought a 4WD or AWD car, how much would you save just in the purchase and insurance? Would spending part of that on upgrading something in your house make your wife (and you) happier?
Re #18: What I've read here suggests that I would prefer (manually invoked) 4WD to AWD. I see very few Diesel cars here in the U.S, certainly far fewer than in Britain. I think we also had more cars available with van variants (including small cars like the Corsa that I mentioned). I might be persuaded to forgo the extra ground clearance if I could find something small, but with credible space.
How about a 2-door hatchback plus a trailer for large loads? Diesel stinks.
Today we drove around some dealerships and checked out the available vehicles. I was horrified. They all seem to have petrol/gas engines and automatic transmissions. I think the best quoted fuel economy that I saw was 26 MPG (9 l/100km) and many were < 20 MPG. It's astonishing to me that they sell any of these things. It's somewhat baffling that they are even legal! Whatever vehicle I buy, it will not be any- thing that I looked at today. :-( Re #2: I don't get it. Re #18: Gas currently costs the approximate equivalent of US$ 4.85 per US Gallon in Britain. Today we paid US$ 1.96 per US Gallon here in Illinois.
Re #20: a 2 door hatchback (generally called "3-door" by the car people) would suit me for the most part. The trailer is a very good idea. My wife would veto a hatchback though, and even though I would like one, it doesn't address the ground clearance issue. Diesel engines should be much more efficient than petrol/ gas ones, and are often more solidly built. A modern Diesel engine that is well maintained should not stink. I don't think I've seen a Diesel hatchback here in the U.S. (although they're common enough in Britain).
My friend Nigel drives one of these in the course of his
work, and I like it. Does anyone sell something like this in
the U.S...?
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/njs.cube/photos/axion/photos/hoovering.jpg
...it's a Vauxhall Corsa Combo Van. I
understand that the chap with the vacuum cleaner is an
optional extra ;-)
A manual transmission is one of my criteria for a car: that really limits the available models.
Diesel engines produce soot as well as stinking. I thought you said your wife had her own car. How can she veto what you get for yourself? Did you look at cars, or vans/SUVs? Fuel efficiency rules hold only for cars. Half of new private motor vehicles sold are not cars (roughly).
This response has been erased.
Re #25: Suffice to say that she can. Whether that's right or not is a topic for another conference. We looked at trucks and SUVs. I would like a /real/ utilitiy vehicle (RUV?) though.
Good luck finding an SUV with a manual transmission. Probably you could get a basic pickup truck (F150, etc) with a manual.
Re #28: I wouldn't feel comfortable buying a Ford, in part because of their reputation for poor reliability. I hear good things about Toyota though, perhaps I'll be able to find a manual, Diesel Toyota truck.
26 mpg for a truck is pretty good. I think it would be a lot cheaper to rent one only when needed, rather than waste gasoline by using it for transportation as well as hauling.
Re resp:9: Keep in mind that a Civic is an unusually low car. Most cars, including my 240, have a couple inches more ground clearance than a Civic. Re resp:12: "Mainly the problem I've had with a 2WD truck is getting started at icy intersections (especially those on hills). It really doesn't take much to get stuck with 2WD if you aren't careful." A limited-slip differential helps quite a bit. So does adding weight to the rear. If you don't have a limited-slip diff, sometimes applying the parking brake slightly when trying to get started on a slick surface will help. Re resp:20: Most current 2-door hatchbacks aren't rated for towing, unfortunately. My Civic's manual just said towing was "not recommended." Re resp:29: I don't think Toyota currently sells diesels in the U.S. VW does, but they don't make a truck. All the other diesels you're likely to find will be V-8s or bigger. The company I work for has a Chevy 2500 diesel pickup truck. It gets about 25 mpg, which is far better than the same truck would get with a gas engine, but still not impressive. There is the Dodge Sprinter (aka. Freightliner Sprinter, aka. Mercedes Sprinter), which is available with a 5-cyl. inline diesel, but that's a full-sized van. Basically, diesels were briefly popular here during the two major oil shortages. After that, they fell out of favor. GM produced some really terrible V-8 diesel cars in the 70s that were unreliable, smokey, and hard to start, and that pretty much turned people off on the whole idea. Then there were the early diesel VW Rabbits that were underpowered and kept blowing head gaskets. Basically, your typical American's opinion of diesel engines is not very high.
Re #30: "good" for a petrol/gasoline truck perhaps, which is one of the reasons that I want a Diesel!
Diesel fumes are particular bad for innocent bystanders who have asthma, as well as smelling terrible. The soot is what bothers people with asthma. Minimizing driving would work better than getting something diesel.
Re 31: I did say I put 600# of sand in the rear. That helps a lot. Limit slip differentials are nice but not if they don't come with your used vehicle. Even with the extra weight, which helped a lot, it was possible to get stuck if the hill was steep and icy. If you're not careful, it's really easy to get stuck.
Re #33: As a person with Asthma, I think it's nice that you're considerate of that. All the talk about soot & smells may be appropriate to large, poorly maintained old engines, but it doesn't sound like any of the modern small Diesels that I have experienced. I would love to minimise my driving. My last job had me based in an office literally just across the street from where I live. I could walk to the recycling centre with the office recyclables, to the post office to collect mail and to the bank to deposit my paycheque. There were times when I actually had to remember to drive my car just to 'stretch its legs'. Unfortunately those paycheques that I mentioned dried up, forcing me to take a job at a factory twenty miles away. I wish that I could afford the luxury of minimising my driving.
Does anyone else in the town where you live work at this same factory?
Re #36: No, especially not on my shift (16:00 - 24:30)
Maybe you can go into business for yourself locally? Yardwork? That sounds awful, having to travel 40 miles a day to work that shift.
Re #38: It is fairly awful, and speaks of the difficult position that I find myself in. I lack the financial resources to go into business for myself, although it's an option that is frequently suggested to me. I can only hope that things will improve once I have an Associate Degree to go with my existing British vocational qualifications. A new Ballmobile would take me to work, to earn money to pay car payments, other bills, tuition fees, buy textbooks etc. It would also take me to college (at least 20 miles in the opposite direction) for those classes that I must take face-to-face. I certainly couldn't afford to run one of the hideous gas-guzzling trucks I saw at the dealer -ships. :-/
Do you realize you said the new car would take you to work to earn money to pay for the new car? A used car would be a lot cheaper, since many people think used is worth less because of status issues. Jim got his textbook used, half price, online (eBay?). I presume your wife got a good job in the town where you cannot find work. You don't need much of a financial investment to do yardwork or child care, and even if they don't pay as much it would avoid the long commute.
Re #40: Yes, that's why I wrote it ;-) I certainly plan to buy a used vehicle, a brand new one would be prohibitely expensive. Even a used reliable vehicle represents a significant financial burden. Yard work would not bring in a sustainable income. There are other obstacles, but the most obvious one is that I can't expect to compete with the teenage kids who can afford to work for pocket money. Child care a similarly unrealistic option. My wife works in another town, North of us (although not so far North as my college). She has the distinct advantage of a Master's Degree.
So why don't you move North to either the town where she works or the town where you want to attend classes? Then one of you won't need a car.
This response has been erased.
Re #42: Besides, if we lived in either of those places I would have to drive even further to get to work.
I hope you eventually find a place to live that is the same as the place where you both work. Maybe a degree will help get a closer job.
Re #45: So long as the degree helps me get a better job, that has to be my main priority at present. I agree that it would be nice not to have to drive to work though.
I'm looking at the Toyota Matrix. It's not a truck, it's an estate car/station wagon. Its stated fuel economy reflects that. It has room in the back for modest loads, and ground clearance looks better than that of my Civic. It lacks a Diesel engine, but apparently many of them are stick shift and some even have six forward gears.
Isnt the Toyota Matrix the same car as the Pontiac Vibe?
Re #48: "The twins are a General Motors-Toyota co-production
using Toyota drivetrains. Vibes are built in the NUMI
plant in California that also manufactures most Corollas
sold in the U.S, while all Matrixes are assembled in
Canada at Toyota s award-winning Cambridge plant."
http://autonet.ca/DriverSource/Stories.cfm?StoryID=5151
It sounds as though the important parts come from Toyota, so
I'll try not to let the Pontiac connection put me off.
I had a Chevy Toyota Corolla Nova back in the 80's. We liked it a lot and had it for 15 years putting 150K on it. I would think it's the same deal with the Vib.
Re #50: did it make a good ground plane? ;-)
It wasn't plastic so, yes it did.
My napkin math was wrong, but not 'out of the ball park'
wrong. According to the metric conversions at...
http://www.sciencemadesimple.net
...40 MPG is about 5.88 l/100 km.
We bought the Matrix. Not Diesel :-( Stick shift :-) No
accelleration :-( Reasonable fuel economy :-) Gas costs
half as much here as in Britain, but I'm still feeling the
effect of the rise in gasoline prices.
- Andy Ball
It finally happened at Christmas: there came a day when the Matrix was officially too small. We were going out of town for a couple of days to visit family and couldn't squeeze everything that we needed in there. Before we added a child seat that prevented us from folding down the rear seats, I was able to use the Matrix to bring home a small chest freezer in a 1m wide carton. I was somewhat surprised that it fit. Now I'm starting to see why suburban families might buy SUVs, mini-vans or other such monstrosities. I wouldn't object to a long-wheelbase Land Rover Defender (biodiesel, naturally ;-) but that's more for use as a platform for experiments in radio, electronics and perhaps astronomy. I get the impression that those aren't legal over here anyway, so perhaps I should buy an old Geo Metro, strip everything out of that, stiffen the suspension and start welding and bolting things to it. >:-)
I drive non-SUV wagons. For carrying equipment for four people for car camping I built a box with doors that can be carried on top, with four compartments on one side for individual gear and compartments on the other side for tent, cooking gear, etc. There is no reason to have a vehicle that can carry all that when most of the time all that is not being carried. I've thought that such containers should be standard accessories one could buy with a car, but they aren't.
A utility trailer is often a good option, too, although most modern cars have laughably small towing capacities. (Yet another reason people buy SUVs.) The Land Rover Defender has, as far as I know, not been sold in the U.S. for about a decade. Importing cars younger than 25 years that weren't sold here is difficult because they're required to meet EPA/DOT standards.
We drove our Subaru Legacy wagon from Michigan to Oregon and back with two teens, two adults, an 8-man cabin tent, sleeping bags and clothing for all. The Yakima Space Box on top made it possible.
I ride a bicycle a lot, every day. And I'm looking at a Ford F-250 with the "mobile office" detachable tablet computer with voice command. I'm waiting for the local Ford dealer to get one in.
Re 57, 2 plus 2 does not add to 8 - why such a big tent instead of 2 small ones? We drove our 1986 Toyota around the country for a month with camping gear, clothing, cooking gear, food for two, and a piano. What is a tablet computer?
Re #59: Picture a conventional laptop with the display where
the keyboard would normally be and without the lid.
They generally feature touch-sensitive displays that
people use with a plastic stylus.
Similar are 'convertibles' where you can open the
lid, twist it 180 degrees so that the display is on
the outside and close it to use it like a tablet.
I would rather use a keyboard to enter data. Someone gave us a PDA without a keyboard and to enter data you either have to draw each letter carefully or tap on pictures of each letter on a 'keyboard' on the display. It is a really slow way to enter data unless you are the sort who types with one finger anyway.
I find entering information in a PDA to be moderately easy, but a little frustrating because I type with ten fingers working together while one ony has one stylus to enter characters on a PDA. It can only be done as fast as one can write. In some circumstances writing is better than typing - one case might be when taking lecture notes. One has to first listen to what is being said and then write down key thoughts or data. Doing it on a keyboard could distract one from first understanding before recording. But then, I've never tried to take notes on a keyboard, so maybe I'm wrong.
I would much rather type notes, it goes faster, but maybe people need to draw and store drawings not just text?
I find writing notes to be more useful during meetings or lectures, because I can draw diagrams, or draw arrows to illustrate connections. I've developed a sort of loose outline style for note-taking, over the years -- I use indentation to denote ideas that relate to each other but I don't use a rigid I, II, III or a), b), c) sequence, just dashes. On the other hand, if I'm creating notes that will be used to make a speech or document, I find typing them to be more useful, because it's easier to rearrange whole blocks of information to make things flow better. In that case the notes generally get written in a text editor, and the final document in a full-blown word processor.
So how is it more useful to draw on a computer instead of paper while taking notes?
I don't know. I've always drawn on paper. I suppose some people would find computer notes easier to file, back up, and distribute to others, though. When I worked at Interclean, it was common for us to take a digital photo of any whiteboard drawings we made during a meeting so we could all have a copy.
You have several choices: