70 new of 91 responses total.
Assuming gasoline averages $3/gallon over the life of your vehicle (no inflation), with a minivan getting 20 mpg and a car getting 40 mpg, 100,000 miles would be 5000 or 2,500 gallons, a difference of 2,500 gallons at $3/gallon (which is probably a low estimate) or $7,500 extra to drive the minivan. Someone please correct my arithmetic or assumptions. You could buy a lot of groceries for that amount (and more if the price of gas goes up over the next ten years). If you drove it 10 years, $750/year, about $60/month. If you change babies in the car for three years, that would be $2500/year for a portable baby-changing table with wheels. $200/month. It would also produce double the pollution, if you care about that. Our local supermarket will pick out and deliver groceries for $15, which would let you have your groceries delivered once a week for what you would save in gas. If gasoline averages $6 of course it is double the difference ($15,000 extra over the 100,000 miles). Is there a difference in insurance rates or purchase costs on minivans vs small cars?
I won't buy any vehicle that only gets 20 MPG. Most cars (petrol/gasoline ones) won't get 40 MPG. I think a van is likely to suffer lower economy than a car (even a station wagon) because of increased weight and drag, so even if the numbers are wrong, the concept is probably valid. National Geographic thinks the price of oil (and petrol) is likely to increase consistently over the next ten years, which sounds quite likely. I do care about pollution. It's a shame that I can't buy a fuel cell car today. It's also unfortunate that a family of three living in the Mid West require two cars. My sister has a husband, three children and they have no car because they live in Britain and the few things that aren't in walking distance can be reached easily via inexpensive public transport. My wife has to choose her own groceries. You'd have to ask her about that. Insurance may actually be less expensive for a van than a car because they're larger and the perception seems to be that the passengers are less vulnerable in the event of a collision. Perhaps they also think 'soccer moms' drive with more care.
For $750/year (or more) would it be worth making a few extra trips to the grocery store? Our 1987 Dodge Colt gets about 40 mpg, and I assume newer cars could do better. What do the best new ones get? What do the best minivans get?
Two mistaken assumptions: 1 Not a lot of cars suitable for a family with small children get 40 mpg 2 If space is a problem, buying a portable changing table is not likely to improve that situation.
I don't know how you wring 40 MPG out of your Dodge. What kind of engine does it have? Perhaps you could describe how you calculate the fuel economy.
Re #25: I think that was a metaphor.
Small children should not have a lot of trouble fitting into the back seat of a small car. We don't wring mileage, we simply kept track of the miles and the gallons and did the calculations a few times. The 1986 Toyota was getting closer to 50 mpg out of the city. Jim keeps the tires properly inflated, and the spark plugs cleaned, and the engine tuned, and fluid levels correct. And drives so as to not need the brake (he slows down before stop lights and turns off the car at longer lights). These are manual transmission, which if properly used is more efficient. The Toyota is 4-door. I don't know about the engines - 4 cylinder? 150,000 miles when we got the Dodge about 10 years ago from the original owner, who kept itmaintained. We put on another 10,000 or so doing long trips. It is only driven once a year.
It sounds as though Jim and I have somewhat similar driving styles. I think 50 MPG is very unusual for a conventional car with a petrol engine. I drive my car almost every day, but it's hard to imagine that making so vast a difference in fuel economy. My car has a 1.9 litre engine (tuned towards 'docile') with a manual gearbox.
Small children sit in huge child seats.
Car seats are, I presume, designed to fit standard size cars. Jim says the 40-50 mpg was outside of cities, he never drove over 55 mpg, he did not brake going down hills, he stopped using the gas before intersections and coasted into them, etc. We don't drive in the city, just once a year on vacation. What mpg do the best new cars get nowadays?
See http://www.fueleconomy.gov for lots of info about pollution, efficiency, driving styles, etc. The best hybrid car of 2005 got 61 mpg city, and the best SUV (hybrid) got 36 mpg. You need to download an entire list of all the vehicles for 2006 to see specifics, I think (and use a javascript browser - which maybe will let you look up specific models). How much extra does a hybrid car cost? I bet it pays for itself in a few years.
I think the jury is still out, because (I don't believe) a retail price has been set yet for replacement battery packs.
I understand that most non-trivial work on a hybrid has to be done at a dealership, with expensive labour rates. Hybrids are a red herring anyway I think, but perhaps they will help debug technologies that will later prove useful in electric, Hydrogen or fuel-cell cars. I get about 32 MPG on the highway, mostly driving around 65 MPH (unless I'm running late for something).
People tell me that 32 MPG is "not bad at all".
Some minivans can get low- to mid-20s, which is not quite as good as a mid-sized car but better than a full-size car. A full-size van would put you down below 20 mpg, but it doesn't sound like you're talking about a full-sized van anyway. You might consider choosing a car that's a flexible-fuel vehicle (FFV), since that would give you the option to run on E85 if it ever becomes widely available. For the type of vehicle you're talking about, you might consider buying from a rental company. They sell off their cars after a year or two in rental service. They're usually dealer-maintained and sometimes still carry a warranty, so they can be a pretty good bet.
E85 is available at just about every filling station in this area. Biodiesel less so, although if you know where to look you can buy it. E85 apparently decreases fuel economy, perhaps to the point where it ofsets its lower cost. It may be a little less harmful to the environment though, perhaps.
I think I read somewhere that E85 has a much lower energy return on energy invested (EREI) than BioDiesel too.
Making ethanol is inherently a more expensive operation per Kcal than making biodiesel. It has been estimated by engineering professionals that if we converted *every* hectare of agricultural land to corn production for ethanol in this country, it would amount to less than 10% of our current fuel consumption. Of course then we wouldn't need fuel as we would all starve to death.
Getting 23 (minivan) instead of 32 (car) mpg, 100,000 miles, $3/gallon, is a difference of about $3700 extra for the minivan. You could still buy a lot of groceries for that. The difference between 50 (hybrid, assuming it does less than the 61 mpg best) and 25 mpg (minivan) would be about $6000, which should pay for a lot of repairs even by a dealer, on the hybrid car. And also produce half as much pollution, which you claim to care about. A lot of people claim to be anti-pollution and anti-global-warming, but don't care enough to do anything about it personally. Do hybrid cars have the same lifespan?
I wouldn't buy a vehicle that only got 23 MPG. US$ 6,000 goes a little way at the dealership, but not as far as I would hope (probably even less far when you own a hybrid). Lower emissions are a Good Thing, and may be reason enough to pay the extra for a hybrid. If anyone knows the lifespan of a hybrid, they're not telling. As was mentioned, the replacement cost of the battery is a concern.
What mpg would you expect a minivan to get? Battery costs are coming down steadily and there are newer types under development. What do you expect to go wrong with a hybrid but not with a minivan? Do you have a place to get natural gas for cars?
You also have to consider the energy costs and environmental conseqences of *making* and, in the end, recycling/trashing the vehicle. This is called Life Cycle Analysis (http://www.gdrc.org/uem/lca/life-cycle.html). It is, unfortunately, not done for most products.
Hybrids large enough to comfortably fit two car seats and some luggage in are on the expensive side and don't get nearly the fuel economy the small ones do. Also, think about the type of driving you'll be doing. Hybrids don't have much, if any, fuel economy advantage in highway driving. They're only helpful in stop-and-go, city driving. If you're looking for a highway vehicle that gets good fuel economy, you might consider a diesel. (But with the high cost of diesel fuel lately, that may not be a net win over gasoline.) Hybrid reliability is also an open question, so I don't know if I'd buy a used one. I've heard the Honda Insight, in particular, has turned out to be a bit of a lemon.
Diesel stinks and is much more polluting, esp. particulates.
Actually, I think diesels are much cleaner than they used to be. As I understand it, the last remaining emissions issue is cold starts. I think there was also one particular pollutant that was problematic, but I believe it's been addressed.
Do you know of any diesel engines that do not produce particulates? They may have reduced the amount of sulfur and nitrogen oxides.
A low-sulfer diesel fuel is being rolled out this year. There will also be diesels with particulate traps, and may even be a few on the road now. Newer engine technology has taken care of the nitrogen oxides. According to what I read in greencar journal, a clean diesel is as clean as today's gas engine. The real question is whether diesels can meet some of the newer standards being phased in in places like California.
Re #42: If I couldn't get something at least /approaching/ 8 l/100km (30 MPG) on the highway, I wouldn't buy it. I'm not ready to buy a hybrid because they're massively more complex than a conventional vehicle, complexity is the enemy of reliability and hybrids come with vendor lock-in as standard. I've not seen any natural gas powered cars, or anywhere I could buy fuel for one. Re #43: It would be nice if potential buyers got to see meaningful life-cycle numbers for each vehicle. That said, what proportion of Americans actually look at them? Some don't even look at the fuel economy numbers, although perhaps more are since the prices started to rise a little. Re #44: Good point. My own preference (of currently- available road vehicles would probably be for Diesel in any case, but Mrs. Ball has her own objections and she would be the primary driver of the new vehicle.
)
Re resp:47: The very newest diesel vehicles, the ones for the 2007 model year, have particulate filters. If I remember right, they work on an electrostatic principle, and include an operating phase where the filter plates are heated to a very high temperature to incinerate the accumulated particles. This is combined with improved timing and fuel delivery that eliminate a lot of the particles to begin with. These vehicles also have systems that greatly reduce NOx emissions. Some of this technology was already available in Europe, but has only become practical in the U.S. with the introduction of ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel.
Do the newer diesel engines still stink? Are there minivans that get 30 mpg?
Judging by the rate at which towing bills are piling up, I expect to buy Ballmobile II within the next month, if not the next week.
Re resp:52: The odor is much reduced, I believe, but it's probably still there if you sniff hard enough. Of course, running on biodiesel will replace that with a burnt cooking oil sort of smell. I'm not aware of any minivans that get 30 mpg, and the EPA's website doesn't list any: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byclass/Minivan2007.shtml Very few midsize cars manage 30 mpg, either; you generally have to go to a compact car to get that kind of economy.
Honda claim 24/34 (city/highway) for an Accord with a four cylinder engine and an automatic transmission (Mrs. Ball is not comfortable driving a manual). A station wagon might be heavier, even when it's empty and those are based on the EPA calculation method, which I understand is a bit dubious.
I saw a Honda Accord claiming to get 40mph hwy (Not surprising it goes that fast with the lil briggs&stratton lawnmower engines)
The air resistance of a van or SUV reduces efficiency, not just the weight. The claimed 24 mpg might be only for when it is new and perfectly adjusted. It sounds like you are determined to get something inefficient and are trying to justify the decision.
You're mistaken. I've pretty much ruled out a minivan because of their lousy fuel economy. Instead I'm looking at A Honda Accord, Toyota Camry or VW Passat Station Wagon.
My wife drives a VW Passat wagon, and loves it. However when the roads are icy, she asks to borrow my Subaru Legacy (AWD) wagon.
Toyota and Honda both have reputations for high quality and efficiency. So why only 24/30 mpg? Our Toyota does much better than that. Sorry I misunderstood.
I get about 32 MPG from my Toyota Matrix. Both the Camry and Accord are larger than the Matrix though, which would lead me to expect slightly worse fuel economy. Honda claim 24/34 (city/highway) for the Accord, but I'm not sure whether they made a station wagon variant.
Man, I wish I got over 20mpg in my Jeep. :(
I'm a little dubious of your fuel economy claims, keesan. Either you're not measuring accurately, or your driving habits are very unusual. I'm not sure what kind of Toyota you have, so I couldn't look it up; but you earlier claimed to be getting 40 mpg from a 1987 Dodge Colt. The EPA numbers for that car are 23 MPG city and 24 mpg highway. Most people don't do as well as the EPA numbers; you claim to have nearly doubled them.
Jim drives very carefully. He rarely uses the brakes (he slows down before intersections). He never goes over 55 mpg. He keeps the spark plugs clean and whatever else needs adjusting is adjusted. This trip he calculated the Dodge Colt was getting between 40 and 50 mpg (mostly on rural roads, at about 40-45 mpg). Just fetched Jim: he reset the valve clearance, ran higher tire pressure, coasted down hills and up the next hill (took it out of gear going down hills), almost no city driving, drove only once a day without stops in which the engine would have cooled down. Jim says the car has poor efficiency until it gets up to temperature and we drove no short trips in any day. Windows closed. No luggage on top. No radio antenna. Didn't use the wipers. Manual transmission, manual steering. It depends a lot on how you drive. This was neither city driving (lots of stops and braking) or highway driving (very fast speeds). Daytime only, no lights needed. No air conditioning (or heating). We took only paved roads this trip. Unique exhaust system... Not much starting and stopping. Engine turned off at any lights. Truck lanes on the hills, and the trucks would pass us. We did play cassette tapes once in a while, which uses electricity. Coasted to a stop instead of breaking, he repeats.
I had a service done recently and the chap commented that there was "plenty of life left in those brakes!" I pointed out that "I don't use those much". Driving home from work (a straight run up the Interstate) around 2am means that I can drive more sedately (around 65 MPH) without getting in people's way and coast when I want to slow down. Lights are not optional and if it's very cold I have the heater on. I usually have the radio on (unless I've had to defrost the car) or play a podcast CD. It would be interesting to see how much my fuel economy improved if I slowed down even more.
During the first gas crisis, Johnny Carson did a bit about maximizing fuel economy. Apparently an expert he spoke to said accelerate smoothly to 45 mph and then coast. It looks like jim followed his advice.
I could get away with that on the way home from work (although I'd probably get stopped by the police rather frequently), but driving 45 MPH on a busy Interstate during the day would turn my car into a collision magnet.
Is there some route you can take which does not require driving 65 mph? Heating just makes use of some of the large percentage of energy being wasted by the engine, which converts most of it to heat not motion, so it should not affect fuel efficiency in a gasoline-powered car. One of the problems of electric cars is that people want them to be heated. One solution is a propane heater. Cars are poorly insulated, and not designed to conserve heat.
Re resp:68: I don't know about where ball lives, but where I live taking a route that doesn't require doing 60 mph would mean taking one with lots of stops, which would result in worse fuel economy, not better. It would also take a lot more time, and my time has value, too. Running the heat will not effect fuel efficiency *if* you don't use it until the car is fully warmed up, *and* if the thermostat is working properly. If you turn on the heat before the car is fully warmed up, you'll prolong the time it takes to get to operating temperature, and decrease the fuel economy somewhat. The longer warm-up time is one of the reasons cars tend to get lower fuel economy in the winter. A bad thermostat that keeps the engine from ever reaching its proper temperature can utterly demolish the fuel economy of some cars, especially diesels. I read once that turning off the engine while stopped is a net gain in fuel efficiency if you'll be stopped for more than 30 seconds. I turn it off at open draw bridges and when waiting for ferries, but not at every traffic light. Keesan's right that cold weather is a big problem for electric cars. The GM EV-1's range on a cold winter day was once estimated at 12 miles. The combination of running the electric heater and the lower capacity of cold batteries was a real killer.
Electric cars could be designed with insulation. Jim also never turns on the heat unless the car has run for 30 minutes. We used to drive once every winter and I would take along a sleeping bag and wear warm slippers. Is it possible to warm the batteries?
Re #69: That's true here too and the extra stops and starts would wear parts (e.g. clutch, brakes) out more quickly. Re #70: Insulation would also help keep cars cool during the summer. It would have to be light and relatively thin. Aerogel would be nice, but I'm sure it would cost a fortune.
Anything more than metal and single-pane glass would help. I forgot that Americans are now also demanding that their cars be air conditioned. Can you still buy a car made here that is not? Or one without power windows (another waste of fuel)? Our neighbors replaced their old car when one stopped working and an expensive repair (motor replacement) did not work for long. Then there are power seatbelts - anything else?
While I too wish there were far fewer power accessories on vehicles, I doubt their effect on fuel economy is great at all. The intermittent use of a power accessory is not at all comparable to AC use on a hot day.
Happily my car has manual transmission, manual window winders and seatbelts. I doubt you can buy a new car in the U.S. that doesn't come with A/C. I doubt power windows make much difference to fuel economy, but there's more to go wrong with power windows and I don't find it a significant effort to crank a small handle a few times.
It is not only inconvenient but really dangerous to open or close any car window manually while driving, except your own. I'm surprised they are as reliable as they are, but they hardly affect mileage or even the car cost. Manual mechanisms are also subject to malfunction and are not free.
Why would anyone want to open or close someone else's car window while driving? Our manual mechanisms have never worn out. I heard you can pay extra to get manual instead of power windows on some cars.
The driver may wish to open or close other windows to increase or decrease ventilation and/or noise, and to keep out rain, smoke, dust, and other debris, while driving. You control heating and cooling with switches on the dash. Controlling window ventilation is part of such environmental control.
Some luxury cars are coming with double-pane glass now, for sound and heat insulation. They tend to be better insulated in general, for noise deadening reasons. However, all that insulation adds a lot of weight, which is one of the reasons luxury cars get poorer fuel economy.
How much heavier is the double-pane glass? Noise insulation is based on increasing mass, thermal insulation works better with low-density materials and should not add much to the weight. I thought luxury cars tended to be a lot larger, and to have owners that don't care about costs much.
It is done. Mrs. Ball bought something about the size of a Type 42 destroyer. Apparently estate cars/station wagons are unfasionable, so the Camry and Accord aren't offered that way. Whatever, presumably this means in ten or fifteen years time when I get to buy my next vehicle I will get to choose the vehicle of my choice (who knows, by then perhaps an electric or Hydrogen Jetta will be on the market).
What is a Type 42 destroyer? I hope you don't need to drive it anywhere at 65 mph.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/HMS_Nottingham_D91.j pg I would be happy if Mrs. Ball would just slow down to 65 MPH!
That URL was too long for Grex. Here's another... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HMS_Sheffield_%28D80%29.jpg
Can't see it when dialed in, maybe you can post a description.
Ah, good point. The Type 42 destroyer is a surface vessel (ship) of the Royal Navy. It displaces about 5,350 tons, is 141m long and has a 15m beam. I was trying to imply that Mrs. Ball's new van was a large lump of metal.
I take it you had no input into the decision to buy the destroyer, and that it will not maneuver well in small spaces. Does it sleep three?
Station wagons are coming back into vogue, but manufacturers are studiously avoiding calling them "station wagons" because that conjures up mental images of stodgy mommy-mobiles. Silly terms like "sport tourer" and "crossover vehicle" are replacing it. The Dodge Magnum is a good example of this type. On a smaller scale, there are cars like the Toyota Matrix, Pontiac Vibe, and Honda Fit.
Your new van carries Harpoon missiles? Boss. :)
Actually, I take that last one back. The Fit is more of a hatchback than a wagon.
Re #87: The Vibe and Matrix are basically the same car too.
It's time to start thinking about Ballmobile IV. My old
Matrix needs a new clutch, exhaust system, the A/C crapped
out some time ago and various other things are broken and/or
breaking. In short, my car needs a new car.
I can't afford a Nissan Leaf and a lot of slightly used
cars seem to cost the same as a new Nissan Versa. Mrs. ball
complains that the Versa is "too small". Perhaps I'll be
able to find a slightly used Sentra for not much more than a
brand new Versa. I don't think the chap at the local Nissan
dealership believed me when I asked for something used with
a manual gearbox.
You have several choices: