From: CountFloyd on
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 15:17:56 UTC, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop(a)> wrote:

> In article <_wsji.23$g44.7(a)trnddc02>, Jeff <kidsdoc2000(a)>
> wrote:
> > > It's not even what I call a transmission, although obviously it performs
> > > the task of one.
> >
> > CVTs are transmissions.
> I put the traditional CVT on par with the traditional fluid drive
> automatic transmission with respect to complexity and number of failure
> points, as well as its proclivity to fail.
Don't mention "Fluid Drive" as prone to failure. My 1940 Chrysler has
it and it is bulletproof! That was perhaps the best transmission

> The Toyota PSD is way, way, way, WAY different.

"What do you mean there's no movie?"
From: Mike Hunter on
You think that because you do not know what at 'trade through' involves,
dummy. LOL


"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000(a)> wrote in message
> Mike Hunter wrote:
>> Next time do a trade through. By not doing a trade through, when you
>> sell your old clunker, you are paying higher taxes than needed, dummy
> First, Mike, there is no need to call people, "dummy." That is not even a
> good tactic for someone in kindergarten. I would have thought that you are
> above name-calling.
> Second, by doing a trade, you save 6% (in PA or whatever the state tax is
> where you live). If you are able to get more than 6% more by doing a trade
> yourself, you come out ahead.
> So if you would sell a car you can sell yourself for $10,000 to a dealer
> for $9,000, you still come out $400 ahead. Of course, whether it is worth
> the trouble of selling a car for $400 extra is up to the seller to decide.
> There is also a risk that you won't get as much as you want and the cost
> of advertising.
> It is certainly worth considering a trade, but, if one does his homework
> first, he should have a good estimate of what he can get for his car
> selling it himself, and use that to determine whether he is better off
> trading in the car or trying to sell it himself.
> (A 2005 Ford 400 AWD has a trade in value of $12,950 and a retail value of
> $15,325, so a private sale value should be about $10
> And, if you happen to do the trade in Delaware, where the state tax is 0%,
> you come out $1000 ahead.
> Jeff
>> mike
>> "DH" <dh(a)> wrote in message
>> news:468e5710$0$16353$88260bb3(a)
>>> "Mike Hunter" <mikehunt2(a)> wrote in message
>>> news:seKdne_fGqw6wxPbnZ2dnUVZ_r6vnZ2d(a)
>>>> Are you really that slow witted? Of course the dealership can screw
>>>> you. How do you think you could screw the dealership?
>>> If I want a new car, then the dealership will get the opportunity to
>>> make a profit on the sale. But, since I own highly desireable cars that
>>> resell well, I'll sell them privately and avoid getting taken on the
>>> trade.

From: Mike Hunter on
Based on that you assume it does not exits, naturally LOL


"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000(a)> wrote in message
> Mike Hunter wrote:
>> That may be your opinion, but if you think you are correct you had better
>> notify the IRS. There is no listing of any Toyota holding company paying
>> any corporate taxes, on the IRS wed site. LOL
> Can you please tell us the location of the IRS website that lists which
> companies pay taxes?
> I haven't found one that lists the taxes that corporations pay or even one
> the lists all the corporate tax payers.
> JEff
>> mike
>> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000(a)> wrote in message
>> news:afeji.8274$7k7.1410(a)trnddc01...
>>> Mike Hunter wrote:
>>>> Those if favor of "tax" assistance do not think of the fact they are
>>>> the ones paying the tax money that is used to "assist," and that is
>>>> going to a foreign corporation that pays NO US federal corporate income
>>>> taxes ;)
>>> But it's US subsidies do.
>>> Jeff
>>>> mike
>>>> <dold(a)> wrote in message
>>>> news:f6gclb$dij$3(a)
>>>>> In Bill Putney <bptn(a)> wrote:
>>>>>> You can subtract the $787.50 from the savings because *somenone* (the
>>>>>> taxapyer) pays for that. Only if you are a liberal do you ignore
>>>>>> such
>>>>>> costs.
>>>>> Only if there were no hybrids. I would like to thank you for paying
>>>>> your
>>>>> portion of my rebate, but the source of it doesn't affect the fit in
>>>>> my
>>>>> pocket. I think of it along the same lines as the development cost
>>>>> for
>>>>> Velcro, also funded by the taxpayer.

From: Jeff on
Mike Hunter wrote:
> You are free to believe whatever you choose. A modern V8 will run quite
> efficiently at
> 1,500 RPMs, even on four cylinders, at 60 MPH. Most 4 cy engines need to
> run at nearly twice that number of RPMs at 60 MPH.

Yet the 4 cyl cars get a lot better fuel mileage. Go figure.

> You are confusing EPA test highway figures with what I actually said. ANY
> car will get better than the EPA figure, driven strictly at speed on the
> highway. The average is three to four MPG. My V6 Lincoln Zephyr with a
> fuel computer and six speed double OD tranny, had an EPA mileage of 29 but
> will constantly do 34/35 at 1,700 RPMs at 60 MPH on a flat road. ;)

That's true of any engine, regardless of whether it is 4, 6 or 8 cylinders.

The V8 with the highest highway estimate has 28 mpg highway, which comes
to 32 mpg highway. That is not what I would call well over 30 mpg,
especially when one has to get to the highway and frequently travels at
slower speeds, especially around construction sites.

So that just means that the smaller engines are even more efficient at
highway speeds.

None of this has anything to do with the fact that the most efficient
vehicles available today in the US are hybrid vehicles with small
engines (1.5 liter).


> mike
> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000(a)> wrote in message
> news:w6uji.8$V35.4(a)trndny03...
>> Mike Hunter wrote:
>>> In general hybrid use a small engine to move the vehicle when not much
>>> torques is required and to generate electricity when required. The
>>> electric motor is used when torque is required to get the vehicle going
>>> and to keep it going on a grade.
>>> We hear of the great mileage while driving at slower speeds in a hybrid
>>> but one can not continue to do so for long before the engine will need to
>>> run to recharge the batteries,
>>> provide heat and AC
>>> Seems to me we should be looking to improve the newer technology, that
>>> permits several of the cylinders to be disengaged when torque is not
>>> required. That is a better solution to lowering ones average fuel
>>> consumption since the majority is mileage is accumulated
>>> where torque is not required.
>> I have to disagree with you on this one.
>> To me, it seems that no running an engine at its most efficient speeds, as
>> the hybrids do, and storing energy as electricity and using that in such a
>> way the efficiency is maximized will make a better combination than
>> cutting off cylinders.
>> Even buses in NYC use hybrid technology rather than disengaging cylinders
>> (or in addition to it). And the Swedes are working on hybrid garbage
>> trucks.
>> Plus, but using a hybrid design, you can have a smaller and lighter engine
>> than with an engine that has a variable number of cylinders. Of course,
>> the technologies are not mutually incompatible.
>>> Several manufacturers are offing that technology and obtaining well over
>>> 30 mpg, with V8 engines, on the highway and still offering the larger,
>>> safer, more powerful vehicles that the buyers prefer.
>> What manufacturer offers a V8 that gets well over 30 mpg?
>> OK, some V8 get close to 30 mpg highway, but none get even 30 mpg highway,
>> at least in the 2007 or 2008 model years:
>>> Cylinder deactivation does not add much to the price of the vehicle as
>>> apposed to hybrids that cost much more to build and add to the wealth of
>>> batteries to be build and recycled.
>> It's a trade-off. Some people prefer a bigger car, some prefer one with a
>> smaller environmental footprint, which hybrids may or may not have (I
>> haven't seen a good accounting of the environmental costs of the batteries
>> and other technology).
>> Jeff
>>> mike
>>> "Bill Putney" <bptn(a)> wrote in message
>>> news:5f59k4F35r4qqU1(a)
>>>> B A R R Y wrote:
>>>>> who wrote:
>>>>>> In article <VzZii.7981$7k7.3835(a)trnddc01>,
>>>>>> Jeff <kidsdoc2000(a)> wrote:
>>>>>>> There is no indication that the life of the batteries are a limiting
>>>>>>> factor to the life of the car. All indications are that the batteries
>>>>>>> do not wear out.
>>>>>> Dream on.
>>>>>> Currently rechargeable batteries start going down hill at about 3
>>>>>> years.
>>>>>> The fact that they are much weaker between 5 and the 8 yr guarantee
>>>>>> point would not be that noticeable as the Prius battery is very large.
>>>>>> A Prius might then be running as a mild hybrid, not going so far on
>>>>>> battery only.
>>>>> Which would cause the gas mileage to drop.
>>>>> My in-laws are still driving a first generation Prius, a 2002, with
>>>>> over 100k. The MPG is the same as it ever was.
>>>> Ha ha! But Toyota slipped up by uncluding in that article that it would
>>>> not even go a mile on battery only. That says that the battery is a
>>>> small factor in its overall economy. And in most driving situations,
>>>> regenerative braking probably barely (or doesn't quite) make up for the
>>>> extra weight of batteries and controls it is carrying around. (IOW -
>>>> the economy is from a small, optimized-for-efficiency IC engine.)
>>>> Bill Putney
>>>> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
>>>> address with the letter 'x')
From: Jeff on
Mike Hunter wrote:
> You think that because you do not know what at 'trade through' involves,
> dummy. LOL
> mike

Isn't that special, Mike?

What is sad is that you have to call people names.