Kaleb C. Striplin wrote:
This logic makes no sense, you get a car that gets 2-5 mpg better in order to save energy, right? How much energy goes into building that new car? Doesnt make a lot of sense now does it?
If you're buying just to increase mpg, it's probably not a winning trade unless you make switch between vehicles of similar value (like when I quit driving my 25mpg 1995 Taurus and bought a 30mpg 1997 Achieva), or you see a huge difference in MPG (like getting rid of a 10mpg truck). If you're spending $20k to save energy, you're never going to save that much over the lifetime of the vehicle.
On a related topic, how much do you want to bet that the government subsidized electric vehicles will prove to be, just like the GM Impact, clearly inferior to a comparable gasoline or diesel vehicle. Just imagine that you took an Impact, pulled out the electric motor, batteries, etc and dropped in a 25hp diesel engine and a five gallon fuel tank. You'd have a much lighter car that runs circles around an Impact, gets 100-150 mpg, has a 500+ mile range, and the reduced cost of production would pay for a lifetime of biodiesel.
Mitch. _______________________________________ http://www.okiebenz.com For new and used parts go to www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
