[Ingo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkweg /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can't remember where I read the article but the site's article said automatic is more fuel efficient than manual. I expect they did a study of some sort and didn't just pull it out of their rear end. IMO, manual is a safety hazard because you have to think about shifting too and one hand is off the steering wheel. I expect manual shifting is almost as much a safety hazard as people who talk on their cell phone while driving. Anything that helps you to keep your mind on the road and 2 hands on the wheel is of benefit to safety so for that reason alone I choose automatic.

You're obviously not a very experienced driver.

 

[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ingo /img/forum/go_quote.gif The biggest missing link is that diesel engines do not need to run from petroleum based diesel.

Spark ignition internal combustion engines don't need to run on gasoline either.

But given the terrible economics of biodiesel and ethanol* production, neither petroleum alternative will be a major source of fuel in the United States without major production breakthroughs. They wouldn't even be minor ones if it wasn't for government meddling.

*Exception: Sugar cane ethanol has been a success in Brazil.

 

[Ingo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin /img/forum/go_quote.gif Spark ignition internal combustion engines don't need to run on gasoline either. But given the terrible economics of biodiesel and ethanol* production, neither petroleum alternative will be a major source of fuel in the United States without major production breakthroughs. They wouldn't even be minor ones if it wasn't for government meddling. *Exception: Sugar cane ethanol has been a success in Brazil.

Given that my parents belong to a co-op that creates waste oil based diesel for around $0.40/gallon I think the only economics that are holding us back from creating non-petroleum based fuels are imaginary.

Nobody is interested in it. It's not going to change. People can always just do it on their own.

Too bad they have everyone convinced it's not possible.

 

[XxATOLxX]

Quote:

Originally Posted by srozzman /img/forum/go_quote.gif Within the next year, I will be purchasing a brand new economy car. The cars that I am leaning towards are the Volkswagon Rabbit 3 door model, or the Chevrolet Cobalt Coupe (Non SS). I am looking for the trusted Head-fi community's thoughts, opinions and experiences as well as suggestions. I need the car to last me at least four years, and am looking towards which is the better value, and fun for the money. I am also looking towards the Chevrolet Aveo5 for other possibilities. I would like to either stay domestic or go European, but am open to suggestions. Please keep brand bashing out of this thread. Happy Posting!

Out of those three, I'd pick the Rabbit hands down. I honestly think the Chevy Cobalt is the worst car I've ever driven. First it was cramped as hell and then that giant turning radius that made it hell to drive through LA traffic.

If you are going with a Volkswagen though, don't settle for anything less than the 2.0T engine. That 2.5 is a piece of crap.

 

[wakeup.sir]

If you're holding out for an electric and need something cheap right now, I'd suggest 92-00 civics, in a stick shift. Fun to drive even the DX models (which are 106 hp, 103 ft/lb torque). They have a great road feel with excellent handling for an econo box and of course known reliability.

 

[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ingo /img/forum/go_quote.gif Given that my parents belong to a co-op that creates waste oil based diesel for around $0.40/gallon I think the only economics that are holding us back from creating non-petroleum based fuels are imaginary. Nobody is interested in it. It's not going to change. People can always just do it on their own. Too bad they have everyone convinced it's not possible.

The issue is scale. Waste oil biodiesel production doesn't. Creating biodiesel from crops is both cost ineffective and a poor use of farmland.

While the total amount of waste biodiesel (400-450 million gallons in 2008) created is impressive, it's a minor fraction of the 40 trillion gallons of diesel consumed for onroad transportation that year.

 

[milkweg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ingo /img/forum/go_quote.gif You're obviously not a very experienced driver.

Said by someone who probably talks on their cell phone while driving. Think about it. How is manual shifting safe compared to auto?

 

[nealric]

Quote:

IMO, manual is a safety hazard because you have to think about shifting too and one hand is off the steering wheel.

Then why are insurance rates lower on manual transmission cars?

I'm sorry, but you sound like you have never driven a manual (or certainly never mastered driving one). It gives you MORE control- not less.

 

[rogue]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkweg /img/forum/go_quote.gif Said by someone who probably talks on their cell phone while driving. Think about it. How is manual shifting safe compared to auto?

Wow, nice strawman argument. In fact, I bet that manual drivers are safer because they tend to use their phone less while driving (I know I did when I drove a manual). Again, if you've never driven a manual, you have no room to talk.

 

[shigzeo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkweg /img/forum/go_quote.gif Said by someone who probably talks on their cell phone while driving. Think about it. How is manual shifting safe compared to auto?

standard shift is way safer especially in canada where you come from. any country with snow is a death trap for automatics which cannot be coaxed into low wheel rpm to grip on ice and snow. automatics lurch forward and have no need nor often method to govern speed whereas standard shift cars do.

i have driven both extensively and standard is much more reliable. automatics also can 'stick' and cause many accidents every year because the pedals of older cars stick. most standards are not on some relative accelerator that is governed based on speed. they are spring loaded and safe.

you are much more controlled in every aspect of driving and as a rule, have to actually pay attention a bit more. you also don't keep a hand on the shifter -- that is a personal matter with automatics or standards. very few people i have driven with use either one with both hands on the wheel.

personal preference keeps you in your own habits. for both transmission types, it is safest to keep both hands on the wheel. the only time i can suggest automatic is for richer people who like to use more fuel and have bad knees.

 

[Ingo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkweg /img/forum/go_quote.gif Said by someone who probably talks on their cell phone while driving. Think about it. How is manual shifting safe compared to auto?

Actually, I'm a VISCIOUS anti-cell phone person.

I've never, and I do mean never, owned a cell phone.

I did learn to drive a manual transmission equipped vehicle when I was 12.

Coincidentally, it was a Dodge 1-ton diesel that got about 20mpg (a gas motor of it's capability at the time averaged about 10mpg).

 

[Ingo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin /img/forum/go_quote.gif The issue is scale. Waste oil biodiesel production doesn't. Creating biodiesel from crops is both cost ineffective and a poor use of farmland. While the total amount of waste biodiesel (400-450 million gallons in 2008) created is impressive, it's a minor fraction of the 40 trillion gallons of diesel consumed for onroad transportation that year.

What you are saying is definitely true to an extent. For the masses, biodiesel production doesn't seem economical at this point. But if enough people create small scale production facilities (like the group my parents belong to) it could eventually alleviate the demand for petro fuels.

It could be in the near future that they find a way to make algae based biofuel economically viable. It's estimated that it would only take about 15,000 square miles of algae crops to completely replace petroleum based fuels in the US. This can be done in ocean or freshwater and the biproducts are biodegradable.

 

[srozzman]

Ok back on topic folks. First off, I live near Buffalo, NY. Snow traction is important. I like the ESP etc that comes STANDARD in the rabbit. Actually i love everything about the rabbit really. Im still young, so the ultra low insurance rates are also a plus. And yes, a standard/manual transmission is a must. My current car is automatic, and runs out of gears. I enjoy tinkering and modding. What im basically sayign is that this is now basically Rabbit vs. new mazda3. No performance versions. Cant afford the premium gas. Or the Insurance. Or the tickets =]

 

[olblueyez]

Quote:

Originally Posted by srozzman /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ok back on topic folks. First off, I live near Buffalo, NY. Snow traction is important. I like the ESP etc that comes STANDARD in the rabbit. Actually i love everything about the rabbit really. Im still young, so the ultra low insurance rates are also a plus. And yes, a standard/manual transmission is a must. My current car is automatic, and runs out of gears. I enjoy tinkering and modding. What im basically sayign is that this is now basically Rabbit vs. new mazda3. No performance versions. Cant afford the premium gas. Or the Insurance. Or the tickets =]

2009 Nissan Sentra SE-R - Nissan USA Official Site

Neighbor has one of these (Not the R version) in Red, it looks nice and it looks big inside.

 

[olblueyez]

Search results at carmax.com

I hope your not using manufacturer websites for prices, the Sentra-R Vspec comes to 23+ on Nissans website. Carmax is 16+ and then add tax and tags.

I like this one too!

http://www.carmax.com/enUS/view-car/...e-1c33fa3cbaf0<~~Chicks love this. T-Tops come out, doors come off. Its impossible to break, takes regular gas. Kicks ass in the snow. HAS A HARD TOP. Its perfect. Except for the color, you want red or something like that.