• Welcome to the Two Wheeled Texans community! Feel free to hang out and lurk as long as you like. However, we would like to encourage you to register so that you can join the community and use the numerous features on the site. After registering, don't forget to post up an introduction!

$5.00 per gallon gas strategy

I have a 50 mile round trip 5 days a week. Some days it's 70 if I have to go in farther for my extra freelance job. My wife commutes about 8 miles a day. One year ago we had a F150 (18mpg) and Durango (16mpg). We traded in her Durango and now she drives the F150. I bought a Prius and drive that. Between car payment and gas it's close to $175 a month savings. In the summer when I don't have to take a kid to school, I ride my 750 Nighthawk. It gets about the same mileage as the Prius that averages about 46 mpg. That leaves the Prius for my wife during the summer when's she's off (school teacher). If you haven't been in a Prius I think you'd be surprised with the interior room. I'm 6' and can easily sit in the back with the front seat all the way back. It's also kind of fun to have something with a little different technology. We miss the Durango on long trips with teenage kids but we make do. It's about your choice in priorities.
 
I wonder if there are going to be more low cc bikes to combat high prices so I visited the local Suz-Kawa dealer yesterday. Nope. The only small street legal bike was a KLX250 (I want it) and a DR650 and KLR650 (want them too). The rest were monster bikes like the Vulcan 1700cc. Seems these guys would have a TU250 or two but they didn't. It tells me that America still does not want these little tools. The showroom was empty of customers but it was raining.

It's funny that the MC community in the US is so fixated on "moving up" through the CCs, and that great smaller mid-sized rides - like my Strom - are characterized as a "good little starter bike; when you get better, you can buy a big-boy's bike like mine."

As much as many people ignorantly talk down about smaller vehicles, I've least never had to listen to anybody tell me that any of my 4-banger cars (RSX, 2 Altimas, Toyota Tercel, etc) are a "good little starter car; when you get better, you can buy a Hummer like mine."
 
It's funny that the MC community in the US is so fixated on "moving up" through the CCs, and that great smaller mid-sized rides - like my Strom - are characterized as a "good little starter bike; when you get better, you can buy a big-boy's bike like mine."

As much as many people ignorantly talk down about smaller vehicles, I've least never had to listen to anybody tell me that any of my 4-banger cars (RSX, 2 Altimas, Toyota Tercel, etc) are a "good little starter car; when you get better, you can buy a Hummer like mine."

Well, many of the small displacement cruisers are not capable of carrying the *ahem* average sized american at functional speeds....:D
 
I have never understood SUVs for city folks. If you need to carry a lot of people or gear, mimvans get a ton better mpg. With the seats out they can ferry your cycle also. But it ain't cool and it is a free country.

The Dodge Caravan gets 23-24 highway with the 3.8 and it has plenty of go. The 4 probably does much better.

I'm with you but you're assuming humans are rational, we do all kinds of stupid things for status sake. I have a friend that was car shopping for something that had lots of interior room and got decent mileage and I suggested a minivan and she responded "There's no way I'd ever drive a minivan" I don't get it either, does anybody really care what we drive, are we going to lose acceptance or friendship? Puh-leaze!

It's funny that the MC community in the US is so fixated on "moving up" through the CCs, and that great smaller mid-sized rides - like my Strom - are characterized as a "good little starter bike; when you get better, you can buy a big-boy's bike like mine."

As much as many people ignorantly talk down about smaller vehicles, I've least never had to listen to anybody tell me that any of my 4-banger cars (RSX, 2 Altimas, Toyota Tercel, etc) are a "good little starter car; when you get better, you can buy a Hummer like mine."

Starter bikes, I haven't heard that before. I have a strom because it's one of the most cost effective bullet proof bikes on the market. Also I don't care for heavy bikes. Anything over 500 lbs is too heavy to be fun IMO. :rider: My next bike will be a light naked bike like a Ducati Monster 696 or street triple. Those are the absolute most fun.

Well, many of the small displacement cruisers are not capable of carrying the *ahem* average sized american at functional speeds....:D

You know what they say, many are trying to make up for a loss of anatomy. :lol2:
 
OK, I'll take your word for it but if going rich was based on throttle position alone, wouldn't the engine be too lean under low rpm situations? If you leave a car in fifth gear while climbing a hill, the low rpm can mean a high percentage of cylinder fill even though the throttle is not open very far.
I would think that the open loop switch over point would or should be engine rpm dependent.

Uh... you have it backwards. Under the scenario you're talking about here, the engine has a better chance of going rich instead of leaning out.

In any case, real time fuel trim is managed by the computer looking at the oxygen sensor(s) that's downstream of the engine. Base fuelling is handled by the pre-programmed fuel map; if anything, it's set to be on the lean side because of CAFE and enviro regs.

Switching to open loop based on engine RPM would be kind of dumb. "Oh, you're at 1800 RPM, let's go full rich!" Ooops, too bad you were just sitting in slightly moving traffic and you just fouled your plugs.

I'm not talking about new cars at all. That's part of the problem, people buying cars they can't afford so $4 a gallon gas hurts them. I bought a used Honda a few years ago. Paid 5k for it, ran like a top from the day I got it all the way to 250k miles when I hit Bambi and the insurance company totaled it. Got 38mpg on the hwy. What some need to say is "I can't continue living beyond my means with $4 gas"

Neither was I. Let's look at some math, shall we? Yes, math!

1995 Honda Civic CX (cheapest version):
Acquisition cost: $2,779 (per KBB) plus taxes, so $2953.
Insurance upcharge: $250 per year on average (Civics and other small cars cost MORE to insure as they are in a higher risk class.)
Fuel cost per year, per fueleconomy.gov: $1800

Cost, first year: $5003.

Compare to 2004 Suburban:
Acquisition cost: $0.
Insurance upcharge: $0
Fuel cost per year: $4,050

Cost, first year: $4050.

First year 'savings' by buying a Honda: -$953.

This doesn't even get into the price of renting a larger vehicle a number of times a year to move stuff they could in the Suburban that they can't in the Honda. And I've said nothing about how (un)safe some of those older fuel efficient cars were yet.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Y4yIjT83kA"]Honda Civic old model crash test (DEATH TRAP) - YouTube[/ame]

Not to mention the repairs it will inevitably need in short order as it's a much older car. As it is, assuming the Honda needs nothing at all (ha!), they don't need to move anything and therefore don't have to rent something, it will still take two years to break even on the purchase. If it needs a transmission overhaul (not uncommon), that break-even point moves much further out; Honda transmission overhauls run $2-3000 these days.

Before you say that they should be looking at a newer car than that: A newer Civic would be even worse, as it would be quite a lot more expensive. This is the worst case scenario, too - it's even less favorable to the Civic if the SUV is something more efficient than a Suburban.

In what universe does this even remotely make financial sense to purchase a 'new' used vehicle when the old one is paid off, still working and well within its projected/average 10 year life expectancy? What you propose is not a viable alternative for many.

I wonder if there are going to be more low cc bikes to combat high prices so I visited the local Suz-Kawa dealer yesterday. Nope. The only small street legal bike was a KLX250 (I want it) and a DR650 and KLR650 (want them too). The rest were monster bikes like the Vulcan 1700cc. Seems these guys would have a TU250 or two but they didn't. It tells me that America still does not want these little tools. The showroom was empty of customers but it was raining.

Honda is bringing the NC700 series over, and owners report getting 67+mpg out of those.

I have never understood SUVs for city folks. If you need to carry a lot of people or gear, mimvans get a ton better mpg. With the seats out they can ferry your cycle also. But it ain't cool and it is a free country.

The Dodge Caravan gets 23-24 highway with the 3.8 and it has plenty of go. The 4 probably does much better.

The four actually got about the same as the V6, which is why you haven't been able to get a four-banger Caravan in a long time.

Per Fueleconomy.gov, the current Caravan gets 17/25 on the EPA test. The Nissan Juke SUV gets 27/32 with a slushbox, the Jeep Patriot SUV gets 23/29, etc., etc.

Also, neither of the bikes I own will fit in a minivan. Not without removing major components like wheels.
 
Neither was I. Let's look at some math, shall we? Yes, math!

1995 Honda Civic CX (cheapest version):
Acquisition cost: $2,779 (per KBB) plus taxes, so $2953.
Insurance upcharge: $250 per year on average (Civics and other small cars cost MORE to insure as they are in a higher risk class.)
Fuel cost per year, per fueleconomy.gov: $1800

Cost, first year: $5003.

Compare to 2004 Suburban:
Acquisition cost: $0.
Insurance upcharge: $0
Fuel cost per year: $4,050

Cost, first year: $4050.

First year 'savings' by buying a Honda: -$953.

This doesn't even get into the price of renting a larger vehicle a number of times a year to move stuff they could in the Suburban that they can't in the Honda. And I've said nothing about how (un)safe some of those older fuel efficient cars were yet.

Why wouldn't you sell the Suburban? Surely you could get more than $953 for a 2004 Suburban, even in today's market :rider:

Totally agree with you on the minivan thing. They get better gas mileage than the ultra-big SUVs, but not by that much, and they don't get better gas mileage than the mid-size SUV's. Until very recently, they got about the same as a full-size truck. I never understood where the myth of substantially better mileage comes from.
 
Why wouldn't you sell the Suburban? Surely you could get more than $953 for a 2004 Suburban, even in today's market :rider:

Totally agree with you on the minivan thing. They get better gas mileage than the ultra-big SUVs, but not by that much, and they don't get better gas mileage than the mid-size SUV's. Until very recently, they got about the same as a full-size truck. I never understood where the myth of substantially better mileage comes from.

My neighbor recently attempted to sell her 2006 Suburban. Even priced well below Bluebook 'fair' condition value (and this thing was well maintained, in immaculate condition), it sat on the market for three months before she gave up. Dealers refused to take it on trade in. People do not want them.

As for the fuel economy thing, probably from the old rear-engine VW van and the early Chrysler minivans. Minivans haven't weighed that little in quite a long time; the original sticker mileage was 23/29, but the corrected current EPA mileage for the 1985 Caravan is 21/26. Which isn't all that much better than what my recently-bought 95 F-350 diesel crew cab gets in reality (~17/23).
 
The four actually got about the same as the V6, which is why you haven't been able to get a four-banger Caravan in a long time.

Per Fueleconomy.gov, the current Caravan gets 17/25 on the EPA test. The Nissan Juke SUV gets 27/32 with a slushbox, the Jeep Patriot SUV gets 23/29, etc., etc.

Also, neither of the bikes I own will fit in a minivan. Not without removing major components like wheels.

Some good points there. I'm not against small SUVs in the city; they can be very efficient. I'm not against large SUVS - or pickups - if you actually need them. It's about finding the right vehicle that'll do what you need it to do when you need it, without crippling you the rest of the time. If somebody needs a big SUV to haul a 5,000 lb trailer, they need it. If their second car is also a big SUV, they probably don't need that one.

It would be equally impractical and foolish for somebody with small children (think car seats) to buy two tiny, two-door cars with minimal back seats- fuel efficient as they may be.

There are a lot of purpose-built vehicles out there. We Americans all need to get better at defining the purpose better before making the purchase. Now, true confession time. It probably wasn't that bright of me - back in 1978 - to buy that brand new Celica just as we were starting a family. :oops:
 
Neither was I. Let's look at some math, shall we? Yes, math!

1995 Honda Civic CX (cheapest version):
Acquisition cost: $2,779 (per KBB) plus taxes, so $2953.
Insurance upcharge: $250 per year on average (Civics and other small cars cost MORE to insure as they are in a higher risk class.)
Fuel cost per year, per fueleconomy.gov: $1800

Cost, first year: $5003.

Compare to 2004 Suburban:
Acquisition cost: $0.
Insurance upcharge: $0
Fuel cost per year: $4,050

Cost, first year: $4050.

First year 'savings' by buying a Honda: -$953.

I don't get your numbers. The first used civic I bought cost me 5k, that's it. Also, on a cheap car, it's not that smart to carry full coverage on it and smaller cars have a cheap liability rate since they tend to do less damage when they hit something. Buy the same Suburban for 5k and let's compare actual operating costs. Also Hondas are more reliable and need fewer parts, I never needed to do a thing to mine but change cam belts and put tires on it.

Safety is another issue from cost. Head on collision between a honda and suburban and no contest. At the same time SUVs rollover much easier. I saw a woman and 3 children killed in theirs in Utah 3 years ago, worst thing I've ever seen. She swerved to miss a deer.

Hondas do quite well in crash tests as long as they're hitting stationary objects and not absorbing the added impact from something heavier coming at them.
 
Buying a new (to you) car just to save gas isn't likely going to make sense to your accountant. However, if you haven't finished buying it yet (hello, car note), or your current one just died it's last death, it makes superb sense to take the opportunity to examine what you need, and buy the most economical one you can find. Did you know dallas has several CNG filling stations that are for public use? As in, right off the freeway, pull in and gas up. Ol' T. Boone Pickens is behind it.
 
I don't get your numbers. The first used civic I bought cost me 5k, that's it. Also, on a cheap car, it's not that smart to carry full coverage on it and smaller cars have a cheap liability rate since they tend to do less damage when they hit something. Buy the same Suburban for 5k and let's compare actual operating costs. Also Hondas are more reliable and need fewer parts, I never needed to do a thing to mine but change cam belts and put tires on it.

Yes, but in the scenario presented, guess what? The Suburban's already bought. Additional cost to 'obtain' the Suburban they already have - $0.00.

At $5K for a Civic, the math makes even *less* sense. Off the cuff, looks like it would take 3-4 years to "break even" at that point. Why bother?

Smaller cars do not necessarily have a cheaper liability rate because they tend to be driven by younger and less experienced drivers who crash more and therefore cause more claims to be paid out. Especially (surprise) the Honda Civic.

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/insurance/10-most-and-least-expensive-cars-to-insure-1.aspx

The Honda Civic is the number six most expensive car to insure per the IIHS.

The math doesn't lie. Buying a car out-of-cycle just to get better fuel economy doesn't even begin to make sense until fuel prices get much higher (vice average income) than they are projected to be this year. And if that's the case, the economy will collapse anyway, so you're not going to be buying anything at that point.

"Go buy a more fuel efficient car" is a stupid kneejerk reaction that usually doesn't make sense if you sit down and look at it rationally.

Safety is another issue from cost. Head on collision between a honda and suburban and no contest. At the same time SUVs rollover much easier. I saw a woman and 3 children killed in theirs in Utah 3 years ago, worst thing I've ever seen. She swerved to miss a deer.

Hondas do quite well in crash tests as long as they're hitting stationary objects and not absorbing the added impact from something heavier coming at them.

You might want to take a look at that video I posted above. Older, cheaper, more fuel efficient Hondas - not as safe as you seem to think they are, even when they're hitting stationary objects.

(Also, you need to go check the physics of energy transfer. Running into a stationary solid object -say, a pole or bridge abutment- is WORSE than running into something deformable and movable like a car.)
 
Also, my wife's 2006 Toyota Sienna gets real-life averages of 19-24 mpg per tank on her daily commute. Road trippin' to see the fam in Indiana we averaged about 24, but that thing was COMPLETELY loaded down, roof box and all.
 
Buying a new (to you) car just to save gas isn't likely going to make sense to your accountant. However, if you haven't finished buying it yet (hello, car note), or your current one just died it's last death, it makes superb sense to take the opportunity to examine what you need, and buy the most economical one you can find. Did you know dallas has several CNG filling stations that are for public use? As in, right off the freeway, pull in and gas up. Ol' T. Boone Pickens is behind it.

Yup. But even in the "still paying for it" scenario you really have to put the pencil to paper and check the numbers. Sometimes it makes sense, most of the time it doesn't.

If it died, well, hey, you might as well get a more efficient vehicle if it fits your needs. You're going to have to buy something else anyway, etc., etc.
 
(Also, you need to go check the physics of energy transfer. Running into a stationary solid object -say, a pole or bridge abutment- is WORSE than running into something deformable and movable like a car.)

Depends on the relative speeds of the two moving, deformable objects.
 
Wouldn't the easiest strategy be to just ride your bikes that you already own more?

On a bad day my worst mileage bike gets in the high thirties. On a good day my best mileage bike gets in the mid 60's.

For most people in this country I still think it comes down to the fact that bikes are strictly pleasure vehicles and are not considered transportation like they are in most of the rest of the world. Earlier this week I saw lots of bikes on the road on my daily commute. Yesterday and today the only bike I saw on the road was mine. It looks like on cool and rainy days people still have no problem justifying getting 15 mpg in their trucks and SUVS vs 40 or 50 on their bikes. YMMV:mrgreen:
 
Depends on the relative speeds of the two moving, deformable objects.

True, but assuming same rate of closure (into a Suburban doing 30 at 30mph or into a bridge abutment at 60), you will want to choose the movable, deformable object over the solid hard mass.

Wouldn't the easiest strategy be to just ride your bikes that you already own more?

On a bad day my worst mileage bike gets in the high thirties. On a good day my best mileage bike gets in the mid 60's.

For most people in this country I still think it comes down to the fact that bikes are strictly pleasure vehicles and are not considered transportation like they are in most of the rest of the world. Earlier this week I saw lots of bikes on the road on my daily commute. Yesterday and today the only bike I saw on the road was mine. It looks like on cool and rainy days people still have no problem justifying getting 15 mpg in their trucks and SUVS vs 40 or 50 on their bikes. YMMV:mrgreen:

Yes, if you have a bike in the first place. Most people don't, and we have two generations of people now (ever since cheap Asian cars killed off the bike as transportation concept for many in the mid 80s) that don't view bikes as more than toys or used by the extreme experience set as their default. No kidding - perhaps one of our more recent and younger riders not from a riding family can comment on that phenomenon.

As for me, I'm on a bike any time the weather isn't too awful (i.e., not horrible for cars driven by idiots, so they don't crash into me) and prefer it over any other form of ground transport. As I told my recently-deceased mom, when I'm out of the house and moving around you'll more often find me on a bike than anywhere else.
 
. Earlier this week I saw lots of bikes on the road on my daily commute. Yesterday and today the only bike I saw on the road was mine. It looks like on cool and rainy days people still have no problem justifying getting 15 mpg in their trucks and SUVS vs 40 or 50 on their bikes. YMMV:mrgreen:
True, but even just commuting on the "good" days will save you some gas. Especially here in TX where the riding season is basically year 'round. My buddy in Fargo puts his Street Triple away in October, and it doesn't come out until April!
True, but assuming same rate of closure (into a Suburban doing 30 at 30mph or into a bridge abutment at 60), you will want to choose the movable, deformable object over the solid hard mass.

Conceded.
 
Some good points there. I'm not against small SUVs in the city; they can be very efficient. I'm not against large SUVS - or pickups - if you actually need them. It's about finding the right vehicle that'll do what you need it to do when you need it, without crippling you the rest of the time. If somebody needs a big SUV to haul a 5,000 lb trailer, they need it. If their second car is also a big SUV, they probably don't need that one.

It would be equally impractical and foolish for somebody with small children (think car seats) to buy two tiny, two-door cars with minimal back seats- fuel efficient as they may be.

There are a lot of purpose-built vehicles out there. We Americans all need to get better at defining the purpose better before making the purchase. Now, true confession time. It probably wasn't that bright of me - back in 1978 - to buy that brand new Celica just as we were starting a family. :oops:
Tim: good points on buy the vehicle that works for you. Someone commented on a 60 mile total commute[matches my numbers exactly] with a rather priceless comment [If you are driving 30 miles one way to work, then you have 2 options, move closer, or buy a fuel efficient car.] Lets set the record straight: Selling our home and moving is not a financial option. Nor is buying a small economy car that would create further damage to my wife's spine [due to poor seat support] as she has permanent ongoing spinal damage. Thanks for the compassion! BTW, we hang our laundry as weather permits to save on utilities[gas, electric].What a concept!
 
I recently picked up a bike and got my license.

Once I graduate and (hopefully) find a job, I plan to use the bike as a commuter tool. Besides the fun factor, we all know how efficient and cheap to run and insure they can be in comparison to a car. Once I'm on my own, I won't have support from my parents to fund gas or repair bills on my daily driver and only (running) vehicle.

I'd like to be able to keep my car, but filling it with 93 Octane and running full synthetic oil adds up really quickly. Hence, why I'm hoping to have my bike done and insured by summer.

My parents, of course, are not supporters of my two wheeled lust, despite that my dad used to ride trials (Bultaco 250 with upgraded carb, IIRC) and shared a Honda CB350 with his brother.

Bikes are seen as entertainment items by my parents and most people my age, which is unfortunate, as I've found that MSF courses teach a lot of good techniques and increase awareness. Most of which can be applied to driving as well.
 
Last edited:
Tim: good points on buy the vehicle that works for you. Someone commented on a 60 mile total commute[matches my numbers exactly] with a rather priceless comment [If you are driving 30 miles one way to work, then you have 2 options, move closer, or buy a fuel efficient car.] Lets set the record straight: Selling our home and moving is not a financial option. Nor is buying a small economy car that would create further damage to my wife's spine [due to poor seat support] as she has permanent ongoing spinal damage. Thanks for the compassion! BTW, we hang our laundry as weather permits to save on utilities[gas, electric].What a concept!

Don't worry. I had someone tell me the same thing. I commented months ago, after buying our first house (I'm STILL excited!) about the commute sucked. Someone else was all "Well, nobody FORCED you live so far away from work". ***? I guess my desire to raise my children in a house I can afford, in a neighborhood that doesn't set off old Army "head on a swivel" instincts, is somehow a vice. Not everybody thinks everything all the way through. They just spit out the first thing that falls into their mouth.
 
I recently picked up a bike and got my license.

Once I graduate and (hopefully) find a job, I plan to use the bike as a commuter tool. Besides the fun factor, we all know how efficient and cheap to run and insure they can be in comparison to a car. Once I'm on my own, I won't have support from my parents to fund gas or repair bills on my daily driver and only (running) vehicle.

I'd like to be able to keep my car, but filling it with 93 Octan and running full synthetic oil adds up really quickly. Hence, why I'm hoping to have my bike done and insured by summer.

My parents, of course, are not supporters of my two wheeled lust, despite that my dad used to ride trials (Bultaco 250 with upgraded carb, IIRC) and shared a Honda CB350 with his brother.

Bikes are seen as entertainment items by my parents and most people my age, which is unfortunate, as I've found that MSF courses teach a lot of good techniques and increase awareness. Most of which can be applied to driving as well.


BIKE BIKE BIKE BIKE! What is it? Bike!!!!
 
Wally, I totally respect your wife's spine. That's why I would never throw paint on your car. Well, I wouldn't anyway, but you know what I mean. I picked the commute distance because that's what I drove for 30+ years. That's the distance from south Arlington to downtown Dallas, to the Regal Row area, and to Los Colinas - my three primary commutes. It's a common commute distance in the Metromess and, for many people, their outside acceptable limit.

You're right - moving is a poor option, especially given that, in an era when people have to change jobs too frequently, they may have to work in many different areas. It's not financially feasible to sell your house and move closer if you have to change jobs or locations every five years. But in DFW, it's also not feasible for most professionals to say they'll only work in Arlington, or McKinney, or Plano.

So, we drive. That's why my philosophy has always been -- buy a comfortable but efficient commuter car and run it into the ground. And buy a vacation vehicle, but don't put unnecessary miles on it. Worked for me for 35 years. Your results may vary.....
 
He's the friend I picked up that GS850G for. :D He tried an EX500 project first but it didn't work out for reasons beyond anyone's control.

Murphy had a say in it :P
 
Hmmm.... GS850... good bike. I almost bought one with a full Vetter system on it a few years ago, then I was all "Why am I buying this? I don't even LIKE fairings!", then I bought a Concours later, so... yeah. Anyway, good bike. Classic styling.
 
Back
Top