patrick.net

Maybe you guys are hung up on what the article means by "average". In this case average referrs to the Corperate Average Fuel Economy.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Average_Fuel_Economy

Strategist says

I see 28mpg City. Am I wrong?

City isn't the average.

CaptainShuddup says

Strategist says

I see 28mpg City. Am I wrong?

City isn't the average.

Highway isn't the average.
How about combined? 32mpg.

New Renter says

That's EPA numbers, if he were to hypermile he could probably do better.

If you buy your gas at 5am and drive like Ms Daisy is your passenger, you'll get almost 50mpg.

To be honest the best I can get is 27mph.

But for my lead foot, that's like 50 mph.I could never squeeze over 9 to 12 mph out of my CX-9. It was the main reason I traded it in, and got the 3 and the CX-5 for my wife.

Not only are my payments the same, but just what I'm saving in gas, is paying the payments. That CX-9 was like driving a motorized Lazyboy chair, with angel soft suspension. The Cadillac wishes it drove like the CX-9.

But the Skyactive technology in the the later models, really do a great job at saving on gas. The energy from idling is stored into a capacitor, so the the Air conditioner and the Cars electronics are always pulling power from the stored energy, rather than taxing your alternator or air compressor. The car never revs up or down at the red lights as the AC clicks on and off.

Nope it seems the official average is the best number regardless how you got there.

CaptainShuddup says

But the Skyactive technology in the the later models, really do a great job at saving on gas. The energy from idling is stored into a capacitor, so the the Air conditioner and the Cars electronics are always pulling power from the stored energy, rather than taxing your alternator or air compressor. The car never revs up or down at the red lights as the AC clicks on and off.

That's good, but why didn't you go for a hybrid if saving gas was the motive?
50mpg Prius, I am getting 48mpg makes it very economical. Maintenance is low too.

Strategist says

That's good, but why didn't you go for a hybrid if saving gas was the motive?

I need to be able to look out my back window when I'm backing out of the drive way. I could go on and on, but you'd probably just think I'm nit picking and sbh will claim I'm being racist, so what's the point?

Strategist says

50mpg Prius, I am getting 48mpg makes it very economical. Maintenance is low too.

You also paid $20K more than I did.

1) Mazda's all combustion almost does as well as a hybrid. Plus I'm not hauling around the extra weight.
2) I'm not in any danger of being taxed because my car doesn't contribute enough to the Gas tax.
3)the car weighs about half of the Prius without the batteries.
4)It's at least 10 to 20 grand cheaper
5)I've always thought the Prius was the ugliest car ever produced. The AMC pacer has looks in spades compared to the Prius.

CaptainShuddup says

Strategist says

That's good, but why didn't you go for a hybrid if saving gas was the motive?

I need to be able to look out my back window when I'm backing out of the drive way. I could go on and on, but you'd probably just think I'm nit picking and sbh will claim I'm being racist, so what's the point?

Strategist says

50mpg Prius, I am getting 48mpg makes it very economical. Maintenance is low too.

You also paid $20K more than I did.

I doubt it.
I am a haggler, car dealers hate the sight of me. And I hate the sight of them.
I paid about 23K before taxes and stuff.
Run the numbers and I guarantee your next car will be a hybrid.

Strategist says

Run the numbers and I guarantee your next car will be a hybrid.

Not unless it looks like a car.

The Volt looks like a car, but will kill you.

CaptainShuddup says

Strategist says

Run the numbers and I guarantee your next car will be a hybrid.

Not unless it looks like a car.

The Volt looks like a car, but will kill you.

I am leaning towards getting the Volt when the newer version comes out next year. I love the Volt.
PS - electric car leases are heavily subsidized by the auto makers. I never lease, but I may for the bargain.

Strategist says

PS - electric car leases are heavily subsidized by the auto makers. I never lease, but I may for the bargain.

Yeah I leased these cars, and already feeling stupid. I was financing the CX-9 and had another 2 years to go on it. I walked away from it Scott free, so for what I'm paying for the lease on the two vehicles is the same as what I was paying the bank for the CX-9.

But like I said, at least the difference in Gas is paying the difference alone.

It was like $70 to fill that thing up, and I had to do it about two times a week.

Now I'm getting almost two weeks out of a fill up. Now that I'm working at home, I'm using even less. In fact, my situation changed two weeks after I made the deal.

So while I'm not actually consuming the same amount in gas anymore, I still like to use it to justify my stupid decision to lease instead of buying.

CaptainShuddup says

But the Skyactive technology in the the later models, really do a great job at saving on gas. The energy from idling is stored into a capacitor, so the the Air conditioner and the Cars electronics are always pulling power from the stored energy, rather than taxing your alternator or air compressor. The car never revs up or down at the red lights as the AC clicks on and off.

You are confusing Skyactiv with I-eloop.

I-eloop uses the alternator to capture energy during negative acceleration (braking). This energy is stored in a capacitor to run the various accessories like the A/C for a few minutes. It adds about 1mpg to the city but nothing to the highway MPG (no braking). Cost wise its not really worth the investment unless you do all city driving and gas is expensive.

http://www.mazda.com/technology/env/i-eloop/

Skyactiv is the 13:1 compression ratio for the gasoline engine, damned impressive when you understand its done on regular grade gas. Even more impressive is the 14:1 compression on the diesel. That allows the diesel to be built using lighter components which further improves fuel economy.

http://www.mazda.com/technology/skyactiv/engine/

I'm wondering if this might almost be at the point where a driver can fill the tank with whatever liquid fuels is available - gas, diesel, ethanol, butanol, or a blend of whatever. The engine would sense the composition of the fuel and make the appropriate adjustments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homogeneous_charge_compression_ignition

CaptainShuddup says

new data released by NASA this week show that at least one pollutant, nitrogen dioxide, has decreased substantially over the past decade.

Areas with a high level of nitrogen dioxide have decreased an average of about 40%, said Bryan Duncan, an atmospheric scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.

But isn't this the result of legislative regulatory pushes for cars and factories to emit less pollution ?

And I thought you said you and your plutocratic overlords hated those liberal, homosexual busy body liberals with their big words and all their talk about facts, logic, science and their fancy pants book larnin ?

I thought that was your definition of evil.

CaptainShuddup says

Duncan attributes the decrease to two factors: cars that are more efficient, and scrubbers on smokestack emissions that remove toxins.

New Renter says

Diamonds also take millions (or billions) of years to form naturally but a lab can make them in a matter of weeks. Same with gasoline. The problem of course is that synthetic gasoline is expensive, much more expensive than sourcing it from natural petroleum deposits.

Yes, one can transform one form of energy into the chemical bonds that make up gasoline or other fuels, but that's not the point.

The point is that you have to generate that energy in the first place. Nature generates the energy by collecting solar radiation (and trace amount of geothermal energy) and storing a tiny percentage of it as fossil fuels every day for billions of years. It's a very tiny fraction since plants have to grow, be eaten by animals that are then eaten by others, eventually a few of which decay in just the right environment to produce fossil fuels.

Despite being a very inefficient use of solar energy, the long time line allowed the creation of vast amounts of fossil fuels. It is only the timescale that allowed the supply to be so great.

There is little reason for humans to create artificial fossil fuels. It does not solve the energy crisis. In fact, the generation of fossil fuels would entail far less effeciency than simply using electrical motors rather than internal combustion engines. The only advantage of creating synthetic gasoline would be to avoid changing infrastructure, and in the long run, that's a very bad trade-off for several reasons.

1. We need new infrastructure to make transportation faster, cheaper, and more reliable.
2. The existing infrastructure heavily pollutes.
3. Transportation is much more energy efficient if we move away from heat engines and towards pure electric devices.
4. Our current infrastructure is crumbling anyways and needs to be replaced. It's cost effective to upgrade to modern infrastructures rather than repairing 20th century infrastructure.

Strategist says

I am leaning towards getting the Volt when the newer version comes out next year. I love the Volt.

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20130812/carnews/130819973
Next-generation Chevy Volt to have 60-mile electric range?

I bought a used Volt 4 months ago: Used they are as much as 50% of the cost new and this one is a 2011 with less than 30k.

For starters, the comment that these "will kill you" is sort of uninformed. The reason it was made is I assume was because of the early crash test results where the car was first crashed, the battery was punctured and then the car sat out back in the weather for 2 weeks. The battery was not discharged. GM even has instructions that are under the hood. You are supposed to discharge the battery if the case is damaged. Duh. So in other words it would be the same if a normal car was crashed and the gas tank was ruptured and instead of draining the gas, let it sit out in the hot baking sun with the gas dribbling out for a few days.

Anyway, my real-life experience so far is that I barely ever fill it up with gas. Ive filled it up twice: once when we got it as it was empty and a second time after a weekend long trip where we did have to use the engine. But on average the car goes 38-45 miles on the battery which gets me to work where I plug it in to go home. Typically the engine only runs for a few minutes a week. As of now I am getting the equivalent of 214 MPG.

My electric bill costs an extra $40 a month. That works out to paying roughly the equivalent of $1.33 a gallon, or 1/4 of current gas prices.

Otherwise these are surprisingly nice cars with every whistle and bell imaginable. I'd say they are closer to being like a luxury car inside. The ride is excellent because the weight is all in the lower part of the car ( Battery ) and so it snugs the corners. When you put it into "Sports" mode it will pretty much smoke the tires. The experience you get with an all-electric drivetrain powering the wheels is like driving a diesel: lots and lots of instant torque.

Dan8267 says

Thus, even if you don't give a rat's ass about the environment, people's health, or the livelihoods of those affected by oil spills, if you have any intelligence, you should still be for the elimination of fossil fuel use simply because your wallet will be significantly harmed by the continuing use of fossil fuels.

What make of electric car is on your avatar? It's a bit hard to discern from the crappy picture...

The total solar energy absorbed by Earth's atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year.[8] In 2002, this was more energy in one hour than the world used in one year.[13][14] Photosynthesis captures approximately 3,000 EJ per year in biomass.[15] The technical potential available from biomass is from 100–300 EJ/year.[10] The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet is so vast that in one year it is about twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of the Earth's non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined,[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy

This alone makes me believe the pursuit of synthetic fuels is not a fools errand. It is however difficult and very expensive, especially compared to the incredible bounty that nature has given us in the form of fossil and nuclear fuels.

I do wholeheartedly agree conservation should also be a goal. Unless essential to your job or you are insecure about your tiny penis (and/or are a realtor) there is no reason to drive an 8MPG vehicle when a 30MPG+ vehicle will do the job just as well.

edvard2 says

For starters, the comment that these "will kill you" is sort of uninformed.

No I'm going on the reports of the ignition going kaput while your traveling 80mph down i95 and the steering locks up.

New Renter says

I do wholeheartedly agree conservation should also be a goal. Unless essential to your job or you are insecure about your tiny penis (and/or are a realtor) there is no reason to drive an 8MPG vehicle when a 30MPG+ vehicle will do the job just as well.

Aren't we forgetting something here? Like little thing called "money". Replacing older, paid-off, minimally insured 8mpg vehicle (what is it, btw? Even 20 y.o. LandCruiser gets ~13mpg in mixed cycle) with a new 30MPG+ is often not economically justifiable. In fucking California you'll pay on average $3k in sales tax alone just for the pleasure of switching cars.

Dan8267 says

A smart
society would realize that the more green technology is hindered, the
greater the rise in fossil fuel price and the greater economic fall
will be. Thus, even if you don't give a rat's ass about the
environment, people's health, or the livelihoods of those affected by
oil spills, if you have any intelligence, you should still be for the
elimination of fossil fuel use simply because your wallet will be significantly harmed by the continuing use of fossil fuels.

Your argument, sound as it appears, requires that people do a little thinking, in our democracy, 1-person/1-vote system. But thinking is severely hindered by having your head up your ass -- look at these track records of ours.
The Public Be Suckered
http://patrick.net/?p=1230886

I SAY: Get these charts in people's faces, everywhere, all the time. I suspect that the powers-that-be AGREE -- because they currently keep the visibility of these charts at DAMN NEAR ZERO. See
http://www.showrealhist.com/yTRIAL.html

Straw Man says

New Renter says

I do wholeheartedly agree conservation should also be a goal. Unless essential to your job or you are insecure about your tiny penis (and/or are a realtor) there is no reason to drive an 8MPG vehicle when a 30MPG+ vehicle will do the job just as well.

Aren't we forgetting something here? Like little thing called "money". Replacing older, paid-off, minimally insured 8mpg vehicle (what is it, btw? Even 20 y.o. LandCruiser gets ~13mpg in mixed cycle) with a new 30MPG+ is often not economically justifiable. In fucking California you'll pay on average $3k in sales tax alone just for the pleasure of switching cars.

That's a bit of apples to oranges comparison. A fairer way to look at it is how much it would cost to sell your 20 year old Landcruiser and buy an equivalent 20 year old 30 mpg car, say a Toyota Corolla wagon. The corolla costs about 1000-1600 while the Landcruiser costs $1450-2100.

http://www.kbb.com/whats-my-car-worth/

With taxes you'll about break even.

Now if you need the Landcruiser for its space and all wheel drive capability because you live in a rural area where the roads are crap that is a different matter. Even then a Subaru Forrester or Outback is probably a better choice.

New Renter says

That's a bit of apples to oranges comparison. A fairer way to look at it is how much it would cost to sell your 20 year old Landcruiser and buy an equivalent 20 year old 30 mpg car, say a Toyota Corolla wagon. The corolla costs about 1000-1600 while the Landcruiser costs $1450-2100.

20 y.o. Corolla will be pretty much spent. 20 y.o. LC will be still pretty much alive and kicking. Anyhow, keeping a 20 y.o. car that was in the family the whole time and buying somebody's 20 y.o. car with it's history unknown is not even in the same zipcode. While the former is pretty reasonable, the latter is insane and should be done only if you have no other choice and biking to work is not an option. Talk about apples and oranges. ;)

Now if you need the Landcruiser for its space and all wheel drive capability because you live in a rural area where the roads are crap that is a different matter. Even then a Subaru Forrester or Outback is probably a better choice.

20 y.o. LC seats 7-8 and can tow a boat. 20 y.o. Subary anything - can't do either. And I've already covered the obvious difference between MY 20 y.o. LC and bunch-of-stranger's-over-20-years anything. ;)

Straw Man says

Aren't we forgetting something here? Like little thing called "money". Replacing older, paid-off, minimally insured 8mpg vehicle (what is it, btw? Even 20 y.o. LandCruiser gets ~13mpg in mixed cycle) with a new 30MPG+ is often not economically justifiable. In fucking California you'll pay on average $3k in sales tax alone just for the pleasure of switching cars.

A few thoughts:

1) I never understood the people who dumped their big SUV when gas prices went up and bought a new car solely because of gas prices. Gas prices are not the only cost of running an automobile, and that new car price over the period you keep the car might easily be quite a bit more than it would have been to continue running your big SUV.

2) If you get a new car, you also get the benefit of 20 years of product development, which is hard to place a value on -- e.g. speed, handling, safety, creature comforts, etc.

3) Anyone who spends time on ih8mud.com knows that it's not always cheap to keep your old Land Cruiser running at peak performance. If you are good about maintenance, as I am, then you do tend to spend money doing that too, so that has some bearing on "money." I've had other old cars (15-20 years old) that were cheaper to keep running than Land Cruisers often are.

4) If you're buying a new car, buying solely for MPG probably doesn't usually pencil out. Even the premium for a hybrid doesn't typically pay for the difference in gas costs in a meaningful number of years, although Lincoln charges the same for hybrid vs. not, I believe. Some of the diesel options pay off over some reasonable number of years, but the actual number depends on which car.

8 mpg is pretty damn low, btw. I had an old car that was EPA rated for maybe 15/22 (after revisions, probably originally 17/24), but in Southern California, it was probably more like 10 city/15 hwy.

corntrollio says

3) Anyone who spends time on ih8mud.com knows that it's not always cheap to keep your old Land Cruiser running at peak performance. If you are good about maintenance, as I am, then you do tend to spend money doing that too, so that has some bearing on "money." I've had other old cars (15-20 years old) that were cheaper to keep running than Land Cruisers often are.

LC was only mentioned as something "getting 8MPG". "Normal" car would probably be cheaper to maintain than a LC, but I don't know of any normal cars getting anywhere near 8MPG (not talking about 'land yachts' from before the oil embargo, of course).

New Renter says

3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year

That's a good case for developing solar energy, but not necessarily for storing that solar energy in synthetic fossil fuels. Granted, synthetic fossil fuels should be carbon neutral assuming that the creation process is pollution-free, but it seems a great waste of energy given that heat engines, particularly the internal combustion engine, are not that energy efficient and we can't push them must further given the laws of thermodynamics.

Pure electric is the way to go in my opinion, especially if we build a maglift interstate highway system. Can't beat that for speed, effeciency, cleanliness, safety, and lack of traffic jams.

Life is more adaptable than I ever imagined.
Today I fixed a big Cat Diesel engine. It wasn't getting fuel, and once investigated, I found that the check valve in the diesel tank pickup was completely clogged with algae.
Ok, the tank is dark, no light, so the stuff must feed off bacteria in the diesel fuel, growing silently in the darkness of a tank of caustic diesel fuel. How the hell? I mean, talk about resilience! Life is absolutely amazing.

Dan8267 says

New Renter says

3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year

That's a good case for developing solar energy, but not necessarily for storing that solar energy in synthetic fossil fuels. Granted, synthetic fossil fuels should be carbon neutral assuming that the creation process is pollution-free, but it seems a great waste of energy given that heat engines, particularly the internal combustion engine, are not that energy efficient and we can't push them must further given the laws of thermodynamics.

Pure electric is the way to go in my opinion, especially if we build a maglift interstate highway system. Can't beat that for speed, effeciency, cleanliness, safety, and lack of traffic jams.

Supercapacitors should pave the way for this to become a reality, all electric cars with both range and reasonably short recharge times. With the right application of current tech, you should get 300 miles on your electric car before a ten minute stop to recharge the capacitors.

Quigley says

Ok, the tank is dark, no light, so the stuff must feed off bacteria in the diesel fuel, growing silently in the darkness of a tank of caustic diesel fuel. How the hell? I mean, talk about resilience! Life is absolutely amazing.

So instead of making diesel fuel as was promised by countless green tech visionaries, the fucking stuff EATS our diesel fuel? WTF?

edvard2 says

I bought a used Volt 4 months ago: Used they are as much as 50% of the cost new and this one is a 2011 with less than 30k.

I just checked cars.com for a 200 mile radius around me and the cheapest used one listed was 17K. The cheapest new one was 27K.

Quigley says

I found that the check valve in the diesel tank pickup was completely clogged with algae.

Ok, the tank is dark, no light, so the stuff must feed off bacteria in the diesel fuel, growing silently in the darkness of a tank of caustic diesel fuel. How the hell? I mean, talk about resilience! Life is absolutely amazing.

It's often called algae, but it's not really algae (which does require sunlight):

http://www.mydieseldoctor.com/FAQ.html

Algae are a life form found in water, similar to algae growing in an aquarium. Algae do not live in fuel and it requires sunlight to grow. For years, people have been referring to tank sludge and the jelly, slime and other contaminants found in fuel filters as “algae”. The colloquialism “diesel fuel algae” is widely used and understood. However, there is no relationship between the “algae” growing in your aquarium and the sludge “growing” (forming) in your fuel tank and showing up on your filter elements.

There are three basic areas of concern about contaminants in fuel and oil:

1. Water
2. Inorganic debris (sand, dust, rust, etc.)
3. Organic debris (fuel breakdown products and waste products of fuel deterioration and re-polymerization)

The organic debris represents more than 90% of all contaminants found in fuels and oil. It is this organic debris, the sludgy, slimy, acidic material that people refer to as “diesel fuel algae”. It could also be called a polymer, tar, wax or asphalt!

Straw Man says

So instead of making diesel fuel as was promised by countless green tech visionaries, the fucking stuff EATS our diesel fuel?

No, read above. The algae to oil thing does work though. I know Sapphire already sells it commercially, and I believe one other company does too, and there is another in the pipeline.

Straw Man says

20 y.o. Corolla will be pretty much spent. 20 y.o. LC will be still pretty much alive and kicking. Anyhow, keeping a 20 y.o. car that was in the family the whole time and buying somebody's 20 y.o. car with it's history unknown is not even in the same zipcode. While the former is pretty reasonable, the latter is insane and should be done only if you have no other choice and biking to work is not an option. Talk about apples and oranges. ;)

Wrong. The buyer of your 20 yo Landcruiser is taking the same risk or greater than you are buying a 20 yo Corolla - A Landcruider is more likely to have been taken off road and abused there than the Corolla; It only takes a few fast trips down a rutted dirt trail to knock every single interior panel loose. Toyotas are damn reliable, the condition of a 20 YO used Toyota of any type will depend much more on the treatment by the owner than the car.

One caveat - paint. I've found most Japanese car paint SUCKS!

Regardless it still apples to apples.

Straw Man says

20 y.o. LC seats 7-8 and can tow a boat. 20 y.o. Subary anything - can't do either. And I've already covered the obvious difference between MY 20 y.o. LC and bunch-of-stranger's-over-20-years anything. ;)

If you HAVE to tow a boat then fine - you are using the Landcruiser for what it was made for! Good.

I am talking about the SUV driving masses who cant stand the idea of a station wagon or a minivan yet NEVER utilize the capabilities of the vehicle.

Straw Man says

20 y.o. Corolla will be pretty much spent. 20 y.o. LC will be still pretty much alive and kicking.

I've probably seen more 20 year old Corollas rolling on roads than 20 year old Land Cruisers. People are still driving them around in places where salt isn't used on the roads, like California and the South. A 20 year-old Land Cruiser driver is probably more likely an enthusiast.

New Renter says

One caveat - paint. I've found most Japanese car paint SUCKS!

Yeah, the worst is probably Mazda. Those things start rusting fast. At least other companies like Honda and Toyota have gotten better since the 80s when they started rusting away while they were still on the dealer lot, but Mazda is still an offender.

New Renter says

Straw Man says

Anyhow, keeping a 20 y.o. car that was in the family the whole time and buying somebody's 20 y.o. car with it's history unknown is not even in the same zipcode. While the former is pretty reasonable, the latter is insane and should be done only if you have no other choice and biking to work is not an option. Talk about apples and oranges. ;)

Wrong. The buyer of your 20 yo Landcruiser is taking the same risk or greater than you are buying a 20 yo Corolla

You didn't read, did you? I'm talking about KEEPING an old LC vs replacing it with and old Corolla for the sole purpose of "saving the Planet" (which was the original premise of your "there is no reason to keep driving low MPG car" post). Buying 20 y.o. anything is a huge gamble.

New Renter says

If you HAVE to tow a boat then fine - you are using the Landcruiser for what it was made for! Good.

I am talking about the SUV driving masses who cant stand the idea of a station wagon or a minivan yet NEVER utilize the capabilities of the vehicle.

Even if I don't need all LC's capabilities at the moment, but the truck is paid off, sorted out and cheap enough to be insured for liability only, I would choose to keep it until the wheels come off vs replacing it with something new or, God forbid, something old. Because buying new would mean paying on average $30K, 10% in sales tax on the spot, higher insurance premiums, much higher yearly registration fee, etc. Which will never pencil out, unless we're talking crazy 40-miles-one-way commute.

Straw Man says

New Renter says

Straw Man says

Anyhow, keeping a 20 y.o. car that was in the family the whole time and buying somebody's 20 y.o. car with it's history unknown is not even in the same zipcode. While the former is pretty reasonable, the latter is insane and should be done only if you have no other choice and biking to work is not an option. Talk about apples and oranges. ;)

Wrong. The buyer of your 20 yo Landcruiser is taking the same risk or greater than you are buying a 20 yo Corolla

You didn't read, did you? I'm talking about KEEPING an old LC vs replacing it with and old Corolla for the sole purpose of "saving the Planet" (which was the original premise of your "there is no reason to keep driving low MPG car" post). Buying 20 y.o. anything is a huge gamble.

Don't be silly. My point was keeping a 20 yo car is also a gamble, even if it has been in the family the whole time. Any 20 yo car is going to develop problems, problems no longer covered by a warranty. It all becomes how much you want to avoid being stuck somewhere with a broken timing belt or water pump.

New Renter says

Any 20 yo car is going to develop problems, problems no longer covered by a warranty. It all becomes how much you want to avoid being stuck somewhere with a broken timing belt or water pump.

Moreover, if we're really going to keep talking about this "money" argument, which is largely a Straw Man anyway, another alternative to a 20-year old Land Cruiser is a 1-2 year old Corolla. I suspect 5-6 years of repairing a 20-year old Land Cruiser could be an equal cost to that alternative, depending on the repairs. I've run old cars that were far cheaper to maintain than a Land Cruiser where the math does work, however.

corntrollio says

Moreover, if we're really going to keep talking about this "money" argument, which is largely a Straw Man anyway,

Well yeah:

Straw Man says