Sophi
Answer
Ever had a list of things you must do before you die?...then if renting a super car isn't on your list then your list isn't complete yet.
Ever had a list of things you must do before you die?...then if renting a super car isn't on your list then your list isn't complete yet.
What Old Sports Cars Have Decent MPG?
Ben
I recently got a Nissan 300zx i love the car, however it has terrible mileage....
and since im not filthy rich its a pain to put in like 200 dollars worth of gas every month,...
so i was wondering what other cars... equally as sporty... have pretty decent gas mileage (around 25 city...) and are at least 5-10 years old.
Answer
erhaps you need to pencil this fuel economy problem out a little further ...
You've got cars now that are "avg 22 mpg", which infers you're driving around 300 miles per week, not "150-200" ... on $40 per week. With $3.00/gal gasoline, that's 13 gallons of fuel per week.
But, looking at the cars that you've got under consideration ... let's suppose that you can get 30 mpg in your average (which is doubtfull). The reduction in fuel cost per week would take you to using only 10 gallons of gas per week, or $30.00 in fuel at your current amount of travels. So you'd save $10 per week in fuel ... and that's if you parked your Mustangs and didn't drive them at all.
Does it pay you to spend $5,000 in acquisition costs + insurance + registration to save $10 per week? that's on top of all the costs you've got with your two current cars which won't be driven ... or will they?
FWIW, a late 1990's Ford Ranger with a 3.0 V6 will turn in fuel economy in the 22 mpg range with an automatic trans. If you need a little pick-up for an occasional chore, these are pretty good little units. But to buy one for fuel economy in regular transportation doesn't pencil out. You won't get much better fuel economy in the 4-cylinder model, and the performance ... in town driving ... is kinda' sluggish, even without a load. With a tow load, the 4-cyl is a slow little truck. The larger F-150 with the 6-cylinder is a better truck if you need the towing and weight capacity ... but again, you're paying a full time price for a part time "maybe I'll be moving in a couple of years" need. You can rent a truck for that use and be many dollars ahead of the costs.
I don't know all the cars you've mentioned, but I've rented the Pontiacs. In actual driving, it's not reasonable to expect more than mid to high 20's fuel mileage. These cars ... and the similar vehicles ... simply won't achieve much fuel cost reduction for you. Few SUV's will do this in actual driving, either.
To see any truly significant reduction in your fuel cost per week, you need to look at cars that deliver fuel economy in the high 30's to low 40's mpg. At your price range, I know of cars that can do this ... but they're older and not without ongoing maintenance issues. I'm thinking older Tercels, Civics, Corolla's ... small cars which may or may not be something that you'd want to drive compared to the vehicles you've mentioned so far. In today's marketplace, I think you'll need to spend a lot more money up front to achieve significant fuel savings per week ... and the cost of the vehicle will take a long time to pay it back in savings, if at all.
Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/automotive/1127013-iso-older-car-good-avg-mpg.html#ixzz21BZhrrnl
erhaps you need to pencil this fuel economy problem out a little further ...
You've got cars now that are "avg 22 mpg", which infers you're driving around 300 miles per week, not "150-200" ... on $40 per week. With $3.00/gal gasoline, that's 13 gallons of fuel per week.
But, looking at the cars that you've got under consideration ... let's suppose that you can get 30 mpg in your average (which is doubtfull). The reduction in fuel cost per week would take you to using only 10 gallons of gas per week, or $30.00 in fuel at your current amount of travels. So you'd save $10 per week in fuel ... and that's if you parked your Mustangs and didn't drive them at all.
Does it pay you to spend $5,000 in acquisition costs + insurance + registration to save $10 per week? that's on top of all the costs you've got with your two current cars which won't be driven ... or will they?
FWIW, a late 1990's Ford Ranger with a 3.0 V6 will turn in fuel economy in the 22 mpg range with an automatic trans. If you need a little pick-up for an occasional chore, these are pretty good little units. But to buy one for fuel economy in regular transportation doesn't pencil out. You won't get much better fuel economy in the 4-cylinder model, and the performance ... in town driving ... is kinda' sluggish, even without a load. With a tow load, the 4-cyl is a slow little truck. The larger F-150 with the 6-cylinder is a better truck if you need the towing and weight capacity ... but again, you're paying a full time price for a part time "maybe I'll be moving in a couple of years" need. You can rent a truck for that use and be many dollars ahead of the costs.
I don't know all the cars you've mentioned, but I've rented the Pontiacs. In actual driving, it's not reasonable to expect more than mid to high 20's fuel mileage. These cars ... and the similar vehicles ... simply won't achieve much fuel cost reduction for you. Few SUV's will do this in actual driving, either.
To see any truly significant reduction in your fuel cost per week, you need to look at cars that deliver fuel economy in the high 30's to low 40's mpg. At your price range, I know of cars that can do this ... but they're older and not without ongoing maintenance issues. I'm thinking older Tercels, Civics, Corolla's ... small cars which may or may not be something that you'd want to drive compared to the vehicles you've mentioned so far. In today's marketplace, I think you'll need to spend a lot more money up front to achieve significant fuel savings per week ... and the cost of the vehicle will take a long time to pay it back in savings, if at all.
Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/automotive/1127013-iso-older-car-good-avg-mpg.html#ixzz21BZhrrnl
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
