New PT cruiser

Just bought a new PT under the cash for clunkers program. Great deal
for such a versatile vehicle. Only thing I don't like is the lousy
gas mileage for it's power/size. Great ride, very quiet, comfortable,
AC works good and it has a LIGHT color interior instead of the SO
boring medium and dark charcoal that seems to be just about the only
thing available in most vehicles these days. I really didn't think I
was going to like it very much but I've been very pleasantly
surprised.

 

and your mileage?

 

Well I and all the other tax payers must certainly apologize for that.
We were told that the purpose of taking my money to help pay for your
car was to put fuel efficient vehicles out there. If we had know it
wasn't going to get better mileage, we wouldn't have allowed them to
take our money for that.

Oh wait! They never asked our permission in the first place, so our
bad. You're welcome.

The whole thing was a fraud. Guess what the "official" mileage for my
'85 Ford 150 was stated as by the program's sponsored web site. Try 21
mpg (or was it 22? - I forget but doesn't matter). Anyone who ever
owned one will tell you that it wouldn't even get 13 on a good day.

Again - you're welcome.

 

It does get better, just not a whole lot better.

Thanks. If it wasn't me it would have been someone else. Might as
well be me!!! I don't write the laws.

 

Looks like I can figure on 22 mpg for my mostly commuting use. If it
was all city it looks like it would be closer to 19. All highway
perhaps 25 on a long trip. Pretty close to what the EPA estimates
are.

 

That's what a looter says to himself.

Might as

I know - my comments weren't aimed at you personally.

 

Same here Bill. I was thinking of getting rid of my 2001 Cruiser in
the Cash for Clunkers program.
New plugs, wires, KN air filter, still terrible mileage. Feds said
city/highway average mpg is 19.
I filled the Cruiser, took a 90 mile trip on an Interstate, filled the
tank and got 16.9 mpg.
So I'm stuck with my clunker.

 

The looter is doing something illegal, I am not.

understood

 

Agreed. I did not say you were doing anything technically illegal - I
only said that that is what the looter says to himself - period.

On a philosophical basis, making something legal does not necessarily
make it moral or ethical - I'm sure we both could come up with our own
examples of that. I would argue those points in a discussion as well as
the Constitutionality. Again - I don't blame you.

 

ok i wondered, since i have heard the mileage on these could be better.
best mileage ratings from the guv-ment seems to be on the stick cars.....

 

hell they rated my 96 LHS (with 167,000 miles but they didnt care about
mileage) at 19, thereby making it not a clunker. then re rating it at 18
(one MPG less) then it was eligible.

i think i read somewhere that even though the PT didnt get that much better
MPG than mine, it was still going to be allowed if i wanted it, since the
government web site had the PT designated as a TRUCK and trucks had lower
requirements. maybe that's how so may F150s got bought this summer!

Regardless there is still a 96 LHS in the garage and nothing else.

Same here Bill. I was thinking of getting rid of my 2001 Cruiser in
the Cash for Clunkers program.
New plugs, wires, KN air filter, still terrible mileage. Feds said
city/highway average mpg is 19.
I filled the Cruiser, took a 90 mile trip on an Interstate, filled the
tank and got 16.9 mpg.
So I'm stuck with my clunker.

 

My daughter can get a solid 25.5 mpg highway out of our 2006 PT Cruiser

 

What engine size do you (and Ashton Crusher) have?

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---

 

The base, no frills, non turbo model for that year.

 

It's teh base 2.4 liter.

 

Yeah, the stick shifts are rated for about 2 mpg more.

 

I have mixed feelings about the program. Honestly, before I felt it
would benefit me it bothered me a bit. It's part of a long list of
things like the tax breaks for hybrid cars. A friend of mine whose
wife and him both make good money just spent $50K having solar
electric system installed on his house. He said he will get back $24K
from Tax breaks making the thing a break even proposition in around 6
years or so. Many of these things really only are workable if you
have lots of money of your own to put in up front.

The only reason I went for the Clunker thing was that my 89 S-10 was
running progressively worse and losing power. Plus it needed the
transmission rebuilt. Hard to justify putting $2000 plus into it when
that would still make it only worth $2000 and it would still have 190k
miles on it. So it really was like getting the full $4500.

 

One thing that people almost always fail to factor in on these
"break-even" calculations is the "cost of money over time" ("interest").
By literal accounting formulas, the pay back periods are extended
significantly - often beyond the replacement period. So, even ignoring
the government subsidy aspect in the real costs, there usually *is* no
payback. Factor the subsidy in, and there is no payback - just good
feelings.

Makes sense. I was curious what you turned in as the clunker. Now I know.

 

You should have seen the red face on the finance guy when I turned
down the $500 alarm system they had installed and declined adding the
tinted glass. I pulled all the pullable parts off the s-10 and sold
them and made another couple hundred off that. It killed me that I
had to leave a one week old alternator on it. But I did keep the
battery and put in one from a co-worker who otherwise was going to
turn it in for a new one on his car. My custom cable adaptors are
shown here http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/2006/clinkerbatterm2.jpg
(ignore the charger clamps) They told me one guy traded in his Dodge
van and he had pulled most of the glass, the headlights, various
bulbs, and even took off one lug nut from each wheel. He had another
van at home just like it.

 

Damn! I am getting about the same with my 1941 Windsor/Fluid
Drive/241.5ci flathead 6!