Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
Re: Update Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
"Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox,net > wrote in message news:hbLek.18675$3q7.10561@newsfe15.lga...
> "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox,com > wrote
>> But if you pay a 1000 dollars more to save this $20 a
>> month it sounds silly.
>
> You are changing the location of the goalposts. :-)
Am I?
The goal is the same and has never moved: to get the car which
will cost the least amount of money it is ever possible. High
expected mpg is only one of many parts to the main equation.
Some people forget about it and are so hypnotized with mpg
that they are ready to pay more money for a car with not much
higher mpg, so not justify the price increase. At some point
they pay more for the car than they are able to save on gas
money and in the process they sacrifice car performance and
the joy of driving a nice car.
The same goes with improving the gas mileage on the car we own.
If we can bump the mileage +5mpg but have to spend $500 to do it,
is is worth it? I am afraid, not.
There was a guy here or some other newsgroup moding his honda
or nissan to get the extreme gas mileage - he has removed from
his car EVERYTHING beside his driver sit, including spare wheel.
Don't you think this is crazy? :-) One flat tire and towing
would kill all his gas savings...
So it is good to keep in touch with the bigger picture to
not get lost in the blind higher gas mileage chase... :-)
"Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox,net > wrote in message news:hbLek.18675$3q7.10561@newsfe15.lga...
> "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox,com > wrote
>> But if you pay a 1000 dollars more to save this $20 a
>> month it sounds silly.
>
> You are changing the location of the goalposts. :-)
Am I?
The goal is the same and has never moved: to get the car which
will cost the least amount of money it is ever possible. High
expected mpg is only one of many parts to the main equation.
Some people forget about it and are so hypnotized with mpg
that they are ready to pay more money for a car with not much
higher mpg, so not justify the price increase. At some point
they pay more for the car than they are able to save on gas
money and in the process they sacrifice car performance and
the joy of driving a nice car.
The same goes with improving the gas mileage on the car we own.
If we can bump the mileage +5mpg but have to spend $500 to do it,
is is worth it? I am afraid, not.
There was a guy here or some other newsgroup moding his honda
or nissan to get the extreme gas mileage - he has removed from
his car EVERYTHING beside his driver sit, including spare wheel.
Don't you think this is crazy? :-) One flat tire and towing
would kill all his gas savings...
So it is good to keep in touch with the bigger picture to
not get lost in the blind higher gas mileage chase... :-)
Re: Update Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
"Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox,com > wrote
> "Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox,net > wrote
>> "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox,com > wrote
>>> But if you pay a 1000 dollars more to save this $20 a
>>> month it sounds silly.
>>
>> You are changing the location of the goalposts. :-)
>
> Am I?
I did not pay a $1000 more.
"Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox,com > wrote
> "Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox,net > wrote
>> "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox,com > wrote
>>> But if you pay a 1000 dollars more to save this $20 a
>>> month it sounds silly.
>>
>> You are changing the location of the goalposts. :-)
>
> Am I?
I did not pay a $1000 more.
Re: Update Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
"Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox,net > wrote in message news:j9Mek.20390$oY2.11993@newsfe21.lga...
> "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox,com > wrote
>> "Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox,net > wrote
>>> "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox,com > wrote
>>>> But if you pay a 1000 dollars more to save this $20 a
>>>> month it sounds silly.
>>>
>>> You are changing the location of the goalposts. :-)
>>
>> Am I?
>
> I did not pay a $1000 more.
More than what?
I was not talking about you but in general about car choosing process.
You look at the one car (civic 91 with 27 mpg city) and another
(civic 93 with 29 mpg city) and you know that maximum you can save
in IDEAL, LABOLATORY conditions is 2mpg. How much these savings are
worth to you it depends on how much miles you make per year...
That's all.
And this mileage applies to new cars - cars with high mileage will
require a lot of work to reach that original, factory levels.
So for used cars I do not think comparison of factory values makes
any sense at all in terms of comarison. You can probably find out
there 91 civic which burns much less fuel than a random 93 civic.
How much fuel will your burn? You will see, soon...
I wish you good luck!
"Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox,net > wrote in message news:j9Mek.20390$oY2.11993@newsfe21.lga...
> "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox,com > wrote
>> "Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox,net > wrote
>>> "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox,com > wrote
>>>> But if you pay a 1000 dollars more to save this $20 a
>>>> month it sounds silly.
>>>
>>> You are changing the location of the goalposts. :-)
>>
>> Am I?
>
> I did not pay a $1000 more.
More than what?
I was not talking about you but in general about car choosing process.
You look at the one car (civic 91 with 27 mpg city) and another
(civic 93 with 29 mpg city) and you know that maximum you can save
in IDEAL, LABOLATORY conditions is 2mpg. How much these savings are
worth to you it depends on how much miles you make per year...
That's all.
And this mileage applies to new cars - cars with high mileage will
require a lot of work to reach that original, factory levels.
So for used cars I do not think comparison of factory values makes
any sense at all in terms of comarison. You can probably find out
there 91 civic which burns much less fuel than a random 93 civic.
How much fuel will your burn? You will see, soon...
I wish you good luck!
Re: Update Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
"Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox,com > wrote
> I was not talking about you but in general about car
> choosing process.
Use the word "one" in place of "you," then.
> cars with high mileage will require a lot of work to reach
> that original, factory levels.
Nonsense. My 91 Civic's mileage actually improved with age
and is better than the EPA's stated values. I watch it like
a hawk for the last five years, and it has not changed. You
are not the least bit up to date on what old cars can do
these days.
"Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox,com > wrote
> I was not talking about you but in general about car
> choosing process.
Use the word "one" in place of "you," then.
> cars with high mileage will require a lot of work to reach
> that original, factory levels.
Nonsense. My 91 Civic's mileage actually improved with age
and is better than the EPA's stated values. I watch it like
a hawk for the last five years, and it has not changed. You
are not the least bit up to date on what old cars can do
these days.
Re: Update Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
"Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox,net > wrote in message news:DYPek.20419$oY2.5871@newsfe21.lga...
> "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox,com > wrote
>> I was not talking about you but in general about car
>> choosing process.
>
> Use the word "one" in place of "you," then.
:-)
>> cars with high mileage will require a lot of work to reach
>> that original, factory levels.
>
> Nonsense. My 91 Civic's mileage actually improved with age
> and is better than the EPA's stated values. I watch it like
> a hawk for the last five years, and it has not changed. You
> are not the least bit up to date on what old cars can do
> these days.
How can you explain old car with leaky cylinders and
not perfect compression, dirty/worn out fuel injectors
etc, etc, using up less fuel than when they were new?
How exactly do you measure your gas mileage and what
is the mathematical error/uncertainity of this measurement?
"Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox,net > wrote in message news:DYPek.20419$oY2.5871@newsfe21.lga...
> "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox,com > wrote
>> I was not talking about you but in general about car
>> choosing process.
>
> Use the word "one" in place of "you," then.
:-)
>> cars with high mileage will require a lot of work to reach
>> that original, factory levels.
>
> Nonsense. My 91 Civic's mileage actually improved with age
> and is better than the EPA's stated values. I watch it like
> a hawk for the last five years, and it has not changed. You
> are not the least bit up to date on what old cars can do
> these days.
How can you explain old car with leaky cylinders and
not perfect compression, dirty/worn out fuel injectors
etc, etc, using up less fuel than when they were new?
How exactly do you measure your gas mileage and what
is the mathematical error/uncertainity of this measurement?
Re: Update Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
"Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox,com > wrote
> How can you explain old car with leaky cylinders and
> not perfect compression, dirty/worn out fuel injectors
> etc, etc, using up less fuel than when they were new?
Engine rings do not fail nearly as soon as they used to,
that's all. Without googling, I'd say technology has
improved additives to gas and engine oil, along with engine
materials, so engines last longer. You can google and find
more on why engines last longer these days. Even American
manufacturers' cars are lasting longer.
I have not read of fuel injector problems here, though
people have replaced them without any change in performance.
Tegger did a report a while back on what he saw when he
replaced his fuel injectors. Google the archives.
Seems like the only time we read here of a Honda with poor
compression is when the car has been driven hard. It's rare
to hear of someone's engine giving out here, unless it's due
to a failed timing belt.
> How exactly do you measure your gas mileage and what
> is the mathematical error/uncertainity of this
> measurement?
Trip odometer set to zero at every fillup. Fill to one
click. Divide miles by gallons. Average over many fillups,
or a few.
MPG often falls off for many people simply due to poor basic
maintenance habits like not changing out the plug wires,
plugs, distributor cap, PCV valve, air filter, etc. Also,
failing to use OEM for these parts (air filter excepted) can
be detrimental to MPG, IMO.
"Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox,com > wrote
> How can you explain old car with leaky cylinders and
> not perfect compression, dirty/worn out fuel injectors
> etc, etc, using up less fuel than when they were new?
Engine rings do not fail nearly as soon as they used to,
that's all. Without googling, I'd say technology has
improved additives to gas and engine oil, along with engine
materials, so engines last longer. You can google and find
more on why engines last longer these days. Even American
manufacturers' cars are lasting longer.
I have not read of fuel injector problems here, though
people have replaced them without any change in performance.
Tegger did a report a while back on what he saw when he
replaced his fuel injectors. Google the archives.
Seems like the only time we read here of a Honda with poor
compression is when the car has been driven hard. It's rare
to hear of someone's engine giving out here, unless it's due
to a failed timing belt.
> How exactly do you measure your gas mileage and what
> is the mathematical error/uncertainity of this
> measurement?
Trip odometer set to zero at every fillup. Fill to one
click. Divide miles by gallons. Average over many fillups,
or a few.
MPG often falls off for many people simply due to poor basic
maintenance habits like not changing out the plug wires,
plugs, distributor cap, PCV valve, air filter, etc. Also,
failing to use OEM for these parts (air filter excepted) can
be detrimental to MPG, IMO.
Re: Update Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
"Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox,net > wrote in message news:3qQek.20420$oY2.13104@newsfe21.lga...
> "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox,com > wrote
>> How can you explain old car with leaky cylinders and
>> not perfect compression, dirty/worn out fuel injectors
>> etc, etc, using up less fuel than when they were new?
>
> Engine rings do not fail nearly as soon as they used to,
> that's all. Without googling, I'd say technology has
> improved additives to gas and engine oil, along with engine
> materials, so engines last longer. You can google and find
> more on why engines last longer these days. Even American
> manufacturers' cars are lasting longer.
I am not saying they last shorter, I am just saying
they consume little more than when they were new
and all was clean, matching perfectly and in order.
I simply cannot compute the argument that the car
with 185 thousand miles on the odometer can consume
less fuel than when it had - let's say - 10 thousand and
everything else was brand new and in perfect adjustment.
> Trip odometer set to zero at every fillup. Fill to one
> click. Divide miles by gallons. Average over many fillups,
> or a few.
This is very unreliable method and you have many
sources of error factored to your calculations!
> MPG often falls off for many people simply due to poor basic
> maintenance habits like not changing out the plug wires,
> plugs, distributor cap, PCV valve, air filter, etc. Also,
> failing to use OEM for these parts (air filter excepted) can
> be detrimental to MPG, IMO.
I see I am unable to convince you... that is ok, too :-)
"Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox,net > wrote in message news:3qQek.20420$oY2.13104@newsfe21.lga...
> "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox,com > wrote
>> How can you explain old car with leaky cylinders and
>> not perfect compression, dirty/worn out fuel injectors
>> etc, etc, using up less fuel than when they were new?
>
> Engine rings do not fail nearly as soon as they used to,
> that's all. Without googling, I'd say technology has
> improved additives to gas and engine oil, along with engine
> materials, so engines last longer. You can google and find
> more on why engines last longer these days. Even American
> manufacturers' cars are lasting longer.
I am not saying they last shorter, I am just saying
they consume little more than when they were new
and all was clean, matching perfectly and in order.
I simply cannot compute the argument that the car
with 185 thousand miles on the odometer can consume
less fuel than when it had - let's say - 10 thousand and
everything else was brand new and in perfect adjustment.
> Trip odometer set to zero at every fillup. Fill to one
> click. Divide miles by gallons. Average over many fillups,
> or a few.
This is very unreliable method and you have many
sources of error factored to your calculations!
> MPG often falls off for many people simply due to poor basic
> maintenance habits like not changing out the plug wires,
> plugs, distributor cap, PCV valve, air filter, etc. Also,
> failing to use OEM for these parts (air filter excepted) can
> be detrimental to MPG, IMO.
I see I am unable to convince you... that is ok, too :-)
Re: Update Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
"Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox,com > wrote
> I simply cannot compute the argument that the car
> with 185 thousand miles on the odometer can consume
> less fuel than when it had - let's say - 10 thousand and
> everything else was brand new and in perfect adjustment.
Then you are not acquainted with changes in technology. Just
the use of unleaded fuel in the last 30 years has altered
engine life dramatically.
>> Trip odometer set to zero at every fillup. Fill to one
>> click. Divide miles by gallons. Average over many
>> fillups, or a few.
>
> This is very unreliable method and you have many
> sources of error factored to your calculations!
Nonsense, but thank you for convincing me you are a bullshit
artist.
"Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox,com > wrote
> I simply cannot compute the argument that the car
> with 185 thousand miles on the odometer can consume
> less fuel than when it had - let's say - 10 thousand and
> everything else was brand new and in perfect adjustment.
Then you are not acquainted with changes in technology. Just
the use of unleaded fuel in the last 30 years has altered
engine life dramatically.
>> Trip odometer set to zero at every fillup. Fill to one
>> click. Divide miles by gallons. Average over many
>> fillups, or a few.
>
> This is very unreliable method and you have many
> sources of error factored to your calculations!
Nonsense, but thank you for convincing me you are a bullshit
artist.
Re: Update Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
"Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox,net > wrote in message news:tIQek.20424$oY2.3806@newsfe21.lga...
> "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox,com > wrote
>> I simply cannot compute the argument that the car
>> with 185 thousand miles on the odometer can consume
>> less fuel than when it had - let's say - 10 thousand and
>> everything else was brand new and in perfect adjustment.
>
> Then you are not acquainted with changes in technology. Just
> the use of unleaded fuel in the last 30 years has altered
> engine life dramatically.
Sure, and car after 200 thousand miles consumes less fuel
than the same car when it was brand new... of course :-)
>>> Trip odometer set to zero at every fillup. Fill to one
>>> click. Divide miles by gallons. Average over many
>>> fillups, or a few.
>>
>> This is very unreliable method and you have many
>> sources of error factored to your calculations!
>
> Nonsense, but thank you for convincing me you are a bullshit
> artist.
Here we go with name calling game... How mature is it? :-)
You simply do not realize where are the sources of BIG errors
in your method. For example, starting at your shut-off nozzle,
it will shut-off in very random place near the top of the tank.
It will depend on the brand of the dispenser, velocity of the
fuel in the hose (how strong is the submersible on the site)
even the same nozzles will differ in the shut-off reaction time.
Shut off time will even depend on how deep you put nozzle in...
It will also depend on the particular fuel was delivered that
day on the site you refuel... If the gasoline happens to be
specially foamy that day, it may actuate the release mechanism
in the nozzle prematurely, with the result that you end up with
less than a full tank of gas. If you stop fueling in the middle
and let the foam settle, then fuel to the top it will be different.
Mixing city and highway milleage is also a huge factor in error
estimation. Ambient air temperature, weather condition (rain),
holiday period and less cars on the road, less stops&go.
Averaging can only help a little.
Well, good luck with your car! :-)
"Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox,net > wrote in message news:tIQek.20424$oY2.3806@newsfe21.lga...
> "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox,com > wrote
>> I simply cannot compute the argument that the car
>> with 185 thousand miles on the odometer can consume
>> less fuel than when it had - let's say - 10 thousand and
>> everything else was brand new and in perfect adjustment.
>
> Then you are not acquainted with changes in technology. Just
> the use of unleaded fuel in the last 30 years has altered
> engine life dramatically.
Sure, and car after 200 thousand miles consumes less fuel
than the same car when it was brand new... of course :-)
>>> Trip odometer set to zero at every fillup. Fill to one
>>> click. Divide miles by gallons. Average over many
>>> fillups, or a few.
>>
>> This is very unreliable method and you have many
>> sources of error factored to your calculations!
>
> Nonsense, but thank you for convincing me you are a bullshit
> artist.
Here we go with name calling game... How mature is it? :-)
You simply do not realize where are the sources of BIG errors
in your method. For example, starting at your shut-off nozzle,
it will shut-off in very random place near the top of the tank.
It will depend on the brand of the dispenser, velocity of the
fuel in the hose (how strong is the submersible on the site)
even the same nozzles will differ in the shut-off reaction time.
Shut off time will even depend on how deep you put nozzle in...
It will also depend on the particular fuel was delivered that
day on the site you refuel... If the gasoline happens to be
specially foamy that day, it may actuate the release mechanism
in the nozzle prematurely, with the result that you end up with
less than a full tank of gas. If you stop fueling in the middle
and let the foam settle, then fuel to the top it will be different.
Mixing city and highway milleage is also a huge factor in error
estimation. Ambient air temperature, weather condition (rain),
holiday period and less cars on the road, less stops&go.
Averaging can only help a little.
Well, good luck with your car! :-)
Re: Update Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
Pszemol wrote:
> "Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox,net > wrote in message
> news:tIQek.20424$oY2.3806@newsfe21.lga...
>> "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox,com > wrote
>>> I simply cannot compute the argument that the car
>>> with 185 thousand miles on the odometer can consume
>>> less fuel than when it had - let's say - 10 thousand and
>>> everything else was brand new and in perfect adjustment.
>>
>> Then you are not acquainted with changes in technology. Just the use
>> of unleaded fuel in the last 30 years has altered engine life
>> dramatically.
>
> Sure, and car after 200 thousand miles consumes less fuel
> than the same car when it was brand new... of course :-)
>
>>>> Trip odometer set to zero at every fillup. Fill to one click. Divide
>>>> miles by gallons. Average over many fillups, or a few.
>>>
>>> This is very unreliable method and you have many
>>> sources of error factored to your calculations!
>>
>> Nonsense, but thank you for convincing me you are a bullshit artist.
>
> Here we go with name calling game... How mature is it? :-)
>
> You simply do not realize where are the sources of BIG errors
> in your method. For example, starting at your shut-off nozzle,
> it will shut-off in very random place near the top of the tank.
> It will depend on the brand of the dispenser, velocity of the
> fuel in the hose (how strong is the submersible on the site)
> even the same nozzles will differ in the shut-off reaction time.
> Shut off time will even depend on how deep you put nozzle in...
> It will also depend on the particular fuel was delivered that
> day on the site you refuel... If the gasoline happens to be
> specially foamy that day, it may actuate the release mechanism
> in the nozzle prematurely, with the result that you end up with
> less than a full tank of gas. If you stop fueling in the middle
> and let the foam settle, then fuel to the top it will be different.
but that doesn't make a damned bit of difference to an average!
>
> Mixing city and highway milleage is also a huge factor in error
> estimation. Ambient air temperature, weather condition (rain),
> holiday period and less cars on the road, less stops&go.
> Averaging can only help a little.
no dude, the average /defines/ the whole exercise.
>
> Well, good luck with your car! :-)
good luck with your math.
Pszemol wrote:
> "Elle" <honda.lioness@spamnocox,net > wrote in message
> news:tIQek.20424$oY2.3806@newsfe21.lga...
>> "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox,com > wrote
>>> I simply cannot compute the argument that the car
>>> with 185 thousand miles on the odometer can consume
>>> less fuel than when it had - let's say - 10 thousand and
>>> everything else was brand new and in perfect adjustment.
>>
>> Then you are not acquainted with changes in technology. Just the use
>> of unleaded fuel in the last 30 years has altered engine life
>> dramatically.
>
> Sure, and car after 200 thousand miles consumes less fuel
> than the same car when it was brand new... of course :-)
>
>>>> Trip odometer set to zero at every fillup. Fill to one click. Divide
>>>> miles by gallons. Average over many fillups, or a few.
>>>
>>> This is very unreliable method and you have many
>>> sources of error factored to your calculations!
>>
>> Nonsense, but thank you for convincing me you are a bullshit artist.
>
> Here we go with name calling game... How mature is it? :-)
>
> You simply do not realize where are the sources of BIG errors
> in your method. For example, starting at your shut-off nozzle,
> it will shut-off in very random place near the top of the tank.
> It will depend on the brand of the dispenser, velocity of the
> fuel in the hose (how strong is the submersible on the site)
> even the same nozzles will differ in the shut-off reaction time.
> Shut off time will even depend on how deep you put nozzle in...
> It will also depend on the particular fuel was delivered that
> day on the site you refuel... If the gasoline happens to be
> specially foamy that day, it may actuate the release mechanism
> in the nozzle prematurely, with the result that you end up with
> less than a full tank of gas. If you stop fueling in the middle
> and let the foam settle, then fuel to the top it will be different.
but that doesn't make a damned bit of difference to an average!
>
> Mixing city and highway milleage is also a huge factor in error
> estimation. Ambient air temperature, weather condition (rain),
> holiday period and less cars on the road, less stops&go.
> Averaging can only help a little.
no dude, the average /defines/ the whole exercise.
>
> Well, good luck with your car! :-)
good luck with your math.
Re: Update Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example,net > wrote in message news:vpudnVUM3frjl-HVnZ2dnUVZ_sTinZ2d@speakeasy,net ...
>> You simply do not realize where are the sources of BIG errors
>> in your method. For example, starting at your shut-off nozzle,
>> it will shut-off in very random place near the top of the tank.
>> It will depend on the brand of the dispenser, velocity of the
>> fuel in the hose (how strong is the submersible on the site)
>> even the same nozzles will differ in the shut-off reaction time.
>> Shut off time will even depend on how deep you put nozzle in...
>> It will also depend on the particular fuel was delivered that
>> day on the site you refuel... If the gasoline happens to be
>> specially foamy that day, it may actuate the release mechanism
>> in the nozzle prematurely, with the result that you end up with
>> less than a full tank of gas. If you stop fueling in the middle
>> and let the foam settle, then fuel to the top it will be different.
>
> but that doesn't make a damned bit of difference to an average!
It does if you want to extract city mpg from highway mpg.
If you take too much data into the average you will blurr
the difference between city/highway mileage and for some
cars it makes a huge difference.
>> Mixing city and highway milleage is also a huge factor in error
>> estimation. Ambient air temperature, weather condition (rain),
>> holiday period and less cars on the road, less stops&go.
>> Averaging can only help a little.
>
> no dude, the average /defines/ the whole exercise.
It introduces some problems, too...
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example,net > wrote in message news:vpudnVUM3frjl-HVnZ2dnUVZ_sTinZ2d@speakeasy,net ...
>> You simply do not realize where are the sources of BIG errors
>> in your method. For example, starting at your shut-off nozzle,
>> it will shut-off in very random place near the top of the tank.
>> It will depend on the brand of the dispenser, velocity of the
>> fuel in the hose (how strong is the submersible on the site)
>> even the same nozzles will differ in the shut-off reaction time.
>> Shut off time will even depend on how deep you put nozzle in...
>> It will also depend on the particular fuel was delivered that
>> day on the site you refuel... If the gasoline happens to be
>> specially foamy that day, it may actuate the release mechanism
>> in the nozzle prematurely, with the result that you end up with
>> less than a full tank of gas. If you stop fueling in the middle
>> and let the foam settle, then fuel to the top it will be different.
>
> but that doesn't make a damned bit of difference to an average!
It does if you want to extract city mpg from highway mpg.
If you take too much data into the average you will blurr
the difference between city/highway mileage and for some
cars it makes a huge difference.
>> Mixing city and highway milleage is also a huge factor in error
>> estimation. Ambient air temperature, weather condition (rain),
>> holiday period and less cars on the road, less stops&go.
>> Averaging can only help a little.
>
> no dude, the average /defines/ the whole exercise.
It introduces some problems, too...
Re: Update Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
Pszemol wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example,net > wrote in message
> news:vpudnVUM3frjl-HVnZ2dnUVZ_sTinZ2d@speakeasy,net ...
>>> You simply do not realize where are the sources of BIG errors
>>> in your method. For example, starting at your shut-off nozzle,
>>> it will shut-off in very random place near the top of the tank.
>>> It will depend on the brand of the dispenser, velocity of the
>>> fuel in the hose (how strong is the submersible on the site)
>>> even the same nozzles will differ in the shut-off reaction time.
>>> Shut off time will even depend on how deep you put nozzle in...
>>> It will also depend on the particular fuel was delivered that
>>> day on the site you refuel... If the gasoline happens to be
>>> specially foamy that day, it may actuate the release mechanism
>>> in the nozzle prematurely, with the result that you end up with
>>> less than a full tank of gas. If you stop fueling in the middle
>>> and let the foam settle, then fuel to the top it will be different.
>>
>> but that doesn't make a damned bit of difference to an average!
>
> It does if you want to extract city mpg from highway mpg.
> If you take too much data into the average you will blurr
> the difference between city/highway mileage and for some
> cars it makes a huge difference.
spot data is not average data. spot data is used to compile average data.
>>> Mixing city and highway milleage is also a huge factor in error
>>> estimation. Ambient air temperature, weather condition (rain),
>>> holiday period and less cars on the road, less stops&go.
>>> Averaging can only help a little.
>>
>> no dude, the average /defines/ the whole exercise.
>
> It introduces some problems, too...
eh? you don't seem to have a very good grasp of math principles. but
the education system today is not very effective so it's probably not
your fault.
Pszemol wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example,net > wrote in message
> news:vpudnVUM3frjl-HVnZ2dnUVZ_sTinZ2d@speakeasy,net ...
>>> You simply do not realize where are the sources of BIG errors
>>> in your method. For example, starting at your shut-off nozzle,
>>> it will shut-off in very random place near the top of the tank.
>>> It will depend on the brand of the dispenser, velocity of the
>>> fuel in the hose (how strong is the submersible on the site)
>>> even the same nozzles will differ in the shut-off reaction time.
>>> Shut off time will even depend on how deep you put nozzle in...
>>> It will also depend on the particular fuel was delivered that
>>> day on the site you refuel... If the gasoline happens to be
>>> specially foamy that day, it may actuate the release mechanism
>>> in the nozzle prematurely, with the result that you end up with
>>> less than a full tank of gas. If you stop fueling in the middle
>>> and let the foam settle, then fuel to the top it will be different.
>>
>> but that doesn't make a damned bit of difference to an average!
>
> It does if you want to extract city mpg from highway mpg.
> If you take too much data into the average you will blurr
> the difference between city/highway mileage and for some
> cars it makes a huge difference.
spot data is not average data. spot data is used to compile average data.
>>> Mixing city and highway milleage is also a huge factor in error
>>> estimation. Ambient air temperature, weather condition (rain),
>>> holiday period and less cars on the road, less stops&go.
>>> Averaging can only help a little.
>>
>> no dude, the average /defines/ the whole exercise.
>
> It introduces some problems, too...
eh? you don't seem to have a very good grasp of math principles. but
the education system today is not very effective so it's probably not
your fault.
Re: Update Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example,net > wrote in message news:rJydnYAmPLzx7eDVnZ2dnUVZ_rTinZ2d@speakeasy,net ...
> spot data is not average data. spot data is used to compile average data.
You should use data of the same kind when compiling average.
If you mix city mileage and highway mileage you will not get
either calculation improved by using average. You will get pretty
useless mixture/average of mileage changing in time with
no chanse of spoting the cause for increase/decrease.
> eh? you don't seem to have a very good grasp of math principles. but
> the education system today is not very effective so it's probably not
> your fault.
Are you trying to compensate some of your own education problems
with childish coments like this one?
"jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example,net > wrote in message news:rJydnYAmPLzx7eDVnZ2dnUVZ_rTinZ2d@speakeasy,net ...
> spot data is not average data. spot data is used to compile average data.
You should use data of the same kind when compiling average.
If you mix city mileage and highway mileage you will not get
either calculation improved by using average. You will get pretty
useless mixture/average of mileage changing in time with
no chanse of spoting the cause for increase/decrease.
> eh? you don't seem to have a very good grasp of math principles. but
> the education system today is not very effective so it's probably not
> your fault.
Are you trying to compensate some of your own education problems
with childish coments like this one?
Re: Update Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
Pszemol wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example,net > wrote in message
> news:rJydnYAmPLzx7eDVnZ2dnUVZ_rTinZ2d@speakeasy,net ...
>> spot data is not average data. spot data is used to compile average
>> data.
>
> You should use data of the same kind when compiling average.
> If you mix city mileage and highway mileage you will not get
> either calculation improved by using average. You will get pretty
> useless mixture/average of mileage changing in time with
> no chanse of spoting the cause for increase/decrease.
that's spot data!!! it's spot data that comprises an average. [and
there's two t's in "spotting", two c's in "chance".]
spot data is is essential to acquire, but seems you don't understand the
concept of interpretation.
>> eh? you don't seem to have a very good grasp of math principles. but
>> the education system today is not very effective so it's probably not
>> your fault.
>
> Are you trying to compensate some of your own education problems
> with childish coments like this one?
education problems? [two m's in "comments", and your computer has a
spell checker.] no, i don't think i have education problems. i have a
problem with idiots that can't do math [or spell] though.
Pszemol wrote:
> "jim beam" <spamvortex@bad.example,net > wrote in message
> news:rJydnYAmPLzx7eDVnZ2dnUVZ_rTinZ2d@speakeasy,net ...
>> spot data is not average data. spot data is used to compile average
>> data.
>
> You should use data of the same kind when compiling average.
> If you mix city mileage and highway mileage you will not get
> either calculation improved by using average. You will get pretty
> useless mixture/average of mileage changing in time with
> no chanse of spoting the cause for increase/decrease.
that's spot data!!! it's spot data that comprises an average. [and
there's two t's in "spotting", two c's in "chance".]
spot data is is essential to acquire, but seems you don't understand the
concept of interpretation.
>> eh? you don't seem to have a very good grasp of math principles. but
>> the education system today is not very effective so it's probably not
>> your fault.
>
> Are you trying to compensate some of your own education problems
> with childish coments like this one?
education problems? [two m's in "comments", and your computer has a
spell checker.] no, i don't think i have education problems. i have a
problem with idiots that can't do math [or spell] though.
Re: Update Re: Carfax, Buying Used, & Craigslist.org
Elle wrote:
> "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox,com > wrote
>
>>I was not talking about you but in general about car
>>choosing process.
>
>
> Use the word "one" in place of "you," then.
>
>
>>cars with high mileage will require a lot of work to reach
>>that original, factory levels.
>
>
> Nonsense. My 91 Civic's mileage actually improved with age
> and is better than the EPA's stated values. I watch it like
> a hawk for the last five years, and it has not changed. You
> are not the least bit up to date on what old cars can do
> these days.
>
>
I'm offended!
What would he call my '82 'n '83 junkers? Scrap???
Grrrrr
JT
(Just pokin' along with my ol' 42mpg junker...)
Elle wrote:
> "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox,com > wrote
>
>>I was not talking about you but in general about car
>>choosing process.
>
>
> Use the word "one" in place of "you," then.
>
>
>>cars with high mileage will require a lot of work to reach
>>that original, factory levels.
>
>
> Nonsense. My 91 Civic's mileage actually improved with age
> and is better than the EPA's stated values. I watch it like
> a hawk for the last five years, and it has not changed. You
> are not the least bit up to date on what old cars can do
> these days.
>
>
I'm offended!
What would he call my '82 'n '83 junkers? Scrap???
Grrrrr
JT
(Just pokin' along with my ol' 42mpg junker...)
Next: CRX ELECTRICAL- Odd batt drain - A little more info please.
Previous: Save money by using Fresh or salt water fuel
