You arguing a completely different argument. We're talking about a worktruck for joe sixpack. No one is suggesting that UPS would be better off with a bunch of F350s out there. Pay attention.
You arguing a completely different argument. We're talking about a worktruck for joe sixpack. No one is suggesting that UPS would be better off with a bunch of F350s out there. Pay attention.
So everyone in Europe throws their money away and buys them anyways? I've seen Sprinters used by everything from contractors to freight companies around here. I don't see any reliability reports that confirm your fabrication, so...
Also consider that the Sprinter Syadisti is talking about is not the base model. The base only gets about 21 mpg with no load. God knows what the price difference would be.
Jesus. Buying more expensive cars does not equate to throwing money away.
The point is that spending $15,000+ on a car in order to obtain better fuel efficiency is not going to balance itself out financially.
No it gets low to mid 20s loaded as C&D notes. There are no official dodge or EPA figures since its a commercial vehicle.
Here is some solid information from fleetmag.com rather than BS from BS:
First off, diesel is a hell of a lot more expensive in europe than it is here, so economically, there is a big difference in why buying more vans might work. Secondly, the truck options for europeans are not as cheap as they are for Americans.
You have been shown in this thread the difference in cost between the two vehicles, since you're a cornell grad, I assume you can work the numbers for yourself too see that it would take many, many years for the sprinter to be economically viable, and I can tell you from personal experience that people in the construction biz don't keep vehicles long enough for that to happen. What more do you want?
And again, the base sprinter here in the US does not get 30 mpg, its more like 21.
No it depends on MY (newer models have the 3L) and it gets low to mid 20s loaded with the 3L:
The Dodge Ram and Sprinter were both available for the 2003 MY, starting prices were:C&D said:
2003 Dodge 3500 RAM Van MSRP: $23,265.00
2003 Dodge 3500 Sprinter MSRP: $23,774.00
The van is pricing competitive with commercial vans in the same class. Also a F150 is an entry level truck, not a heavy duty work truck.
Considering the Sprinter was designed when gas prices were $4-5 gallon in Europe, they are making a lot more economic sense and that is why they are more popular these days.
Heavy Duty Trucking - October 2005 said:
Last edited:
the fjc gets 20 mpg in town with some basic hypermiling..
I love it when people argue about things they do not own nor plan to purchase.
Wow, there are some testy people on here 
All I know is that I have a 2000 Pathfinder, fully paid off that I use for work, to haul my work trailer, and to take bikes/skis and gear to the mountains. I get 15-18 mpg, but it would make no sense for me to buy another truck or van, and have car payments.
What I am trying to do, is stop using my Pathfinder for daily stuff, and get a scooter. Since Tuesday I have driven almost 60 miles in just BS around town stuff easily done on a scooter. I'm looking at a 200cc (171.*** actually) with 75+mpg. By My calculations, at $3495 and $4/gal, it would take just over 15,000 miles, or just over a year to pay it off, just in gas! Gas is going up, and that doesn't take into account the routine maintenance on the Pathfinder that will be greatly reduced and stretched to a longer time period.
All I know is that I have a 2000 Pathfinder, fully paid off that I use for work, to haul my work trailer, and to take bikes/skis and gear to the mountains. I get 15-18 mpg, but it would make no sense for me to buy another truck or van, and have car payments.
What I am trying to do, is stop using my Pathfinder for daily stuff, and get a scooter. Since Tuesday I have driven almost 60 miles in just BS around town stuff easily done on a scooter. I'm looking at a 200cc (171.*** actually) with 75+mpg. By My calculations, at $3495 and $4/gal, it would take just over 15,000 miles, or just over a year to pay it off, just in gas! Gas is going up, and that doesn't take into account the routine maintenance on the Pathfinder that will be greatly reduced and stretched to a longer time period.
answer to your question:
right now you have a 12m/g and a 35m/g, which if you do the same millage:=N on both cars you will get a fuel efficiency of 0.112g/m [gallons per mile]
Option A replaces the 12m/g with a 15m/g SUV which in turn gives you an overall fuel efficiency of 0.0952g/m.
Option B replaces the 35m/g of your actual situation with a 50m/g giving you an overall fuel efficiency of 0.103 g/m.
In other words if N (your millage) is 100miles you'll need the following amounts of gas:
Now: 11.19gallons
Swapping the SUV: 9.52gallons
Getting the super efficient mini car: 10.3 gallons
So seems that getting the more efficient SUV is the way to go.
with regard to cargo volume:
Ford Expedition
146 cu ft
Toyota Sienna 2008 model
147 cu ft
Food for thought
And you can't honestly believe that all of America is comprised of upper-middle class suburbs correct? America is a big place. There's a LOT in the middle there and there's a lot outside of whatever natural sounding two-word suburb you are in...
you must work for a company that doesnt take care of their ****.... i know of a few construction companys that have had the same trucks for 10+ years because of MAINTANCE and taking care of them.. and what are you thinking the 80'S? trucks withing the last 10 years or more have been build CONSIDERABLY well. me i will never own anything but a truck reguardless of if i need it or not... yall have fun in your smart carts, prius, and anything else compact... cause i know that a fullsize truck can hit a juniper tree and the people have a considerably good % of walking away .... little car... not so much.. have fun with your coffins on wheels
. and im one of those "a-holes" that blow black smoke on small prius' have a good day 
keep in mind that F-250s on up aren't crash tested (or emissions tested, or tested for mpg by the EPA) because they're over 8500 GVWR, and many years ago regulators thought that no one would be idiotic enough to drive them as passenger vehicles. so in truth you have no idea whether your big truck will be safe.me i will never own anything but a truck reguardless of if i need it or not... yall have fun in your smart carts, prius, and anything else compact... cause i know that a fullsize truck can hit a juniper tree and the people have a considerably good % of walking away .... little car... not so much.. have fun with your coffins on wheels
if your counter is that mass alone makes a car safe then think again: http://bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTestingMINICooperVsFordF150/
40 mph. same offset barrier.
Funny you mention that. I recently saw an F250 wrapped around a lightpole at an intersection that couldn't have been more than 30-40mph. The pole went through the dead center of the front of the car. The whole engine block slammed backwards into the cabin. It looked like the driver and passenger would have been ok, but anyone sitting in the middle would have been impaled on the crankshaft of the engine.
Mass makes a huge difference when you think about. Smart cars do so well in crashes because they have so little mass to stop. If you have a heavy vehicle, you need crumple zones to absorb all that energy. With a light car, not so much. The negative G's might be much higher, but that's not what kills you.
keep in mind that F-250s on up aren't crash tested (or emissions tested, or tested for mpg by the EPA) because they're over 8500 GVWR, and many years ago regulators thought that no one would be idiotic enough to drive them as passenger vehicles. so in truth you have no idea whether your big truck will be safe.
if your counter is that mass alone makes a car safe then think again: http://bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTestingMINICooperVsFordF150/
40 mph. same offset barrier.
now take those 2 same vehicals and insert them into a high traffic dumptruck town and have a dump truck t-bone or rear end one...
Ok. Mini shoots off it a tanget direction because the lower mass allows it to be pushed aside. The F-150, with larger mass produces a larger impact, because there is more inertia pushing it towards the dump truck, or transversely, it wraps around the DT, because there is more impact required to deflect the vehicle.
Get down off your high horse, I've worked numerous outdoor jobs including a few years in both construction and roofing, and know perfectly well what a worker needs out of a truck. I'm glad you can make ridiculous assumptions about me, though.Hacktastic said:
If you believe there aren't huge numbers of large vehicles owned and operated by people who would be far better served with a station wagon or a minivan, you are delusional.
Last edited:
Oh I fully believe they are. I know there are lots of people who own them that don't need them and do retarded stuff to them, whether it be out of stupidity/fashion/ego/whatever else. They're manufactured for a purpose that many people seem to assume doesn't even exist. Too often I hear the argument that trucks/SUV's need to be outlawed and hybrids need to be more or less "required", and that there is no reason for full size trucks and SUV's to exist. My point is that is all fine as long as the hybrids are capable. They aren't for anyone who needs a utility vehicle. Short sighted-ness assumes that there are more people using the larger vehicles as a toy or something overkill/wasteful than using them for work or making use of their capabilities. I know there are a lot of people using them for dumb stuff, but I think there are far more who actually NEED them (though I have no figures to back this up with).
I just got a 125 scooter. Sweet.
I live in the hippie capital of the world, and I have plenty of friends with trucks and vans. Most of them do contracting and they require their full sized vehicles.
I have never heard anyone complain to them or big utilities vehicles ever in SF. They know they shouldn't drive their massive vehicles every time they go to the pump. Most of them have 4 cylinder econocars to save cash.
there's essentially a certain amount of carbon tied up in the gas, a lot of the weight of liquid gas is carbon atoms. when it reacts with two heavier oxygen atoms from the atmosphere there is about 25 lbs CO2 per gallon.
this is an interesting site that shows how much carbon can be saved via a couple of hypothetical changes in behavior or policy.
http://carbonsolutionsne.org/analysis/initiatives/carbon-cycle/new-england-decarbonizer/carbon-solutions-ne-plotter/base_view
this link explains how the carbon savings from the car and light truck sector were calculated:
http://carbonsolutionsne.org/analysis/initiatives/carbon-cycle/new-england-decarbonizer/help/CSNE Data reports - Passenger Cars and light trucks.doc/view
i wrote the report during my last days at the university... they have a whole class now on adding different options. my takeaway from that project is that our vehicle mpg needs to be somewhere near 500. instead we're quibbling about 5mpg increases...
Last edited:
Either will work for Cubicle Jockeys
Name ONE person (outside the NBA) that NEEDS an Escalade, or a Lincoln truck when a Silverado, or F150 wouldn't work.
I know, 22's are required for avoiding construction debris.
Most tradespeople round here rock something like this:
In England and Europe:
Both have 2.0 - 2.5L engines. NA straight fours or similar most of the time. Can carry enough gear for anything. I guarantee both of these vehicles can carry more **** than a truck.
In England and Europe:
Both have 2.0 - 2.5L engines. NA straight fours or similar most of the time. Can carry enough gear for anything. I guarantee both of these vehicles can carry more **** than a truck.
But what does it look like rolling dub's?
<snip> me i will never own anything but a truck reguardless of if i need it or not... yall have fun in your smart carts, prius, and anything else compact... cause i know that a fullsize truck can hit a juniper tree and the people have a considerably good % of walking away .... little car... not so much.. have fun with your coffins on wheels
OMG!! Don't deflate the commonly-held Merkin belief that some people just GOTTA HAVE A BIG-ASS TRUCK!Most tradespeople round here rock something like this:
In England and Europe:
Both have 2.0 - 2.5L engines. NA straight fours or similar most of the time. Can carry enough gear for anything. I guarantee both of these vehicles can carry more **** than a truck.
