Toyota Prius vs Jeep Patriot fuel consumption

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcrover

So in other words Ron, the Prius isnt just a Toyota marketing ploy that stupid people are falling for but they are a dangerous lemon of a car as well.:p

---

I don't know about "Lemon" :angel:

They do appear to be a "product" that is small and heavy at 1,730kg, chews out tyres and has a mind of it's own :D

One of my Brother in Laws was trying to talk a family member into buying one, simply because he saw one as a Taxi, and assumed it must be great.

I collected that list for him, so now he's backing Hyundai :D

By far a much better choice. No I don't own one but my two Daughters have one each. Cannot fault them for reliability, just, well.. boring :)

Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moose

That's the average, it gets used for running around town, driving to work, etc. It's done 50,000km in the year we've had it.

---

Thats a good average. Problem is without being specific about its usage it's very hard to tell how good that is. I see the ADR combined is 5.9, but I couldn't find a urban and extra urban.

I gather that you would do a fair bit of light or highway driving to get that average? :)

I don't mean to give you the Spanish Inquisition but I'm genuinely interested. I think this type of car makes far more sense for a family than buying a Toyota Pious.

Our direct injection turbo Audi can easily achive 6.2 or 6.3 in highway driving. It's quite common for it to do 7.0 -7.5 in mixed light urban. However in heavy stop start inner urban driving it's not uncommon for it to return 12. For our usage it averages between 8 and 10 l/100 depending almost entirely on the usage for that tank. Also if the wife drives it predominately it uses about 10% more than it would have done if I were driving. :eek:

IMHO these modern diesels don't make sense if you do a lot of highway driving but they do if you do a lot of inner urban stop start stuff. With the increase in cost of diesel and the extra the manufactures charge for the diesel they probably don't make sense if the manufacturer offers a good petrol. Not all of them do though. Subaru are a good example, even their most economical petrol is quite a guzzler by class standards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RonMcGr

I collected that list for him, so now he's backing Hyundai :D

By far a much better choice. No I don't own one but my two Daughters have one each. Cannot fault them for reliability, just, well.. boring :)

Cheers

---

No one I've ever found has said that Hyundais are not cheap, economical or reliable. However they have a highly questionable safety pedigree. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RonMcGr

I don't know about "Lemon" :angel:

They do appear to be a "product" that is small and heavy at 1,730kg, chews out tyres and has a mind of it's own :D

One of my Brother in Laws was trying to talk a family member into buying one, simply because he saw one as a Taxi, and assumed it must be great.

I collected that list for him, so now he's backing Hyundai :D

By far a much better choice. No I don't own one but my two Daughters have one each. Cannot fault them for reliability, just, well.. boring :)

Cheers

---

Boring is fine, boring is cheap to run, repair and maintain.

Boring still gets you from home to work and home again as well as too the shops and to pick up the kids etc.

The Carolla is boring but also fits all the above catagories.

I thing the Prius is a horrible blight in automotive history, Toyota has lied at why they made it , they lie about how economical it is, they lie about what problems it has as well as not allowing other than toyota mechanics access to diagnostic equipment there for ensuring that they can screw the owner out of their money and no one else ever will.

They leave out that the batteries will die within a few years and then what do you have, a petrol engined underpowered car with an elecric transmision lugging 1/2 a tonne of batteries for nothing or a $6000 bill to replace them.

Plus they are no more good for the enviroment than any other car as they still burn fuel, they use more tyres and when the batteries crap themselves where will they end up, land fill or recycled, both of which are not good for the enviroment plus the amount of plastics and electronics that are full of mercury and lead and other heavy metals that are soooooo good for the enviroment when they are finished with.

Just my opinion...:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain_Rightfoot

No one I've ever found has said that Hyundais are not cheap, economical or reliable. However they have a highly questionable safety pedigree. :(

---

A mate in Adelaide, bough a Getz for his wife.
One day she got "T" boned at an intersect by a hoon running a red light. The poor little Getz gotz spun around and written off. The wife opened her door and stepped out with her broken collar bone.

He bought her another Getz and she was very happy to have another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain_Rightfoot

No one I've ever found has said that Hyundais are not cheap, economical or reliable. However they have a highly questionable safety pedigree. :(

---

Coming from a bloke who drives a Defender.........something about glass houses....:p

The only safety feature that means anything in any car is the driver.

Everything else in the end is just different levels of armor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain_Rightfoot

Thats a good average. Problem is without being specific about its usage it's very hard to tell how good that is. I see the ADR combined is 5.9, but I couldn't find a urban and extra urban.

I gather that you would do a fair bit of light or highway driving to get that average? :)

I don't mean to give you the Spanish Inquisition but I'm genuinely interested. I think this type of car makes far more sense for a family than buying a Toyota Pious.

Our direct injection turbo Audi can easily achive 6.2 or 6.3 in highway driving. It's quite common for it to do 7.0 -7.5 in mixed light urban. However in heavy stop start inner urban driving it's not uncommon for it to return 12. For our usage it averages between 8 and 10 l/100 depending almost entirely on the usage for that tank. Also if the wife drives it predominately it uses about 10% more than it would have done if I were driving. :eek:

IMHO these modern diesels don't make sense if you do a lot of highway driving but they do if you do a lot of inner urban stop start stuff. With the increase in cost of diesel and the extra the manufactures charge for the diesel they probably don't make sense if the manufacturer offers a good petrol. Not all of them do though. Subaru are a good example, even their most economical petrol is quite a guzzler by class standards.

---

To be specific, to my work is 80km round trip, mostly highway (with lots of roadworks:mad:) missus moose uses it to run around town and the usual stuff. I love it 'coz it handles great and I quite often take the more fun hill route home thru the twisty stuff. Obviously the fuel usage goes up a touch if I do lots of that.

It's been excellent from a reliability point of view, and plenty of power, though it's a bit more pricey for servicing. It'll probably get sold off next year when I get a lease car. To be honest though the car was mostly bought 'coz we liked the look and feel of it, and it suits what we do with it, not just for the fuel consumption.
I like most of the subaru range, and I'll be interested to see their new diesel when it comes out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RonMcGr

A mate in Adelaide, bough a Getz for his wife.
One day she got "T" boned at an intersect by a hoon running a red light. The poor little Getz gotz spun around and written off. The wife opened her door and stepped out with her broken collar bone.

He bought her another Getz and she was very happy to have another.

---

That's lucky. Maybe she didn't need to have the broken collar bone? Did it hit on the driver or the passenger side? At what speed?

While I applaud consumer crash tests they often don't tell the whole story.

In Australia, the 2002-04 Hyundai Getz was assessed in the Used Car Safety Ratings 2006 as providing "significantly worse than average" protection for its occupants in the event of a crash.

They did add a passenger airbag later but if you value your clients safety why sell the car without it at all? Because they don't care....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moose

To be specific, to my work is 80km round trip, mostly highway (with lots of roadworks:mad:) missus moose uses it to run around town and the usual stuff. I love it 'coz it handles great and I quite often take the more fun hill route home thru the twisty stuff. Obviously the fuel usage goes up a touch if I do lots of that.

It's been excellent from a reliability point of view, and plenty of power, though it's a bit more pricey for servicing. It'll probably get sold off next year when I get a lease car. To be honest though the car was mostly bought 'coz we liked the look and feel of it, and it suits what we do with it, not just for the fuel consumption.
I like most of the subaru range, and I'll be interested to see their new diesel when it comes out.

---

That is a commendable result and I'm sure it's a really good car. I think Mazda have another diesel arriving for the 6 next year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcrover

Coming from a bloke who drives a Defender.........something about glass houses....:p

The only safety feature that means anything in any car is the driver.

Everything else in the end is just different levels of armor.

---

The majority of the driving my family does is our A3. It is built by a company with a long standing commitment to safety. From the euro ncap site.

"The A3 has a very strong and stable passenger safety cage. As a measure of this, after the test (64f offset, drivers side) the driver’s door could still be opened normally. The restraint systems and air bags protected the occupants and kept the driver’s chest and head away from the steering wheel. Side impact protection was also impressive."

I take on board about the defender being not great though. :eek: