Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Advanced Micro Devices - Off Topic -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pgerassi who wrote (906)	3/13/2007 1:44:53 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1141

Sorry but, that is what you are doing. Not even close. and 5 minutes (the McDonalds near me or the local store or neighborhood school). None of those is considered a commuter. Driving 5 minutes to the local store is a commute. Alright lets take into account those secondary workers who travel more than 6 miles which is the traditional definition of a commuter. I don't accept the 6 mile limit as correct or justified. Right now I commute about 14 miles each way, in a couple of weeks that will be reduced to about 5, but it will still be a commute. Using commuters, 2.8 hours is not an outlier for Chicago Metro, NY Metro, SF Metro or LA Metro. Even using your definition, which I don't accept, 2.8 hours ia an outlier for any metro area in the US. you could buy a small car to do most of the driving and it pays for itself in 5 to 8 years. That would be what many of the smart people would do. You could buy a small car instead of the SUV and it would "pay for itself" instantly. Or you could buy the small care and the SUV and drive both, but people who want SUVs don't always want to drive around all the time in a small car, they bought an SUV because they want to drive one. Also remember I was showing the example of a large SUV. Many SUVs are smaller, some much smaller, and get better gas mileage. They get 37MPG at 130HP when running on gasoline, 40MPG at 110HP on diesel, 20MPG at 170HP on ethanol (E100) and 13MPG at 260HP when using methanol (M100). Unless methanol gives much worse gas mileage your list doesn't seem very accurate. I get almost 20 mpg city with 298 HP and I have a "heavy foot" (more highway but most of my driving is city). Assuming methanol doesn't give you a lot worse gas mileage than gasoline your talking about a heavy or very poorly designed vehicle to get only 13mpg. (My car isn't light, with a driver and a passenger it might be over two tons). OTOH if you replace the engine with a 130 HP engine it would be unlikely to get 37mpg. A 130 HP car might get 37mpg, a 260 HP SUV might get 13 mpg, but they aren't the same vehicle with different engines.