Go Back   986 Forum - for Porsche Boxster & Cayman Owners > Porsche Boxster & Cayman Forums > Performance and Technical chat

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-04-2005, 07:25 AM   #1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 93
fuel enconomy

I like to know if anyone out there have the similar problem that i have ,today i fill up the gas to full tank and had only driving it for 8.8 km the fuel guage meter seem to drop a bit ,if i have to guese is should be around 3mm in gap ,i have driving it once with full tank to light on i am getting 400km is that sound normal ? it's 97 boxster ,is that normal only it's up to full tank? after a 1/4 tank than it seem to be okay ,which u don't notice in when down that quick when looking to the fuel guage ,appericiate if someone know this problem,thank's

911sc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2005, 10:22 AM   #2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota, USA
Posts: 3,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by 911sc
I like to know if anyone out there have the similar problem that i have ,today i fill up the gas to full tank and had only driving it for 8.8 km the fuel guage meter seem to drop a bit ,if i have to guese is should be around 3mm in gap ,i have driving it once with full tank to light on i am getting 400km is that sound normal ? it's 97 boxster ,is that normal only it's up to full tank? after a 1/4 tank than it seem to be okay ,which u don't notice in when down that quick when looking to the fuel guage ,appericiate if someone know this problem,thank's
Hi,

There are really a several issues here. First, if the Car isn't level when you Fuel it, it can cut-off before the Tank is actually Full. Try this again at a different pump which seems level and see if it makes a difference. Second, there is some variation in the Gauge. It can drop more/less suddenly due to Temp, Barometric Pressure and voltage - not much variation, but some nonetheless.

Finally, when trying to determine range, you'd need to consistently drive the same route at the same speed(s), shifting points, weight, Head Wind/Tail Wind to determine anything with consistency. Even a long idle on one tankful will make a difference on your average. The OBC Hack will help alot as it constantly averages and recomputes the data. Hope this helps...

Happy Motoring!...Jim'99
MNBoxster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2005, 11:08 AM   #3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 530
If I understand your question correctly, I believe my Boxster does the same thing.

I can fill up on level ground, and I let the gas pump stop when it detects the tank is full. I know it is full, because if I try to pump any more gas, the tank overflows (done that twice, but no more!).

The gas gauge not only doesn't show completely full (it's just barely below the full mark), it also drops very rapidly. Within 90-100 miles, the gauge is down to just barely above 1/2 tank.

The last half of the tank goes much slower. It will last over 200 miles.

Bottom line is that the gas gauge is not accurate or linear. It could be the sender unit in the tank, or the gauge itself, but since I know how it acts, and I always reset my trip odometer when I refill, it's no big deal.

Jack
JackG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2005, 11:15 AM   #4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: usa
Posts: 560
Hi Jack (and anyone else who has this issue) -- quick question(s) is your box also a 97? Or is this an issue that other people have with all 986s and 987s?
cfos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2005, 11:16 AM   #5
Registered User
 
tqtran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 416
same here, I just reset my trip counter and when it gets to 300 miles I go for a refill.
tqtran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2005, 11:38 AM   #6
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 74
I've got a 2005 987 and on the highway cruising at about 115km/h I can get somewhere in the range of 750-800km on a full tank. I've never actually let it go down to empty but I made almost 600km (Toronto to Montreal) on 3/4 tank. This is about 30mpg or 7.8 l/100km. The gauge seems to be fairly linear (ie about 100km travelled for each 1/8 tank, 400km for 1/2 tank, etc).

All this was with Esso 91 octane gas. I've started using Sunoco 94 octane but things don't seem to have changed too much as far as fuel economy is concerned.

In the city is another story, however. I'm getting somewhere in the range of 15-20mpg, sometimes less.
berj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2005, 11:46 AM   #7
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 530
Quote:
Originally Posted by cfos
Hi Jack (and anyone else who has this issue) -- quick question(s) is your box also a 97? Or is this an issue that other people have with all 986s and 987s?
Mine is a 2000 S model.

Jack
JackG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2005, 01:06 PM   #8
Registered User
 
TriGem2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,431
Send a message via AIM to TriGem2k
Sounds like everyone is getting decent gas mileage... Im lucky if i get 215miles per tank. Any thoughts. Never really thought anything was wrong. Is 215 miles per tank too low? I have a 2001 Boxster.
TriGem2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2005, 01:27 PM   #9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota, USA
Posts: 3,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriGem2k
Sounds like everyone is getting decent gas mileage... Im lucky if i get 215miles per tank. Any thoughts. Never really thought anything was wrong. Is 215 miles per tank too low? I have a 2001 Boxster.
Hi,

Gas mileage is dependent on a number of factors. Your Driving Style, type of Traffic encountered (what mix of Free-Flowing vs Stop & Go), frequency of long periods of idling, terrain encountered, proper Tire inflation, frequency of use of AC, condition of Air Filter, condition of Motor Oil, condition of Brakes, quality and type of fuel, even if you drive Top Up or Top Down or using lots of accessories at once.

If you feel that your mileage isn't adequate, look into each of these things to see if any improvement lies there. Hope this helps...

Happy Motoring!...Jim'99
MNBoxster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2005, 01:41 PM   #10
bmussatti
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Don't worry about miles per gallon....it's all about smiles per gallon that matters!

Look at what people are willing to spend at Starbucks everyday, or bottled water. Don't worry about gas mileage and fuel costs. IMHO.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2005, 03:23 PM   #11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmussatti
Don't worry about miles per gallon....it's all about smiles per gallon that matters!

Look at what people are willing to spend at Starbucks everyday, or bottled water. Don't worry about gas mileage and fuel costs. IMHO.
I respectfully disagree.. somewhat. My main concern isn't necessarily cost spent on gas (though that's important too) but rather gas consumed and its effect on the environment. Certainly I'm aware of the fact that I'm driving a performance car with the attendant consumption but it's always possible to find a balance. If you can change your driving habits somewhat (without losing the enjoyment of your vehicle) why wouldn't you? You save money at the very least.

If I were getting only 350km per tank on the highway I would definitely go get my car checked out -- from my point of view that's 32 extra litres I'm consuming (my car get's 800 per 64 litre fill). Over the course of a year of steady driving that's at least $800 wasted.

Even with combined city and highway driving I'd expect to get something like 500km on a tank.

I'm not sure about older cars, though.. and everyone's driving style is different.
berj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2005, 05:46 PM   #12
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota, USA
Posts: 3,308
Quote:
Originally Posted by berj
I respectfully disagree.. somewhat. My main concern isn't necessarily cost spent on gas (though that's important too) but rather gas consumed and its effect on the environment. Certainly I'm aware of the fact that I'm driving a performance car with the attendant consumption but it's always possible to find a balance. . .
Hi,

OK, this thread has just Officially gotten too weird. Discussing protecting the Environment on a Car Forum is like HandGun Manufacturers promoting their use for Sport.

You're deluding yourself if you think driving a Boxster or any performance car can in anyway be good for the Environment. Such a delusion may provide your conscience with a Feel Good, but that's about all.

Whether you're driving a Hybrid, an F1 Racer, or running a Lawnmower for that matter, every time you use a Gallon of Gas, you're releasing 5 pounds of Carbon into the atmosphere (think of it as throwing a 5lb. Bag of Charcoal out your window)! Do the Math - Gasoline is 80% Carbon and weighs 6.24lbs./Gal., 80% of 6.24lbs. is 4.992lbs.

No, the fact is, you're a Major Polluter, make no mistake about that. It doesn't really matter if you save 10%, then you're only throwing a 4.5lb. Bag of Charcoal out the window for every Gallon burned. Save 20%? Oh Boy, now you're down to 4lbs. No, the fact is, if you burn Gasoline in any form, you pollute. And this includes buying Clothes from Paris or Peaches from Georgia.

For me? I don't care! It's equally delusional to think that the Gas you don't burn won't pollute. Instead, it will be burned by someone else. Most likely some Chinese guy who's forsaken his Bicycle for a Beijing "Heroic", their newest SUV! Personally, I'd rather get the enjoyment from it.

The West's Economies have been fueled by Crude Oil for 100 years, it's the primary reason our Standard of Living has risen so high, so quickly. The Emerging World knows this as well, and they are not going to forego it's use now that their Time in the Sun has arrived. And they haven't even started to really consume yet!

Except for Nuclear, there is simply no energy alternative which has so much energy potential as a Gallon of Crude Oil. I believe we will eventually return to Nuclear Power for providing our energy needs, with or without it's present inherent problems. People will not wish to give up the Standard of Living we now have, in fact, they'll look for ways of increasing it, and this means Energy Consumption. Only Nuclear has the potential to replace Petroleum on a Wide-Scale.

Even you have demonstrated that your Environmental Conscience comes after your own Creature Comforts are met. I mean, it wasn't strong enough to keep you from buying a Porsche. I don't care if you bought a Boxster, just don't pretend you really care about the Environment. In fact, that's some of the problem - millions of people save a Gallon of Gas or recycle their Plastic Milk Bottles and think they're saving the World. Get Real.

Happy Motoring!...Jim'99
MNBoxster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2005, 06:50 PM   #13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNBoxster
Hi,

OK, this thread has just Officially gotten too weird. Discussing protecting the Environment on a Car Forum is like HandGun Manufacturers promoting their use for Sport.

You're deluding yourself if you think driving a Boxster or any performance car can in anyway be good for the Environment. Such a delusion may provide your conscience with a Feel Good, but that's about all.

Whether you're driving a Hybrid, an F1 Racer, or running a Lawnmower for that matter, every time you use a Gallon of Gas, you're releasing 5 pounds of Carbon into the atmosphere (think of it as throwing a 5lb. Bag of Charcoal out your window)! Do the Math - Gasoline is 80% Carbon and weighs 6.24lbs./Gal., 80% of 6.24lbs. is 4.992lbs.

No, the fact is, you're a Major Polluter, make no mistake about that. It doesn't really matter if you save 10%, then you're only throwing a 4.5lb. Bag of Charcoal out the window for every Gallon burned. Save 20%? Oh Boy, now you're down to 4lbs. No, the fact is, if you burn Gasoline in any form, you pollute. And this includes buying Clothes from Paris or Peaches from Georgia.

For me? I don't care! It's equally delusional to think that the Gas you don't burn won't pollute. Instead, it will be burned by someone else. Most likely some Chinese guy who's forsaken his Bicycle for a Beijing "Heroic", their newest SUV! Personally, I'd rather get the enjoyment from it.

The West's Economies have been fueled by Crude Oil for 100 years, it's the primary reason our Standard of Living has risen so high, so quickly. The Emerging World knows this as well, and they are not going to forego it's use now that their Time in the Sun has arrived. And they haven't even started to really consume yet!

Except for Nuclear, there is simply no energy alternative which has so much energy potential as a Gallon of Crude Oil. I believe we will eventually return to Nuclear Power for providing our energy needs, with or without it's present inherent problems. People will not wish to give up the Standard of Living we now have, in fact, they'll look for ways of increasing it, and this means Energy Consumption. Only Nuclear has the potential to replace Petroleum on a Wide-Scale.

Even you have demonstrated that your Environmental Conscience comes after your own Creature Comforts are met. I mean, it wasn't strong enough to keep you from buying a Porsche. I don't care if you bought a Boxster, just don't pretend you really care about the Environment. In fact, that's some of the problem - millions of people save a Gallon of Gas or recycle their Plastic Milk Bottles and think they're saving the World. Get Real.

Happy Motoring!...Jim'99
My friend,

You've got a chip on your shoulder the size of your car, poor reading skills and some pretty skewed logic.

1) I never said (read the post carefully) that my car was good for the environment. In fact I stated quite explicitly that I understood the consumption that went along with my purchase. I *did* however, say that there is a balance to be had. Gluttony is an ugly trait. One doesn't need to consume all one can simply because one can. I get enough enjoyment out of my car *without* having to consume every drop of gas that I can afford. Simple as that.

2) You've got a wierd world view when you say that saving 20% on something is trivial. If I can spend $80 on something instead of $100 I sure as hell will. If I can get the same amount of fun out of something and spit out 4lbs of charcoal and not 5 then I sure as hell will.

3) analogy: that $100 the old lady just dropped out of her purse would just be stolen by someone else so I may as well take it. *I* may as well enjoy it rather than someone else. That sort of ethics may work in your world but not mine.

4) You seem to be arguing with someone else (maybe it makes you feel better about *your* consumption.. I don't know) since nothing in what I said implies that I think one shouldn't consume or can life a life without contributing to pollution. But it *is* possible to contribute as little as possible given the life we choose. Everybody's different and to each their own. I was simply describing my particular position. The fact that you feel that I was trying to force you to do as I do is your problem, not mine.

5) I don't know you but just think of this one thing: if you've got kids or know people that do.. they've got to clean up the mess that we make. Certainly we're gonna make a mess but wouldn't it be nice to make a slightly smaller one?
berj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2005, 08:09 PM   #14
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota, USA
Posts: 3,308
@ Berj,

I think it's you who misunderstand. My reading skills are quite good actually, and the message you convey is one of showing environmental concern for the fact that your consumption is somehow measured. I merely pointed out the fallacy of that type of thinking. I have no quarrel with you, personally or otherwise, I merely think you are unrealistic and uninformed.

I agree that Gluttony for Gluttony's sake is a bad thing, but no one spoke of this at all, this is a new twist you threw into the mix. Realize, Good Intentions do not equate to effectiveness. One may have all the good intentions in the World, but if they are not effective, no real purpose is achieved, only an imaginary one.

I have no guilt about my consumption whatever. I consume and the result is Fun, Jobs, Tax Revenue and of course Pollution. To me, the 1st three outweigh the latter. If that makes me a bad person, well, I am a member of a pretty big club then, and so are you despite whatever you choose to believe. I do not intentionally try to waste fuel, but I do not intentionally try to save it either, at least not for some percieved environmental concern.

You pose the proposition that saving 20% of anything is a good thing, there is nothing but the most abstract logic to this statement. I suspect you'll now try to use the academic arguement that if everybody reduced 20% that real change would take place. There are several problems with this argument.

First, everybody will not do it, meaning that it won't happen and the effort ineffective. You can say it all starts with one, but it has to end up with many more to be effective. And 30+ years of espousing environmental concerns have only seen consumption increase worldwide, so my expectations are not high.

And, you've made no account of the negative effects of such a 20% reduction. Think of all the people who are dependent upon the Oil Industry through the Discovery process, to Recovery, Sales, Distribution and even those people employed in the Environmental Industry who's sustenance comes from Oil. If you reduce consumption, you'll reduce the need for many of these people's jobs. In the short term, this can be more devastating than the gains achieved. Of course, if you are not affected by these, they have no meaning to you, except to say that sooner or later, you or your industry will feel the effects.

Your analogy about the Old Lady's purse is not at all germane to the issue, except again, only in the most abstract of reason.

So far as your item #4, I made no such statements, therse are assumptions on your part and therefore I have no need to address them (perhaps a little reading primer for you is in order?).

Your last argument about future generations does have some validity, but only to a point. Again, effectiveness of a solution has to be factored in. All the legislation and subsequent technical innovation of the '70's to reduce pollution has been more than offset by the increase in numbers of both people and cars.

It may seem fatalistic, but 6 Billion people and counting on this Rock means there are probably no real short-term solutions and no guarantee that any long-term ones will be forthcoming. Everything one does has environmental impact, there's no getting around that, Motorsport is merely my chosen activity.
'Fiddle while Rome Burns' you say, well Nero was powerless to stop the fires, but, at least he enjoyed the music! PEACE!

Happy Motoring!...Jim'99

Last edited by MNBoxster; 10-04-2005 at 08:54 PM.
MNBoxster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2005, 08:26 PM   #15
Registered User
 
Rail26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: El Paso
Posts: 1,147
Regardless of environmental views, I am glad I am able to get 22 mpg in city driving and 32 mpg on the highway on 91 octane. Do I care about the enviroment? Yes. Do I care that I don't have to spend a lot of clams buying gas? Yes. The Box does much better on gas than the soccer mom SUVs. If they made a electric/hybrid Box that had the same performance would I buy it? Yes.

By the way, I don't proofread or spellcheck my postings, I hope I don't offend the English teachers and hallway monitors that seem to be present on this forum.
__________________
'05 987 Basalt Black/Sand Beige
5 spd, 18" wheels
AH-64 Apache
RC-12 Guardrail
RC-7 Crazy Hawk

"If the wings are traveling faster than
the fuselage, it's probably a helicopter--
and therefore, unsafe" --Unknown
Rail26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2005, 09:31 PM   #16
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNBoxster
@ Berj,

I agree that Gluttony for Gluttony's sake is a bad thing, but no one spoke of this at all, this is a new twist you threw into the mix.
Not at all:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNBoxster
For me? I don't care! It's equally delusional to think that the Gas you don't burn won't pollute. Instead, it will be burned by someone else. Most likely some Chinese guy who's forsaken his Bicycle for a Beijing "Heroic", their newest SUV! Personally, I'd rather get the enjoyment from it.
That's gluttony.. ie. I'd better eat it before someone else does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bmussatti
Look at what people are willing to spend at Starbucks everyday, or bottled water. Don't worry about gas mileage and fuel costs. IMHO."
Same here. ie. everyone else is eating.. I may as well join in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MNBoxster
First, everybody will not do it, meaning that it won't happen and the effort ineffective. You can say it all starts with one, but it has to end up with many more to be effective. And 30+ years of espousing environmental concerns have only seen consumption increase worldwide, so my expectations are not high.
I'm sad to see that attitude. It may seem like a platitude but each little piece does help. And 30 years is hardly enough time to wait.. it took us quite some time to get into this situation and it will take time to get out. Seems a little fatalistic to me to just assume that things won't change and thus do nothing. Things like recycling *do* help (eg in the area of landfill use and energy spent on resource extraction). Just look at the area of paper recycling -- something like 40% of newspapers in the US is made of recycled material (and many newspapers took up this initiative voluntarily) do you honestly think we'd be better off *without* that 40%?

I'd personally prefer that my kids (heck even myself) not have to live in a world covered in garbage and I'm damn sure that Michigan is getting tired of taking Toronto's (ie my) garbage even if they are getting paid for the service. So I do my part.. I reduce what I consume and discard (in some areas substantially, in others less so). And by my example many friends have done the same. Any by their example others have done so. It's a simple feedback loop.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MNBoxster
And, you've made no account of the negative effects of such a 20% reduction. Think of all the people who are dependent upon the Oil Industry through the Discovery process, to Recovery, Sales, Distribution and even those people employed in the Environmental Industry who's sustenance comes from Oil. If you reduce consumption, you'll reduce the need for many of these people's jobs. In the short term, this can be more devastating than the gains achieved. Of course, if you are not affected by these, they have no meaning to you, except to say that sooner or later, you or your industry will feel the effects.
I've heard this before and I just don't buy it.. it's a cheap shot and it holds no water. Every bit of technological advancement we've made as been built upon the obsolessence of others and their work. To not do something simply because someone's job will be affected gets us absolutely nowhere. If there's anything our culture has shown is a remarkable ability of people (both individuals and populations) to adapt in such circumstances. And besides, what about all of the people working in the recycling industry? What about all of those researchers working on alternative energy sources? Want to put them out of work?

Then there's the issue of personal financial savings. I've got an expensive car that uses expensive gas. You can bet your ass that I'll be right on the line of enjoyment vs. consumption. It's simply a case of diminshing returns -- 20km/h more speed, faster starts or taking it a bit easy and being able to pocket a little more cash for other things. Like I said before.. it's all about balance for me. Absolutes are no good for anything (yes.. I see the irony in that statement.. but I stand by it)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MNBoxster
Your analogy about the Old Lady's purse is not at all germane to the issue, except again, only in the most abstract of reason.
I disagree. Your argument was that you figured that since someone else was going to use it anyway you'd prefer to use it yourself rather than scaling back your use. Seems the same to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MNBoxster
So far as your item #4, I made no such statements, therse are assumptions on your part and therefore I have no need to address them.
Quite right. I apologize. I was simply reacting against the notion that just because I have the car that I have that I don't (and can't) care for the environment and the idea that I don't know the environmental costs of how I live.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MNBoxster
Your last argument about future generations does have some validity, but only to the point. Again, effectiveness of a solution has to be factored in. All the legislation and subsequent technical innovation of the '70's to reduce pollution has been more than offset by the increase in numbers of both people and cars.
Exactly my point. Imagine if we didn't have those innovations and attitude changes against which our increased consumption could be offset. That's my whole point. Balance. If we want to consume more (and nowhere have I said that we shouldn't be able to consume) then we must pay the piper in some other area. Simple.
berj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2005, 09:35 PM   #17
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 155
I drive a 99' and get about 520km from full to when the light turns on and I drive pretty hard/fast. 400km until the light sounds kind of low under normal driving conditions. maybe you need a tune up? My light comes on after I've used about 14 gallons of gas.

I've seen the fuel guage dropping off fast or not going all the way full on other cars. It ended up being the sending unit that needed to be replaced. It's basically a thing that goes in the the gas tank with a float that gets pushed to the top when the tank is full and goes down when the fuel level goes down. But i did a search of the Porsche 986 catalog for "sending unit" and found nothing. So maybe it is called something different in the Porsche world.

HTH,
Larez2
larez2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2005, 09:51 PM   #18
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota, USA
Posts: 3,308
@Berj,

This exchange is pointless. I will never persuade you because you simply will not accept the fundamental concept of my argument, namely, that an ineffective solution is no solution, only wasted effort. In 30 years, we have not reduced the levels of pollution, it has gone up! Admittedly, some CO were reduced, but the overall effect is an increase in the pollution, not a decrease.

The argument that it would have been worse without some measures is like a Politician arguing that money not spent is money saved. It's not saved at all, it is just not spent, there is a fundamental difference.

You must act as your conscience guides you.

Happy Motoring!...Jim'99
MNBoxster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2005, 10:41 PM   #19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by MNBoxster
@Berj,

This exchange is pointless. I will never persuade you because you simply will not accept the fundamental concept of my argument, namely, that an ineffective solution is no solution, only wasted effort. In 30 years, we have not reduced the levels of pollution, it has gone up! Admittedly, some CO were reduced, but the overall effect is an increase in the pollution, not a decrease.

The argument that it would have been worse without some measures is like a Politician arguing that money not spent is money saved. It's not saved at all, it is just not spent, there is a fundamental difference.

You must act as your conscience guides you.

Happy Motoring!...Jim'99
You're probably right.. but.. one last thing from my end and that will be that (with no hard feelings.. promise )

You're missing something when you say that even with 30 years of efforts polution has gone up (though in some places this isn't true.. but be that as it may).. it's all about rates.. it may have gone up but it certainly didn't go up as fast as it might have otherwise. And that counts for something. Finite (and damaging) resources consumed more slowly -- that's a good thing (TM) and a good start in my books. Obviously you see it differently.

And you're right.. I won't accept that the various efforts (obviously some more effective than others) we make are wasted. The more we try the more likely we are to find one that really works.

Peace out! I'm going for a drive
berj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2005, 06:28 AM   #20
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 93
thank's for all the info really appericiate ,i ask the porsche dealer in toronto ,service manager say ,some boxster owner only getting 300 to 350 km ,for mine 400to 420 is totally normal.-thank's

911sc is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2018 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page