|
Ok, after taking some things into consideration, I've decided to put off my car purchase until the end of summer. I just realized that I'll be driving to Burning Man in August and I kind of don't want to bring a nice new car that I just bought there, you know? That said, I'm going to do a bunch of research between now and then and hopefully have a much better idea of what I want when it comes time to buy. Thanks for all of the arguing over hybrids and whatnot. I do have one issue with that chart - it seems to be comparing the MSRP of brand new cars. Buying a few years out, the difference seems to be much smaller between hybrids and non-hybrids. I don't want a big car, so it's nice to see the difference between smaller cars though - the savings in gas cost per year is still a good way to look at the differences even if I decide to buy used. The Civic hybrid seems to have comparable mpg to the Prius, is there any reason not to consider those as well?
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 03:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 05:29 |
|
|
Dunno if this is helpful for you, but I have been pretty impressed with my girlfriend's 2009 Honda Fit. Small, averaging 32-34 mpg, yet holds a poo poo ton. We carried us, our luggage, a bicycle, a large dog crate, and a 70-lb dog on vacation last summer, all inside the car and mostly below the window level. And we brought home a 12 foot roll of carpet in it once too - sticking out, of course, with the hatch tied down. They are $15k-$20k new, depending on options. There may be some problems with the tire pressure monitors in the 2010 models but of course it's a Honda, reliability is good. I can't imagine a hybrid could beat it for economy if it's at all your style.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 06:21
|
|
|
I'm going to buy a new car and I'm looking to get 0% APR for 60 months. My credit score is well over 700, so this shouldn't be an issue. If I'm able to get the above, how much should I put down on the car, considering I'm not paying any interest? My Thought Process: If I can get away with as little as 2,000 down, my payment per month might be ~$350 for a $22K car, but if I've got the money, what's the concern? Why "lose" 3K more to bring it down to $250-300 when I can invest that elsewhere? Apologies if this is a silly question.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 08:01
|
|
|
Faceless Clock posted:
No circumstances except for the law of the United States and the SAE. EPA posted:
Toyota does make a "large car", it's called the Toyota Avalon. Hope this helps. Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 15:48 on May 31, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 15:46
|
|
|
linted posted:I'm going to buy a new car and I'm looking to get 0% APR for 60 months. My credit score is well over 700, so this shouldn't be an issue. If I'm able to get the above, how much should I put down on the car, considering I'm not paying any interest? It really doesn't matter. Your taxes, fees, etc will probably run about 1500 to 1800, you probably don't want to finance those, but you could. The only thing about the 0% financing, is it's usually in lieu of some form of rebate the manufacturer is offering. For example, right now has a 2000 dollar rebate on Ford Fusions OR 0% for 60 months. I can get financed with my credit union for about 3.2%, so it's a wash really. I can finance 24K at 0% or finance 22K at 3.2% and the payment will be about the same. If you're putting down a big down payment, or paying in cash you'll want to take the rebate, if you plan on not putting much down, or financing for a full 60 months, the low APR is usually better.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 16:01
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:No circumstances except for the law of the United States and the SAE. The EPA measures interior volume as a combination of luggage area and Passenger area. The Camry is 101cubic feet of passenger room and 11ft of luggage space. The Prius has 94cubic feet of passenger room and 22ft of luggage space. So yes, while the prius has enough total interior volume to be classified as midsize, the way that volume is laid out will have a huge impact on how roomy the car actually is. If the prius had a trunk instead of a hatch with similiar cargo room as a camry then it would be a compact car. Using the EPA classification is not a very good way of judging how roomy a car is going to be unless you are looking at actual PASSENGER volume numbers and not "compact, midsize, large, etc.." For Example, the Kia Forte is classified as a compact car, yet it has more interior room (97cubic feet) than the prius which is classified as a midsize car. A ford focus has 93 cubic feet, a toyota corolla has 92, a VW golf has 94. These are the cars that are going to be comparable to a Prius in interior room. Don Lapre fucked around with this message at 16:38 on May 31, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 16:33
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:No circumstances except for the law of the United States and the SAE. Did you just say it is the law of the United States to call the Camry and Prius the same class of car? You don't quite understand a law, do you... In any case, I could not care less about EPA classification. People don't cross-shop the Prius and Camry as equivalently sized cars. Period.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 16:54
|
|
|
Faceless Clock posted:Did you just say it is the law of the United States to call the Camry and Prius the same class of car? You don't quite understand a law, do you... Why don't you go ahead and explain it? I'm sure somehow that must completely negate my entire point, otherwise why are you posting? quote:In any case, I could not care less about EPA classification. People don't cross-shop the Prius and Camry as equivalently sized cars. Period. Is that just your opinion, or do you have some kind of survey on what "people" do and don't cross shop you'd like to refer to. quote:So yes, while the prius has enough total interior volume to be classified as midsize, the way that volume is laid out will have a huge impact on how roomy the car actually is. If the prius had a trunk instead of a hatch with similiar cargo room as a camry then it would be a compact car. And if my aunt had a penis she would be my uncle? The point of all this is that comparing the price and fuel efficiency of cars is only relevant if you are comparing like sized cars, and "size" in this case means how much stuff you can carry in the car. The Prius can carry as much as a Camry, and get's better fuel economy. So does the Corolla, but the Corolla can't carry as much. Yes, cars come in all shapes and sizes, some are bigger in some places than others. Since we are talking about cars used for carrying stuff, what difference does it make whether one car has bigger fins on the back or whatever that makes the total lengths longer? That's why the EPA uses interior volume and not total length like you guys are apparently so enthralled with.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 17:08
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:
Cargo volume certainly is important. But what im talking about is when you are sitting in the car is it going to feel Camry sized or is it going to feel Golf sized. It is going to feel similar to a Golf, or Mazda 3, or Kia Forte. People don't buy a larger car usually because of the trunk space, they buy a larger car because its going to feel roomier on the inside. If you go to a toyota dealer and sit in a Corolla, a Camry, and a Prius. The prius is going to be comparable to the Corolla, not the Camry. Don Lapre fucked around with this message at 17:18 on May 31, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 17:15
|
|
|
Don Lapre posted:Cargo volume certainly is important. But what im talking about is when you are sitting in the car is it going to feel Camry sized or is it going to feel Golf sized. It is going to feel similar to a Golf, or Mazda 3, or Kia Forte. People don't buy a larger car usually because of the trunk space, they buy a larger car because its going to feel roomier on the inside. Regardless of what they buy it for, wouldn't you agree that a car that can carry more cargo (or passengers) will typically require more fuel per mile? That was my original point with respect to comparing the Prius to a Corolla, and that's why I brought up the extreme example of a pickup truck too. Yes, I agree that if you don't *need* a midsize car, or a pickup truck, then a Corolla is probably cheaper, I'm just saying you can't really compare the two.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 17:21
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Regardless of what they buy it for, wouldn't you agree that a car that can carry more cargo (or passengers) will typically require more fuel per mile? That really has alot more to do with engines, aerodynamics, gearing, and weight. You can have large lightweight cars and you can have small heavy cars. Regardless of what deal is better. If you are going to compare a hybrid vs non hybrid, the corolla and the prius are a better comparison than the camry and the prius. Someone who wants a Camry sized vehicle would shop the Camry hybrid vs the Camry, not the Prius. Yes i know, technically the Prius and Camry are both midsize, and the Corolla is compact. But the way the car feels when sitting inside, the Camry will feel much larger, and thats what people shop for. The Corolla and Prius will be similiar in interior room when you are sitting inside.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 17:33
|
|
|
Don Lapre posted:Yes i know, technically the Prius and Camry are both midsize, and the Corolla is compact. But the way the car feels when sitting inside, the Camry will feel much larger, and thats what people shop for. The Corolla and Prius will be similiar in interior room when you are sitting inside. This entirely correct, but you're never going to convince throatwarbler. Most people buy hybrids for the wank factor, justifying purchasing one using logic is tough, regardless of what the EPA says. The Prius has a lot of interior space because of the hatch and because the toaster profile gives a ton of headroom, which must be nice for tall people. An Echo with a 6 foot expanding camper top mounted on the roof would be EPA midsize or larger, it's still not a large car. sanchez fucked around with this message at 18:04 on May 31, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 18:01
|
|
|
sanchez posted:This entirely correct, but you're never going to convince throatwarbler. Most people buy hybrids for the wank factor, justifying purchasing one using logic is tough, regardless of what the EPA says. I don't know what I need to be convinced of, since I don't generally disagree with you WRT the passenger space. Using your example, would you still want to compare the Echo with the expanding camper on top to a normal Echo? Is the camper on top worth nothing because you can't feel it sitting in the driver's seat? Again, this is why I brought up the example of a pickup truck. A 2 door truck isn't going to have even as much passenger space as a Corolla, so by your logic that would make it smaller than a Corolla and thus should get better fuel economy?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 18:14
|
|
|
FWIW, I actually did go to the dealership with my fiancee to test drive some Toyotas and the Prius interior is much more roomy than a Corolla. It has to do with how the dash is smaller and more forward in the cabin in the Prius. We did not cross-shop the Camry, but that's because my fiancee was more concerned with outside dimensions (she wanted a "small car"). Honestly, I think the Prius is a damned good choice in that segment. It may take a while to recoup the cost of gas if you pay MSRP, but I'm certain that the cost of gas is more likely to keep going up, not down. Also, the comparisons I see always use highway mileage and not a mix of highway and city, which is more likely to happen in real world driving.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 20:19
|
|
|
Yeah, cubic volume doesn't necessarily mean "perceived volume" nor "usable volume" either. You could build a tall-rear end Homer Simpson car and the volume might be high, but it'd be cramped as hell. I'm perfectly happy with my Corolla partly because I've wound up driving at least 70% of its miles blasting along at 75+ MPH (I've driven cross-country lots of times and do a lot of long-range car trips). A Prius gets worse gas mileage on the highway than the Corolla, so it's worked out better for me than the what, 28 mpg I get city? Oh no, I could have gotten 60 mpg for that 30% (about 18k) that I drove, I'm an environmental monster that should be fined... Never mind the fact that I saved gas over the Prius during the other 70%... sanchez posted:Most people buy hybrids for the wank factor, justifying purchasing one using logic is tough, regardless of what the EPA says. Go ahead and buy whatever you like - it's a free country as far as your dollars are concerned - but if you're not about to use logic to quantify something very much about dollars like gas mileage and TCO, your mind is already made up and there's nothing that'll convince you otherwise.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 20:31
|
|
|
necrobobsledder posted:Yeah, cubic volume doesn't necessarily mean "perceived volume" nor "usable volume" either. You could build a tall-rear end Homer Simpson car and the volume might be high, but it'd be cramped as hell. I would like to try some of this logic. What year is your Corolla? Older than 1980? Because I don't know of any generation of Corolla that gets 48mpg highway. And the bolded part is just  .
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 20:41
|
|
|
I have an '05 - I was considering the '05 Prius at the time, which would make it the 2nd generation or so. That got about 34 mpg highway and my Corolla gets 37-38 mpg (measured by myself doing around 3k RPM at 75 mph on cruise control from full to empty). My gas bill monthly is less than $75 / mo in the Bay Area where I drive 80% city (in stop and go traffic) and gas is among the most expensive in the country. With a newer Prius, I'd be paying about $30 / mo I'd guess. Too bad I'd now have a car loan when my car's been paid off for over a year now. If gas hits, say, $6 / gallon in the US during the lifetime of a Prius, we're looking at far worse problems for your household than whether you'll spend $40 / mo on gas v. $80. But let's assume it does and we're all good - my gas bill now becomes $180 / mo while for the 2010 Prius $90. Ok, in that scenario the 2010 Prius will be better if the cost over the 2010 Corolla is less than the cost of gas (~$80 / mo). Given the Corolla starts at $11k now for a 2010 (in TN I saw a dealer advertising 2010 Corollas for $10k while Priuses were still $20k BEFORE the brakes / gas issues happened), you'll have to spend about $11k more in gas (tax!) with the Corolla over the Prius + its gas use to break even and the gains are amortized over the lifetime of the car as gas goes up in price. So over 120k miles we're looking at: 120000 miles / 60 mpg Prius (optimistic, unrealistically) -> 2000 gallons -> $6 / gallon -> $12000 gas + $20k Prius cost 120000 miles / 30 mpg Corolla (pessimistic-ish - I get 28mpg sitting in rush hour traffic from full to empty) -> 4000 gallons -> $6 / gallon -> $24000 gas + $10k Corolla cost => $32k for Prius, $34k for Corolla skewed heavily against the Corolla and pro for the Prius So there we go - you break even if you average a little less than $6 / gallon gas for the lifetime of the car if you keep both the Corolla and Prius for about 120k miles. This is independent of whether you drive the 120k miles over 5 years or 10 years - your burn rate increases the more you drive. The Prius' advantages are mostly with respect to the environment because its emissions as a hybrid vehicle will rape the Corolla (wasn't it an order of magnitude according to the EPA?), plain and simple. If gas does hit $6 / gallon, that Corolla's value might plummet (doubt it! m Corolla's value went up one year when gas hit $4 / gallon) while the Prius will be kept artificially high by the reactionary masses. Perhaps then you could sell your Prius for a profit and trade in for a Corolla for a measly $4k or something and laugh as you bank the difference. That strategy makes some sense to me. Also factor in that if you're in the market for a Prius, you probably won't keep that car for 10 years like I plan to with the Corolla either through vanity or forcibly through market forces. This is where there's good room for debate and where I think hybrid v. electric v. gas debate should be. By 2020, the Corolla will likely have to be sent to the scrap heap because we'll be on hybrid cars minimum or on electric. If we go electric by then, we don't know how much of a cost premium electric will have over even hybrid - perhaps hybrids will have only lasted ~18 years as an auto fad because electric winds up cheaper than hybrids because gas is too expensive then to justify even a hybrid? What about electric rates at that point? The cost of gas is honestly not going to matter that much between even a 2x difference when you drive less than 15k miles / yr like me while it'll obviously matter more if you burn your cars out, but that just accelerates the "age" of the car and you just wind up at the 120k mile mark faster than me. This all kinda goes out the window once you factor in that lovely tax credit admittedly, and is the reason why I've said above that "going green" isn't cheaper and so requires subsidies to get off the ground for now. But the cost of subsidies, as we have observed from history, is not simple either. Again, your call, I just don't see much reason to definitely spend more money up-front to possibly save a bit more given my driving habits and debatable savings. I've gotten more out of having a reliable car than anything else, and focusing upon my career has gotten me a lot further than focusing upon what I drive among Internet strangers. So I dunno why I typed all that up anymore. Lastly, if you've looked at unemployment figures and U6, it's comparable to the Great Depression. It's very difficult to compare apples to apples because stats were different back then in categories of employment. There's a lot of belief that we'll have another dip in the stock market, probably causing another round of lay-offs and more housing losses. The difference is that we all have a higher standard of living now and there wasn't really much of a social safety net back then. But the lack of visible soup lines doesn't mean that we're living all that much different from a macroscopic view.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 22:22
|
|
|
quote:I have an '05 - I was considering the '05 Prius at the time, which would make it the 2nd generation or so. That got about 34 mpg highway and my Corolla gets 37-38 mpg (measured by myself doing around 3k RPM at 75 mph on cruise control from full to empty). No, according to the EPA, the 2005 Prius got 45mpg on the highway and the 2005 Corolla (5 speed, 1.8l engine) got 37. The reason the EPA figures are better than your anecdotal figures for comparison purposes is that the EPA runs a carefully controlled test cycle on a "rolling road" dynamometer where all the potential variables, are kept constant. This is why carmakers also use the EPA mileage figure in their promotional material, as opposed to "random internet driver anecdotally got 38mpg as he measured himself". Does it replicate perfectly your own driving cycle? No, but unless you have conducted the same kind of testing where all the variables are controlled for, anecdotes are just anecdotes. That's all I'm saying. I'm not telling you to buy a Prius, just making a factual correction.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2010 23:02
|
|
|
Necro, what crazy-assed world are you living on that a Prius costs 12K more than a Corolla? Your figures are all slanted to making you feel good about your purchase of a Corolla. No one is saying it's a slam-dunk for purchasing a Prius over a Corolla. At least try to compare apples to apples.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2010 02:10
|
|
|
I'm not trying to skew it one way or the other - completely honest - just trying to attach some numbers to a debate that should be purely about numbers (are we in AI or BFC?). I'm partly a hippie that hates gas guzzlers and all that so I'd be more biased to support Priuses anyway. It cost $12k more to buy an entry-level Prius in Nashville (a pretty moderate cost of living market) vs. an entry-level Corolla and thought it was a nationwide promotion or something that might be applicable elsewhere because a 50% discount is a huge WTF that'd get a dealer in trouble I figured, so my bad. Around the Bay Area, I see Corollas around $16k while Priuses are typically around $24k for 2010s now I look through a couple ads. The figures I've casually seen for reviews are about $27k for a Prius and about $18k for a similarly equipped Corolla, but that doesn't make sense when others say the Prius is like $22k and the same Corolla $16k. So at best, it looks like $5k difference at minimum while $12k at worst is more accurate - that's a pretty huge margin if you ask me. And if I gave an optimistic estimate for a Prius' gas mileage (isn't 60 mpg optimistic? I've heard rumors of 70 mpg actually but thought they were discredited?) and pessimistic for a Corolla (or Civic or Mazda 3, except the Mazda 3 gets worse mpg last I remember), I'm a really lovely slanter. I'd love to buy a hybrid if it actually saves me money and with minimal complications, but that's what's up for debate here I thought.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2010 03:23
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:This is why carmakers also use the EPA mileage figure in their promotional material Carmakers use EPA figures in all of their materials because they are prohibited from using anything else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2010 05:19
|
|
|
gently caress, I missed out on some pretty awesome Memorial Day lease sales. Retyping this from an ad in the paper:code:$0 down, $0 security deposit, $0 first month's payment, $0 due at signing. I think they get you with the DMV fee though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2010 16:53
|
|
|
Mandalay posted:All are 36-month leases with 12k mi/yr allowances. Everytime I think a lease would be a good idea, I read that and realise I could never lease.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2010 17:22
|
|
|
LorneReams posted:Everytime I think a lease would be a good idea, I read that and realise I could never lease.  I drive like 10k miles/yr. To clarify, you mean that you drive a lot?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2010 17:37
|
|
|
Mandalay posted:
Yeah, I would only feel comfortable at 20K.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2010 17:41
|
|
|
I mentioned to my boss that I was looking to buy a car in the near future, and he told me that I should check out a nearby Manheim car auction - apparently it's dealer only, but you can pay someone a couple hundred dollars to bid for you, and that's how he got his last car. This is the site for the auction. I've never heard of anything like this, and googling seems not to turn up too much info besides the fact that they're dealer-only wholesale auctions. Has anyone ever dealt with something like this before?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2010 03:59
|
|
|
moana posted:I mentioned to my boss that I was looking to buy a car in the near future, and he told me that I should check out a nearby Manheim car auction - apparently it's dealer only, but you can pay someone a couple hundred dollars to bid for you, and that's how he got his last car. This is the site for the auction. I've never heard of anything like this, and googling seems not to turn up too much info besides the fact that they're dealer-only wholesale auctions. Has anyone ever dealt with something like this before? There's at least a few AI regulars that work for them, or something similar, so they could probably tell you more, but yeah, essentially when dealers get stuff back off lease or trade ins, it goes to the auctions. Used car lots then buy at wholesale and sell to you retail. I think if I were in the market for a newer-ish used car, that's the direction I would go, although I've never done it personally. I guess the upside is that you pay wholesale plus a few hundred bucks, the downside would be that you better know what you want, how much to pay, and have all your financing sorted out in advance, just like a dealer would - there's a reason they're dealer only.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2010 05:19
|
|
|
You might ask in AI. There's at least 2 guys who deal with both sides of an auction. Not sure how easy it is to hook up with a licensed dealer who'd be willing to flip a car to you for cheap. e: oop, sorry a bit late
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2010 05:23
|
|
|
I'm getting some really price-competitive, hassle-free quotes from https://www.truecar.com. Seems too good to be true?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2010 20:22
|
|
|
Mandalay posted:I'm getting some really price-competitive, hassle-free quotes from https://www.truecar.com. Seems too good to be true? Interesting website - anyone know how accurate all of the values are? Dealer paid/average paid/factory invoice/etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2010 22:53
|
|
|
I have no clue whether they're accurate or not, but I was able to get a good price through the site. I then used that quote as leverage against a dealer that wasn't 80 miles away.  2010 Honda Accord EX (I4) from Hardin Honda in Anaheim code:
Mandalay fucked around with this message at 00:24 on Jun 5, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2010 00:20
|
|
|
There are, or have been in the past, tax rebates for hybrid cars. Surely that has to be taken into account when comparing prices? Also here is something that I think belongs in this thread; MPG is a deceptive metric. The actual savings in dollars going from 20MPG to 30MPG is substantially larger than the savings going from 30MPG to 40MPG. That's counter-intuitive... in both cases you're going "up by 10MPG", right? Yes, but we don't drive constant gallon-distances, we drive constant miles-distances. Here is a quick chart which shows what I mean:  The X-axis shows MPG. The Y-axis shows a line for total fuel used on a typical 40-mile commute, and the cost of that fuel at $3/gallon. You can quickly see that the actual fuel and cost savings for the same distance trip get smaller and smaller as MPG rises. What this means is that when you are considering fuel economy vs. the cost of two different cars, it's worth it to pay substantially to go from (say) 15MPG to 25MPG, whereas the same "numerical difference" (10MPG) is worth a lot less going from 40MPG to 50MPG. Specifically, 15 to 25 saves you 40% of your fuel costs ($8 goes to $4.80), whereas 40 to 50 saves you only 20% ($3 goes to $2.40).
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2010 00:54
|
|
|
....did you just explain how percentages work?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2010 01:10
|
|
|
Mandalay posted:....did you just explain how percentages work?  I've never seen percentages explained with such a complex graph!
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2010 01:22
|
|
|
No, I'm pointing out that MPG is not a straightline graph for constant distances. It'd be better if we reported fuel economy in volume-per-mile instead, because the constant for most people is miles; they drive a given distance each week (or year or whatever). I didn't mean to oversimplify or talk down to anyone. I could edit it if you're offended.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2010 01:43
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:No, I'm pointing out that MPG is not a straightline graph for constant distances. It'd be better if we reported fuel economy in volume-per-mile instead, because the constant for most people is miles; they drive a given distance each week (or year or whatever). I think he meant this pretty obvious just based on percentages.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2010 00:19
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:There are, or have been in the past, tax rebates for hybrid cars. Surely that has to be taken into account when comparing prices? Harry posted:I think he meant this pretty obvious just based on percentages. It is, which is why fuel economy isn't marketed this way in the US.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2010 00:22
|
|
|
It's anecdotal, but I've certainly met people who were under the impression that going from 30MPG to 40 was 'just as much savings' as going from 20 to 30. I've also seen things like, on TV, "This engine can get 80 MPG! HOly wow that's amaaaaazing!!" when really it's not much better than 50.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2010 04:04
|
|
|
Harry posted:I think he meant this pretty obvious just based on percentages. Not really. This isn't an issue I had thought about before I saw that graph.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2010 04:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 05:29 |
|
|
Mandalay posted:....did you just explain how percentages work? I don't think the vast majority of people think this way, though. I appreciate his graph just as a reminder.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2010 20:59
|
|
