 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / July 2005Who Says Cars Aren't an Investment?
The KTLA Morning News reports that *used* Toyota Priuses are selling for as much or more than new ones. One apparently sold for $31,000. Maybe I'll buy a Prius or two for MSRP and auction them off on eBay for a quick profit...  SignatureSloth Kills! http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/ > The KTLA Morning News reports that *used* Toyota Priuses are selling > for as much or more than new ones. One apparently sold for $31,000. > Maybe I'll buy a Prius or two for MSRP and auction them off on eBay > for a quick profit... This really is proof that math education in the USA is rather poor. On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:36:17 -0500, Brent P , said the following in rec.autos.driving... > > The KTLA Morning News reports that *used* Toyota Priuses > > are selling for as much or more than new ones. One [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > This really is proof that math education in the > USA is rather poor. That and the "must have it now," entitlement to the utmost in convienence that people are accustomed to these days that they are willing to pay thousands over MSRP for a used car rather than wait a couple of months for delivery of new one... > On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:36:17 -0500, Brent P , said the following in > rec.autos.driving... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > thousands over MSRP for a used car rather than wait a couple of months > for delivery of new one... The thing is, besides the look-at-me-i'm-driving-a-hyrbid factor, I was refering to the cost analysis. They think they'll make it back on fuel savings, but unless gasoline hits $4-5 a gallon they would have been better off with a conventional gasoline powered car of similiar size with the best available fuel economy. >> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:36:17 -0500, Brent P , said the following in >> rec.autos.driving... [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >better off with a conventional gasoline powered car of similiar size with >the best available fuel economy. Perhaps for some, it's worth the economic cost to pollute less. (or do you side with CH and claim that hybrids are more harmful to the enviro?) Perhaps Bio-Willie is the answer. That's right - Willie Nelson is selling biodiesel. http://www.wnbiodiesel.com/ >>The thing is, besides the look-at-me-i'm-driving-a-hyrbid factor, I was >>refering to the cost analysis. They think they'll make it back on fuel >>savings, but unless gasoline hits $4-5 a gallon they would have been >>better off with a conventional gasoline powered car of similiar size with >>the best available fuel economy. > Perhaps for some, it's worth the economic cost to pollute less. (or > do you side with CH and claim that hybrids are more harmful to the > enviro?) A bigger nearly totally clean gasoline engine vs. the manufacturing burden of the hybrid's batteries, electric motors, etc. Not to mention battery replacement. Make sure you do a total comparision. There are many ways to avoid polluting, some are not as apparent as others. > Perhaps Bio-Willie is the answer. > That's right - Willie Nelson is selling biodiesel > http://www.wnbiodiesel.com/ I like bio-gasoline. http://www.changingworldtech.com/ > The KTLA Morning News reports that *used* Toyota Priuses are selling > for as much or more than new ones. One apparently sold for $31,000. > Maybe I'll buy a Prius or two for MSRP and auction them off on eBay > for a quick profit... You can't buy a Prius for MSRP, though. Well, odds are a worse than a snowball's chance in hell. The graft of the dealership is anywhere from 3,000 to 5,000 over MSRP. Prius has a demand and buzz that's even bigger than the PT Cruiser and the VW Beetle, relative to the supply. > The graft of the dealership is anywhere from 3,000 to 5,000 over MSRP. > Prius has a demand and buzz that's even bigger than the PT Cruiser and the > VW Beetle, relative to the supply. The joys of a perception based society..... > > The KTLA Morning News reports that *used* Toyota Priuses are selling > > for as much or more than new ones. One apparently sold for $31,000. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Prius has a demand and buzz that's even bigger than the PT Cruiser and the > VW Beetle, relative to the supply. Really? A local dealer has run an add with a price below MSRP. I think dealers plant stories like this to con the weak willed. Ed >> The KTLA Morning News reports that *used* Toyota Priuses are selling >> for as much or more than new ones. One apparently sold for $31,000. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You can't buy a Prius for MSRP, though. Well, odds are a worse than a > snowball's chance in hell. That's because people are stupid. Even at $5/gallon a Prius' total cost of ownership is much higher as the one of any comparable small economy car - and that's not counting costly repairs to the battery, which has a limited lifespan. > The graft of the dealership is anywhere from 3,000 to 5,000 over MSRP. > Prius has a demand and buzz that's even bigger than the PT Cruiser and the > VW Beetle, relative to the supply. It's a fad. The people, who drive Priusses do so, because they want to look intellectual, not because they care for the environment. It's the Volvo of the new decade. Chris >It's a fad. The people, who drive Priusses do so, because they want to >look intellectual, not because they care for the environment. It's the >Volvo of the new decade. Really? And you know this how? When I considered a hybrid, it certainly wasn't because I wanted to look "intellectual". Believe it or not, some people actually give a sh.t about the environment. >>It's a fad. The people, who drive Priusses do so, because they want to >>look intellectual, not because they care for the environment. It's the >>Volvo of the new decade. > > Really? Yes, really. > And you know this how? I see the same idiots that usually are driving very old Volvos strutting towards their new Priusses, maneuvering them ineptly out of their parking and driving off. > When I considered a hybrid, it certainly wasn't because I wanted to > look "intellectual". Believe it or not, some people actually give a > sh.t about the environment. So do I, which is why I don't junk my non-hybrid car and buy a hybrid vehicle that takes a lot of energy to produce and uses a lot of poisonous chemicals in its batteries, which have only a very limited lifespan, but rather accept a lower mileage. Even if my car was old, junking a perfectly good driver to replace it by a questionable hybrid is not an economic or environmental decision but a fad for misguided and uninformed people. Chris >>>It's a fad. The people, who drive Priusses do so, because they want to >>>look intellectual, not because they care for the environment. It's the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >towards their new Priusses, maneuvering them ineptly out of their parking >and driving off. And this includes every driver of every Prius or other hybrid you've ever seen? >> When I considered a hybrid, it certainly wasn't because I wanted to >> look "intellectual". Believe it or not, some people actually give a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >chemicals in its batteries, which have only a very limited lifespan, but >rather accept a lower mileage. Forget your red herring about replacing a perfectly good car, since it's not safe to assume that people wouldn't be replacing their old POS as I was when I considered one. Quantify the environmental costs of producing these batteries vs. those of burning a whole lot more fossil fuels. Is it really more costly? No fair assuming the batteries will be disposed of improperly - assume they are disposed of properly. >Even if my car was old, junking a perfectly good driver to replace it by a >questionable hybrid is not an economic or environmental decision but a fad >for misguided and uninformed people. Prove it then. Show us that producing the battery for 1 hybrid car is going to be worse for the environment than all the extra fuel you would burn in a regular old gasoline engine. I'll be very surprised if you can. >Chris >>I see the same idiots that usually are driving very old Volvos strutting >>towards their new Priusses, maneuvering them ineptly out of their parking >>and driving off. > > And this includes every driver of every Prius or other hybrid you've > ever seen? This includes the large majority of Prius drivers I have seen. >>So do I, which is why I don't junk my non-hybrid car and buy a hybrid >>vehicle that takes a lot of energy to produce and uses a lot of poisonous [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it's not safe to assume that people wouldn't be replacing their old > POS as I was when I considered one. You said I don't care about the environment, because I dont adore the Prius. I merely stated the truth, which is that replacing my perfectly good car with a Prius would be an environmental disadvantage. > Quantify the environmental costs of producing these batteries vs. those > of burning a whole lot more fossil fuels. You have to take into account the environmental costs of producing the entire car, which in 99.9% of all cars is higher than the amount of energy they consume when being driven during their lifespan. > Is it really more costly? Yes, it is more costly to replace even a good condition gas guzzler with a Prius. > No fair assuming the batteries will be disposed of improperly - assume > they are disposed of properly. ... which will take more energy. And even more to produce the replacement, because the Prius batteries don't last for the life of the car. >>Even if my car was old, junking a perfectly good driver to replace it by >>a questionable hybrid is not an economic or environmental decision but a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > going to be worse for the environment than all the extra fuel you would > burn in a regular old gasoline engine. You need to get the big picture, not only concentrate on that battery. Chris >>>I see the same idiots that usually are driving very old Volvos strutting >>>towards their new Priusses, maneuvering them ineptly out of their parking [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >You said I don't care about the environment, because I dont adore the >Prius. Actually, it was you who made the claim that Prius drivers don't care about the environment. Perhaps not all of them do, but I didn't see where he said that about you. > I merely stated the truth, which is that replacing my perfectly >good car with a Prius would be an environmental disadvantage. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >entire car, which in 99.9% of all cars is higher than the amount of energy >they consume when being driven during their lifespan. You have to take into account the DIFFERENCE in producing a Prius over the production of whatever car you end up buying. >> Is it really more costly? > >Yes, it is more costly to replace even a good condition gas guzzler with a >Prius. He said to *forget* the bit about replacing a perfectly good car. You cannot simply assume that every Prius driver ditched a perfectly good car. You also can't assume that this perfectly good car isn't going to replace someone's totalled beater that doesn't run anymore. >> No fair assuming the batteries will be disposed of improperly - assume >> they are disposed of properly. > >... which will take more energy. And even more to produce the replacement, >because the Prius batteries don't last for the life of the car. Then factor that in and state the environmental impact of both for comparison. You're making lots of claims - you're not backing any of them up. >>>Even if my car was old, junking a perfectly good driver to replace it by >>>a questionable hybrid is not an economic or environmental decision but a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >You need to get the big picture, not only concentrate on that battery. It seems to me that IS the big picture. With the exception of the battery, I'd expect the environmental "cost" of producing a Prius is pretty much the same as the production of a similarly sized gas-burning car. With an internal combustion engine, you have to replace the fuel every week or so (depending on how much gas you burn). Granted, you still burn some gas with the hybrid, but it is a lot less. You may well be right, but I find it interesting that you don't offer anything other than what appears to be a hunch on your part. And even if you ARE right that a hybrid is worse for the environment than a gas engine, it still doesn't mean that hybrid drivers don't care about the environment. >Chris >>You said I don't care about the environment, because I dont adore the >>Prius. > > Actually, it was you who made the claim that Prius drivers don't care > about the environment. Perhaps not all of them do, but I didn't see > where he said that about you. It was I who made the claim that other factors are deciding their purchase. It was N E One though, who asserted I don't care about the environment just because I don't have my current car junked and run to buy a Prius. >>You have to take into account the environmental costs of producing the >>entire car, which in 99.9% of all cars is higher than the amount of energy >>they consume when being driven during their lifespan. > > You have to take into account the DIFFERENCE in producing a Prius over > the production of whatever car you end up buying. No. The question was, whether it would benefit the environment if I junked my current car and got a Prius instead. It wouldn't, quite on the contrary. And when your fabulous Prius is already in the junkyard and you have just damaged the environment more by having its successor built, my car will very likely still be on the road. >>> Is it really more costly? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > cannot simply assume that every Prius driver ditched a perfectly good > car. Only a tiny fraction of Prius drivers junked an old clunker, most of them sold their car to buy the Prius, which means, their car is still on the road and according to their assertion still 'polluting'. > You also can't assume that this perfectly good car isn't going > to replace someone's totalled beater that doesn't run anymore. Possible but unlikely. Most cars are handed down from buyer through a number of used car buyers until it is junked. >>... which will take more energy. And even more to produce the >>replacement, because the Prius batteries don't last for the life of the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You're making lots of claims - you're not backing any of them up. You haven't backed anything up, so why should I? >>You need to get the big picture, not only concentrate on that battery. >> > It seems to me that IS the big picture. It seems to me you need to justify that Prius at any cost. > With the exception of the battery, I'd expect the environmental "cost" > of producing a Prius is pretty much the same as the production of a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Granted, you still burn some gas with the hybrid, but it is a lot less. It is a bit less, but not a lot. The mileage Toyota claims is beyond optimistic and I guarantee you, that I wouldn't get more than maybe 30-40mpg in everyday driving with it, simply because Id have to wring out that puny engine to its last bit to get the same performance I get with my car at a very relaxed pace. > You may well be right, but I find it interesting that you don't offer > anything other than what appears to be a hunch on your part. As you haven't offered anything other than what appears not even a hunch on your part, but a bunch of vague suspicions, I see no reason why I should offer something. > And even if you ARE right that a hybrid is worse for the environment > than a gas engine, it still doesn't mean that hybrid drivers don't care > about the environment. Where did I write that the hybrid is worse? I wrote, that replacing a good car with a Prius is bad for the environment, and that's a fact. Chris > No. The question was, whether it would benefit the environment if I junked > my current car and got a Prius instead. It wouldn't, quite on the contrary. Most cars are recycled. Over 75 percent of a new car you buy is made from old cars. The batteries in the Prius are relatively environmentally benign and Toyota has a program to recycle them. > And when your fabulous Prius is already in the junkyard and you have just > damaged the environment more by having its successor built, my car will > very likely still be on the road. But you'll be paying for the increased price of gas, and also will be emitting alot more carbon dioxide than the person driving the Prius. It's not always worth it to junk a new car simply because a new car with better fuel economy is out- but sometimes it can be worth it. > It is a bit less, but not a lot. The mileage Toyota claims is beyond > optimistic and I guarantee you, that I wouldn't get more than maybe > 30-40mpg in everyday driving with it, simply because Id have to wring out > that puny engine to its last bit to get the same performance I get with my > car at a very relaxed pace. Prius doesn't have a puny powerplant. Granted, its not a muscle car, but the 0-60 is 11 seconds. Not bad for a car that gets around 50 miles per gallon. I test drove a Prius and was amazed by how easy the car was to drive- a little too easy, becaues the engine noise does not correlate with the speed very much. 0-60 times are also not the best way to judge a car for on-the-road driving. You need to look at passing speed, where torque is a big factor. Hybrid cars have alot of torque because of the electric motors. >> No. The question was, whether it would benefit the environment if I junked >> my current car and got a Prius instead. It wouldn't, quite on the >> contrary. > > Most cars are recycled. Over 75 percent of a new car you buy is made > from old cars. That is not true. Steel recycling drastically reduces steel quality, which means you have to add a high percentage of new steel to get automotive grade steel again. > The batteries in the Prius are relatively environmentally benign and > Toyota has a program to recycle them. You have been reading Toyota sales brochures again. >> And when your fabulous Prius is already in the junkyard and you have >> just damaged the environment more by having its successor built, my car >> will very likely still be on the road. > > But you'll be paying for the increased price of gas, and also will be > emitting alot more carbon dioxide than the person driving the Prius. No, the person driving the Prius will have emitted a lot more carbon dioxide than my car will do for the rest of its lifespam just by having their Prius built. > It's not always worth it to junk a new car simply because a new car > with better fuel economy is out- but sometimes it can be worth it. No, it's never worth it. And if you knew enough about energy used in automotive production you would know that. >> It is a bit less, but not a lot. The mileage Toyota claims is beyond >> optimistic and I guarantee you, that I wouldn't get more than maybe [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Prius doesn't have a puny powerplant. Granted, its not a muscle car, > but the 0-60 is 11 seconds. That _is_ puny. My car accelerates from 0 to 60 in 5 seconds and you are seriously recommending such a rolling roadblock as a replacement? > Not bad for a car that gets around 50 miles per gallon. I guarantee you, if I drove a Prius the mileage would not even be close to 50mpg, simply because I dont just tap the accelerator scarefully (note the combination of scared and careful), which is necessary to even come into the ballpark of Toyota's extremely optimistic figures. > I test drove a Prius and was amazed by how easy the car was to > drive- a little too easy, becaues the engine noise does not correlate > with the speed very much. Unfortunately not everyone just wants to be a passenger in their own car. I require feedback from my suspension and also from the engine, which the Prius cannot offer. > 0-60 times are also not the best way to judge a car for on-the-road > driving. You need to look at passing speed, where torque is a big > factor. Hybrid cars have alot of torque because of the electric motors. You have no idea, what 'a lot of torque' is. Chris >No, the person driving the Prius will have emitted a lot more carbon >dioxide than my car will do for the rest of its lifespam just by having >their Prius built. Was that some sort of Freudian Slip? :) SignatureSloth Kills! http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/ On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:05:58 -0700, Scott en Aztlán wrote: >>No, the person driving the Prius will have emitted a lot more carbon >>dioxide than my car will do for the rest of its lifespam just by having >>their Prius built. > > Was that some sort of Freudian Slip? :) How was that a Freudian slip? Chris > On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:05:58 -0700, Scott en Aztlán wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > How was that a Freudian slip? "Lifespam". Clearly a typo, but a funny one. :) Signature~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. ******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant." (pgp@v6stang.com for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) >> But you'll be paying for the increased price of gas, and also will be >> emitting alot more carbon dioxide than the person driving the Prius. > >No, the person driving the Prius will have emitted a lot more carbon >dioxide than my car will do for the rest of its lifespam just by having >their Prius built. Back on the building thing again - do you think if Prius owners didn't buy their Prius they'd simply continue to drive their old cars? >> Prius doesn't have a puny powerplant. Granted, its not a muscle car, >> but the 0-60 is 11 seconds. > >That _is_ puny. My car accelerates from 0 to 60 in 5 seconds not really typical, is it? > and you are >seriously recommending such a rolling roadblock as a replacement? Not for you obviously, but what does that have to do with Prius drivers trying to look "intellectual"? >>> Prius doesn't have a puny powerplant. Granted, its not a muscle car, >>> but the 0-60 is 11 seconds. >> >>That _is_ puny. My car accelerates from 0 to 60 in 5 seconds > > not really typical, is it? No, but neither is 11s from 0-60. Even econoboxes nowadays manage to get to 60 in less than 10s. Chris > No, but neither is 11s from 0-60. Even econoboxes nowadays manage to get > to 60 in less than 10s. Toyota Corolla's O-60 is about 11 seconds, Honda Civic is about 12 seconds. You are wrong. 0-60 of 11 seconds is fast compared to some cars of the past. Cars in the 40's and 50's were considered "fast" if they could accelerate that quickly. In Europe many of the cars that are driven have 0-60 acceleration of over 10 seconds, and some over 14 seconds. >> No, but neither is 11s from 0-60. Even econoboxes nowadays manage to get >> to 60 in less than 10s. > > Toyota Corolla's O-60 is about 11 seconds, Honda Civic is about 12 > seconds. You are wrong. No, I am not. Econoboxes like the Golf 1.8t accelerate from 0-60 in significantly less than 10s. > 0-60 of 11 seconds is fast compared to some cars of the past. 60mph is fast compared to Benz's first automobile. Nevertheless I appreciate the fact that my car is a lot faster than 60mph. > Cars in the 40's and 50's were considered "fast" if they could > accelerate that quickly. In Europe many of the cars that are driven have > 0-60 acceleration of over 10 seconds, and some over 14 seconds. ... which is one of the reasons why I like to be here instead of in Europe. Chris > > But you'll be paying for the increased price of gas, and also will be > > emitting alot more carbon dioxide than the person driving the Prius. > > No, the person driving the Prius will have emitted a lot more carbon > dioxide than my car will do for the rest of its lifespam just by having > their Prius built. OK... here you are full of crap. The energy to make a car can come from renewable resources or resources that do not produce CO2 as waste products. I also want proof that making a car uses so much energy . If your SUV gets only 18 mpg, well, I can't see how driving it 12,000 miles a year wouldn't use more energy than making it. A gallon of gasoline has about 41 kw/hr of energy- most of it is wasted by a gasoline engine. I don't see how it could possibly take more energy to make a new car than to drive it around. > That _is_ puny. My car accelerates from 0 to 60 in 5 seconds and you are > seriously recommending such a rolling roadblock as a replacement? You obviously drive a sports car that exceeds the needs of almost all drivers, realisticly. You do not need that kind of acceleration to drive a car. If you need that kind of acceleration, you are driving wrong (likely speeding to pass, rather than looking for openings). > I guarantee you, if I drove a Prius the mileage would not even be close to > 50mpg, simply because I dont just tap the accelerator scarefully (note > the combination of scared and careful), which is necessary to even come > into the ballpark of Toyota's extremely optimistic figures. Prius was driven by professional drivers in the EPA tests, none of whom tapped the accelerator scarefully. In the real world the Prius, at worst, seems to get around 40-50 mpg on highways, and in the mid 30's in very cold winter, as the cold saps the energy out of the batteries. Some people of course get much better fuel economy. > > 0-60 times are also not the best way to judge a car for on-the-road > > driving. You need to look at passing speed, where torque is a big > > factor. Hybrid cars have alot of torque because of the electric motors. > > You have no idea, what 'a lot of torque' is. Rotational force to move a wheel, in this case. >> > But you'll be paying for the increased price of gas, and also will be >> > emitting alot more carbon dioxide than the person driving the Prius. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > energy- most of it is wasted by a gasoline engine. I don't see how it > could possibly take more energy to make a new car than to drive it around. You need to take some course in basic thermodynamics before there's any use debating any of those statements. Since I feel playful \, I'll jus throw some one-liners to show the contradicitons in there: From what you say all electricity comes from renewable sources, right? After all that's what manufacturers would use in the factories. Most stored energy is wasted, no matter how its conversion. The Otto cycle is not a particularly ineffective one. >> That _is_ puny. My car accelerates from 0 to 60 in 5 seconds and you are >> seriously recommending such a rolling roadblock as a replacement? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > car. If you need that kind of acceleration, you are driving wrong (likely > speeding to pass, rather than looking for openings). If you're not speeding to pass, you are not passing anyone. You might be micro-passing creating all kinds of nasty problems, from adding congestion to inducing road rage. >> I guarantee you, if I drove a Prius the mileage would not even be close to >> 50mpg, simply because I dont just tap the accelerator scarefully (note [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > winter, as the cold saps the energy out of the batteries. Some people of > course get much better fuel economy. You need to learn about EPA testing too. Hint: there's no driver in the car! SignatureIgnasi. (using SPAM trap e-mail address) > From what you say all electricity comes from renewable sources, right? > After all that's what manufacturers would use in the factories. No reason it couldn't at least theoretically. And while nuclear energy is not renewable, it's practically infinite. Therefore, the energy needed to make an automobile is negligible, if you are including powering the factory, machinery, and robots. OTOH, gas is not renewable. > Most stored energy is wasted, no matter how its conversion. The Otto > cycle is not a particularly ineffective one. The Diesel cycle is more thermodynamicly efficient. That was the whole point of Rudolf Diesel's work. The only engines that will rival that efficiency will be direct injection gasoline engines using lean mixtures, but those won't be common in the US until after the sulfur is removed from gasoline. > If you're not speeding to pass, you are not passing anyone. Not necessarily. What if I pass behind somebody, and there's nobody else behind that car? If I cut off somebody, big deal. They don't have a right to speed, they can be inconvenienced a little, it's part of driving. And if they give me any crap, well, I will defend myself to the best of my abilities. It's not like I go out of my way to screw over leadfoots, I'm not that type of person, but I have a right to use the left lane too. > You need to learn about EPA testing too. Hint: there's no driver in > the car! Oh really? The EPA website says their is a human driver. They use various drivers, average their scores, and have them drive predetermined plans at various speeds. They watch a display that tells them what speed they should be driving at any given time, when they should stop, etc. >> From what you say all electricity comes from renewable sources, right? >> After all that's what manufacturers would use in the factories. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > including powering the factory, machinery, and robots. OTOH, gas is not > renewable. No energy is renewable, period. The second law of thermodynamics is a thing of beauty. In our planet there are a few energy sources we could look at as infinite. Basically if the sun goes away, we're doomed anyways. >> Most stored energy is wasted, no matter how its conversion. The Otto >> cycle is not a particularly ineffective one. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > but those won't be common in the US until after the sulfur is removed from > gasoline. We're talking about minute differences when looking at the overall energy conversion efficiency. Not at the theoreticall one. >> If you're not speeding to pass, you are not passing anyone. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > various speeds. They watch a display that tells them what speed they should > be driving at any given time, when they should stop, etc. SignatureIgnasi. (using SPAM trap e-mail address) >> No, the person driving the Prius will have emitted a lot more carbon >> dioxide than my car will do for the rest of its lifespam just by having >> their Prius built. > > OK... here you are full of crap. The energy to make a car can come from > renewable resources or resources that do not produce CO2 as waste products. The energy comes from either oil/coal or nuclear plants, which are worse in terms of environmental risks. The amount of energy from renewable sources in car production is negligible. > I also want proof that making a car uses so much energy. google is your friend. > If your SUV gets only 18 mpg, I don't own an SUV. I have a truck though. Unfortunately the Prius is not able to replace it. I use the truck to haul heavy items, pull a heavy trailer and drive off-road. The Prius is unable do any of these things. Almost exactly 0% of people, who buy a Prius, replace a SUV with it. More likely it is an old Volvo or Toyota, that is being replaced. > well, I can't see how driving it 12,000 miles a year > wouldn't use more energy than making it. You don't see a lot of things, that's what makes poking and prodding your half-baked knowledge so amusing. >> That _is_ puny. My car accelerates from 0 to 60 in 5 seconds and you >> are seriously recommending such a rolling roadblock as a replacement? > > You obviously drive a sports car that exceeds the needs of almost all > drivers, realisticly. It may exceed the requirements of most drivers, but it doesn't exceed mine. But even econoboxes like a Golf 1.8t get acceleration times of 8s or less for 0-60. > You do not need that kind of acceleration to drive a car. It has saved my skin in at least 2 situations, so it was a good investment. > If you need that kind of acceleration, you are driving wrong (likely > speeding to pass, rather than looking for openings). I can assure you I am a much better driver than you are (at least if your clueless rants here are an indication) and that unlike you I know how to drive a sportscar properly, i.e. safely. >> I guarantee you, if I drove a Prius the mileage would not even be close >> to 50mpg, simply because I dont just tap the accelerator scarefully [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > in very cold winter, as the cold saps the energy out of the batteries. > Some people of course get much better fuel economy. Some people need to justify their car purchase, of course they will claim they get better fuel mileage. And that the EPA tests are often very far off the mark, especially in economy cars, is a well known fact, that in a decade or so will filter even into your brain. >> > 0-60 times are also not the best way to judge a car for on-the-road >> > driving. You need to look at passing speed, where torque is a big [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Rotational force to move a wheel, in this case. You need to look up the difference between the word 'torque' and the phrase 'a lot of torque. You may have learned the definition of the former by rote or just looked it up, you have no idea, what the latter is, though. Don't worry, a lot of 18-year-olds like you think they know everything, and they usually grow out of it, when they start accumulating some real knowledge. And as one has invested much too much money in some rattely diesel fuel economy becomes the center of the universe and every argument is measured by how well it supports the assertion that the world revolves around the number on your last gas bill. Chris > The energy comes from either oil/coal or nuclear plants, which are worse > in terms of environmental risks. The amount of energy from renewable > sources in car production is negligible. Nuclear power has negligible risk. It kills fewer people than mining coal does, and it also releases alot of air pollution. It's hardly the best solution, but we don't live in a perfect world. In a perfect world, wind an solar power would be enough. But I'm a grown up about those things. > Almost exactly 0% of people, who buy a Prius, replace a SUV with it. More > likely it is an old Volvo or Toyota, that is being replaced. Well, you are wrong, alot of people do replace SUV's with Priuses. Ever heard of Arianna Huffington? She's a columnist or something (I don't read op-eds alot, but I saw her on C-Span once), but apparrently she used to drive a Lincoln Navigator but now drives a Prius and she has some kind of anti-SUV campaign. If gas hits 3 dollars a gallon, which it could in the next few years, alot of people, especially working folks who aren't rich, are going to be interested in saving gas. The Prius has alot of room, enough cargo space, although it's probably not up to your needs. The Ford Escape Hybrid might be, though. It can tow several tons, it does have AWD as an option, although it might have problems with a large enough trailer. Toyota is also comming out with a midsize SUV hybrid. > It may exceed the requirements of most drivers, but it doesn't exceed > mine. But even econoboxes like a Golf 1.8t get acceleration times of > 8s or less for 0-60. Golf 1.8t is a "muscle box", hardly an econobox. The standard Golf is around ten seconds, maybe more for the automatic. Acceleration is relative. Only a few decades ago, sports cars had that kind of acceleration these "econoboxes" you are lambasting have. Why do people need more to just go get groceries and pick up their little beasts at school? > Don't worry, a lot of 18-year-olds like you think they know everything, > and they usually grow out of it, when they start accumulating some real > knowledge. And as one has invested much too much money in some rattely > diesel fuel economy becomes the center of the universe and every argument > is measured by how well it supports the assertion that the world revolves > around the number on your last gas bill. Well, maybe you don't care about fuel economy. Maybe you don't care about environmentalism. Some people do. When you see 4 bad hurricanes right after another, and the weather experts saying its caused by unusually high water temperatures in the Carribean, well, you no longer have look around hard to find proof of all this global warming stuff. It's no longer academic. And I don't want to be part of the culture that causes that kind of destruction. At some point I have to put my foot down and try every way I can to reject that kind of thoughtless disregard, even if it doesn't matter . At least my conscience will be clean. >Prius was driven by professional drivers in the EPA tests, none of whom >tapped the accelerator scarefully. In the real world the Prius, at worst, >seems to get around 40-50 mpg on highways, and in the mid 30's in very cold >winter, as the cold saps the energy out of the batteries. Some people of >course get much better fuel economy. The EPA uses dynos to get their figures; no drivers involved. The real world is far to variable to let them get reliable, repeatable figures. The Prius gets the same mileage on an open road as any other car with the same size engine and drivetrain. The electrics aren't used on the open road, as the energy conversions would make for inefficiencies that just aren't needed. The HP needed to maintain 50-55mph is only about 7-9. It's in stop-and-go driving where hybrids shine; with the small engines not capable of the torque wanted for accelleration, the batteries make up the difference. SignatureBill Funk Change "g" to "a" > The EPA uses dynos to get their figures; no drivers involved. The real > world is far to variable to let them get reliable, repeatable figures. > The Prius gets the same mileage on an open road as any other car with > the same size engine and drivetrain. The electrics aren't used on the > open road, Yes, it does use the electric on highway driving. I was driving a Prius around at 55 mph on a highway. It's not like the Honda Civic Hybrid that only uses the electric engine during acceleration. The Prius can act as a series hybrid to a degree- it charges the battery when the engine is running. The Honda Civic Hybrid does not do this, it only charges the battery during coasting and braking, and the logic for when to apply electric power or turn off the gas engine is alot simpler. > as the energy conversions would make for inefficiencies > that just aren't needed. The HP needed to maintain 50-55mph is only > about 7-9. > It's in stop-and-go driving where hybrids shine; with the small > engines not capable of the torque wanted for accelleration, the > batteries make up the difference. In the US, nobody would buy a car with a 75 hp gasoline engine, they would consider it undriveable. Yet the Prius accelerates far faster than a 75 hp engine would, due to the 35 hp electric motor. So it is an advantage. The Prius, being a partial serial hybrid, also gets better fuel economy than a 75 hp engine would anyways, because it captures some of the waste energy in the batteries that it does not need, a 75 hp engine, even with variable valve timing is not going to be that good. >> The EPA uses dynos to get their figures; no drivers involved. The real >> world is far to variable to let them get reliable, repeatable figures. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >battery during coasting and braking, and the logic for when to apply >electric power or turn off the gas engine is alot simpler. There's no reason to use the electric motors while driving steady-state speeds. The conversion of energy is wasteful, and would decrease mileage. Chargng he batteries isn't using the electrics to drive. >> as the energy conversions would make for inefficiencies >> that just aren't needed. The HP needed to maintain 50-55mph is only [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >the batteries that it does not need, a 75 hp engine, even with variable >valve timing is not going to be that good. You (and several others here who think fuel economy is their god) would buy 75 hp cars. Why not? As you yourself have asked, why would you need more? SignatureBill Funk Change "g" to "a" > There's no reason to use the electric motors while driving > steady-state speeds. If the gas engine is not operating at peak load otherwise, the battery can reclaim some of the power from the engine that would otherwise be wasted (to charge it up, to power accessories). The AC and other components can then be run off the electric system instead of off the engine (Honda Civic Hybrid doesn't do this, it powers the AC directly off the engine). >The conversion of energy is wasteful, and would > decrease mileage. Not necessarily- if you are going to lose that energy as waste anyways, why not recapture it? How do you think diesel electric trains work? They convert the engines output to electricity to drive a motor- the electric motor becomes a transmission. > You (and several others here who think fuel economy is their god) > would buy 75 hp cars. Why not? As you yourself have asked, why would > you need more? It depends on the weight of the car. VW Polo has a 75 hp motor in Europe, but it weights less than a Jetta/Golf (around 3100 lbs). > Most cars are recycled. Over 75 percent of a new car you buy is made > from old cars. The batteries in the Prius are relatively environmentally > benign and Toyota has a program to recycle them. Keeping existing vehicles on the road is still more environmentally friendly. There are energy and environmental costs with material recycling as well, they are just lower than using new materials in many cases. >>>You said I don't care about the environment, because I dont adore the >>>Prius. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >It was I who made the claim that other factors are deciding their >purchase. Yes, you said they wanted to look "intellectual" and they didn't care about the environment. > It was N E One though, who asserted I don't care about the >environment just because I don't have my current car junked and run to buy >a Prius. No, I NEVER said that. You were the one who introduced the idea of junking your current car in favor of a hybrid. I NEVER did. People buy new cars every once in a while (even if they buy used). You're throwing up a red herring in some feeble attempt to prove your unsupportable claim. >>>You have to take into account the environmental costs of producing the >>>entire car, which in 99.9% of all cars is higher than the amount of energy [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >No. The question was, whether it would benefit the environment if I junked >my current car and got a Prius instead. It wouldn't, quite on the contrary. No, that was NEVER the question. To quote myself: "Forget your red herring about replacing a perfectly good car". You introduced that idea. It's preposterous. >And when your fabulous Prius is already in the junkyard and you have just >damaged the environment more by having its successor built, my car will >very likely still be on the road. That's hard to say right now, isn't it? How long does a Prius last? >>>> Is it really more costly? >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Only a tiny fraction of Prius drivers junked an old clunker, Sure - the average length of ownership for a new car is about 3 years. You offer nothing to suggest that Prius owners are any different. This is a bogus issue that you keep bringing up for reasons known only to yourself. >most of them >sold their car to buy the Prius, which means, their car is still on the >road and according to their assertion still 'polluting'. Being driven by someone who ditched a car that wasn't worth fixing. You think the Prius owner is still driving his old clunker around? At the same time he's driving his Prius? >> You also can't assume that this perfectly good car isn't going >> to replace someone's totalled beater that doesn't run anymore. > >Possible but unlikely. Most cars are handed down from buyer through a >number of used car buyers until it is junked. So what? >>>... which will take more energy. And even more to produce the >>>replacement, because the Prius batteries don't last for the life of the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >You haven't backed anything up, so why should I? My only claim is that SOME people actually do give a sh.t about the environment. I don't have a Prius, but I know I care. That's all I need to back up my position. You, OTOH, have the much more difficult task of backing up your claim that not only do Prius owners not care about the environment, but that they're simply trying to look "intellectual" and that hybrids actually harm the environment more than conventional cars. >>>You need to get the big picture, not only concentrate on that battery. >>> >> It seems to me that IS the big picture. > >It seems to me you need to justify that Prius at any cost. I'm perfectly willing to accept that hybrids harm the environment more than conventional cars - if you'd simply provide some sort of credible information on the subject. All you've offered so far is your unsubstantiated opinion. >> With the exception of the battery, I'd expect the environmental "cost" >> of producing a Prius is pretty much the same as the production of a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >It is a bit less, but not a lot. The mileage Toyota claims is beyond >optimistic and I guarantee you, So far, your "guarantee" isn't worth sh.t. > that I wouldn't get more than maybe >30-40mpg in everyday driving with it, simply because Id have to wring out >that puny engine to its last bit to get the same performance I get with my >car at a very relaxed pace. Have you driven one for more than a few minutes? Figures - get back to us when you have. >> You may well be right, but I find it interesting that you don't offer >> anything other than what appears to be a hunch on your part. > >As you haven't offered anything other than what appears not even a hunch >on your part, but a bunch of vague suspicions, I see no reason why I >should offer something. You made the initial claim - if you don't want to stand by your words, that's fine with me - I didn't believe you anyway. >> And even if you ARE right that a hybrid is worse for the environment >> than a gas engine, it still doesn't mean that hybrid drivers don't care >> about the environment. > >Where did I write that the hybrid is worse? WTF have you been arguing about then? > I wrote, that replacing a good >car with a Prius is bad for the environment, and that's a fact. >Chris > Yes, you said they wanted to look "intellectual" and they didn't care > about the environment. Chris has said a lot of stuff in r.a.d. that's really hard to support. If you do a google search on r.a.d. with the parameter "trapspam@trapspam.org", you get a lot of interesting history. Go back to 2003 or so. Quite amusing and enlightening. E.P. On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:49:54 -0700, N E One apparently lost interest in the discussion and tried to start a flamewar. Nice try. Come back when you have arguments instead of personal attacks. Chris >On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:49:54 -0700, N E One apparently lost interest in >the discussion and tried to start a flamewar. > >Nice try. Come back when you have arguments instead of personal attacks. WTF? I haven't attacked you at all. In fact, it is you who attacked Prius drivers. I simply don't believe that none of them actually care about the environment. I'd also love to see you back up any of your claims regarding the environmental costs of hybrids vs. conventional cars with facts. >Chris >>On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:49:54 -0700, N E One apparently lost interest in >>the discussion and tried to start a flamewar. >> >>Nice try. Come back when you have arguments instead of personal attacks. > > WTF? Thanks for proving my point. > I haven't attacked you at all. In fact, it is you who attacked Prius > drivers. No, I merely stated an obvious fact. > I simply don't believe that none of them actually care about the > environment. I didn't say that and you know quite well that I didn't. I said that care for the environment is not a major factor in buying a Prius. > I'd also love to see you back up any of your claims regarding the > environmental costs of hybrids vs. conventional cars with facts. And I'd love to see you behave in a civilized manner. Chris >>>On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:49:54 -0700, N E One apparently lost interest in >>>the discussion and tried to start a flamewar. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Thanks for proving my point. Show us a personal attack in this thread that didn't emanate from your own keyboard. >> I haven't attacked you at all. In fact, it is you who attacked Prius >> drivers. > >No, I merely stated an obvious fact. Your opinion is not fact. >> I simply don't believe that none of them actually care about the >> environment. > >I didn't say that and you know quite well that I didn't. I said that care >for the environment is not a major factor in buying a Prius. You're splitting hairs. >> I'd also love to see you back up any of your claims regarding the >> environmental costs of hybrids vs. conventional cars with facts. > >And I'd love to see you behave in a civilized manner. There's another personal attack. To quote you: "Nice try. Come back when you have arguments instead of personal attacks." >Chris > >>> WTF? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Show us a personal attack in this thread that didn't emanate from your > own keyboard. Read your own postings and you will find a whole bunch. >>> I haven't attacked you at all. In fact, it is you who attacked Prius >>> drivers. >> >>No, I merely stated an obvious fact. > > Your opinion is not fact. My opinion isn't, but the fact that Prius owners buy there cars for appearance instead of for the environment, is. Even funnier is, that some people openly admit that they buy a Prius for the money savings at the pump only. They get the equivalent of a Corolla for 10000-15000 dollars more than they would pay for the Corolla just to be able to save a few cents at the pump. A Corolla gets 30mpg, a Prius (under ideal coditions) maybe 45mpg. So over 90000 miles the Corolla uses 3000 gallons, the Prius 2000 plus an $5000 battery. Very economical indeed, not to mention so environmentally friendly. Even at 5 dollars a gallon and not taking the batteries into account a Prius would have to last at least 180000 miles until it breaks even with the lowly Corolla. Good thing for Toyota, that math is not a strength of their average customer. >>> I simply don't believe that none of them actually care about the >>> environment. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > You're splitting hairs. No, I simply corrected your lie. >>> I'd also love to see you back up any of your claims regarding the >>> environmental costs of hybrids vs. conventional cars with facts. >> >>And I'd love to see you behave in a civilized manner. > > There's another personal attack. No, it's a statement of fact. > To quote you: > > "Nice try. Come back when you have arguments instead of personal > attacks." Feel free to. Chris >> >>>> WTF? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >My opinion isn't, but the fact that Prius owners buy there cars for >appearance instead of for the environment, is. You're hilarious. You apparently don't know the difference between a fact and an opinion. > Even funnier is, that some >people openly admit that they buy a Prius for the money savings at the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >account a Prius would have to last at least 180000 miles until it breaks >even with the lowly Corolla. I'm not even going to check your math since it's irrelevant. GIGO. You've pulled numbers out of thin air in order to support your statements. It very well might not work out economically. Lots of cars do not. >Good thing for Toyota, that math is not a strength of their average >customer. Nor are facts as you've so amply demonstrated. >>>> I simply don't believe that none of them actually care about the >>>> environment. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >No, I simply corrected your lie. Well, actually, it's not what you originally said: "The people, who drive Priusses do so, because they want to look intellectual, not because they care for the environment." So you're right - you didn't say they didn't care about the environment. You also didn't say the "environment is not a major factor" You said it wasn't a factor at all. You also claimed they wanted to look "intellectual". >>>> I'd also love to see you back up any of your claims regarding the >>>> environmental costs of hybrids vs. conventional cars with facts. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Feel free to. Sure thing, Mr. "Intellectual". >Chris > That's because people are stupid. Even at $5/gallon a Prius' total cost of > ownership is much higher as the one of any comparable small economy car - > and that's not counting costly repairs to the battery, which has a limited > lifespan. If you could buy a Prius for 22,000-23,000 dollars, with current gas prices, it would pay for itself vs. buying another similar car, in about 2-5 years. Not too bad, really. If gas prices climb to 3 dollars or more, it will take alot less time. The problem, of course- almost nobody is selling a Prius for 22,000 dollars. The dealer I visited said I had to pay 28,000 dollars just to get a Prius with side-curtain airbags, either that, or take a used Prius, no frills (no airbag, basic sound system), with 35,000 miles for 22,000 dollars. Also, I don't think Toyota has ever come clean about how much it costs them to make the Prius- are they serious about the technology, or is it just a way to hedge into CAFE a bit? Carmakers do sell cars at losses for all sorts of reasons (Ford sells the Focus at a loss to increase their CAFE). >> That's because people are stupid. Even at $5/gallon a Prius' total cost of >> ownership is much higher as the one of any comparable small economy car - [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > prices, it would pay for itself vs. buying another similar car, in about 2-5 > years. So you want to catch up on 10000 dollars difference to a similiar Corolla in 2-5 years by getting 20% better mileage if that? Apparently you need some help with math too, not only with car stuff. Chris > So you want to catch up on 10000 dollars difference to a similiar Corolla > in 2-5 years by getting 20% better mileage if that? Apparently you need > some help with math too, not only with car stuff. The Prius is bigger than a Corolla. It's more comparable to the Camry in size. And, it is a nice car, not sure it's 28,000 dollars nice though. The Honda Civic Hybrid, OTOH, is identical to the top-of-the-line Civic in terms of the interior and ammenities- well, except for the leather seats and things like that. >> So you want to catch up on 10000 dollars difference to a similiar Corolla >> in 2-5 years by getting 20% better mileage if that? Apparently you need >> some help with math too, not only with car stuff. > > The Prius is bigger than a Corolla. Sure... Chris > > The Prius is bigger than a Corolla. > > Sure... Have you actually looked at one? The leg room in the back of a Prius is better than a Corolla. >> > The Prius is bigger than a Corolla. >> >> Sure... > > Have you actually looked at one? Yes. > The leg room in the back of a Prius is better than a Corolla. The rear leg room in both is insufficient. If I want a car for 4 people I will buy a fullsize sedan. Chris >> That's because people are stupid. Even at $5/gallon a Prius' total cost of >> ownership is much higher as the one of any comparable small economy car - [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >prices, it would pay for itself vs. buying another similar car, in about 2-5 >years. And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. Supposing a similar car gets 35mpg, and the Prius gets 50, and you drive 15,000 miles per year. The similar car uses about 430 gallons of fuel per year. The Prius uses 300 gallons. A difference of 130 gallons, at a price of $2.25/gallon results in a total of... $300/year. Given that the actual hybrid premium is in the thousands of dollars, you just aren't going to save enough gas to pay for it. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>> That's because people are stupid. Even at $5/gallon a Prius' total cost of >>> ownership is much higher as the one of any comparable small economy car - [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >actual hybrid premium is in the thousands of dollars, you just aren't >going to save enough gas to pay for it. But as pointed out by me, if noone else, part of the reward isn't polluting as much as you. >But as pointed out by me, if noone else, part of the reward isn't >polluting as much as you. How much is that worth? SignatureSloth Kills! http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/ > But as pointed out by me, if noone else, part of the reward isn't > polluting as much as you. I pollute less than the hybrid driver by the mere fact that I keep my cars for a very long time. I don't require a new car to be built for me anywhere close to as often. >> But as pointed out by me, if noone else, part of the reward isn't >> polluting as much as you. > >I pollute less than the hybrid driver by the mere fact that I keep my >cars for a very long time. I don't require a new car to be built for me >anywhere close to as often. Hybrids haven't been around long enough for you to make such a comparison. >>> But as pointed out by me, if noone else, part of the reward isn't >>> polluting as much as you. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Hybrids haven't been around long enough for you to make such a > comparison. I doubt most of the owners of these hybrids will keep their cars more than 5 years before they seek out something new. Thusly they are consuming resources at a far greater pace than I. Yet, to them, I am not good to the environment because I have one car with a V8 and another that is 32 years old. I can drive many many years on what they consume each time they replace a car. >>>> But as pointed out by me, if noone else, part of the reward isn't >>>> polluting as much as you. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >than 5 years before they seek out something new. Thusly they are consuming >resources at a far greater pace than I. I've read that new car buyers (or leasers) get a new car on average once every 3 years. Perhaps you keep your vehicle longer, but if hybrid owners keep their cars 5 years, they're consuming at a slower pace. Got any stats on the number of hybrids sold that are no longer on the streets? >Yet, to them, I am not good to the environment because I have one car >with a V8 and another that is 32 years old. I can drive many many years >on what they consume each time they replace a car. I think we're getting into differing kinds of environmental costs as well. >>I doubt most of the owners of these hybrids will keep their cars more >>than 5 years before they seek out something new. Thusly they are consuming >>resources at a far greater pace than I. > I've read that new car buyers (or leasers) get a new car on average > once every 3 years. So I'm correct, no more than. > Perhaps you keep your vehicle longer, but if hybrid owners keep their > cars 5 years, they're consuming at a slower pace. I didn't write that, read it again. > Got any stats on the number of hybrids sold that are no longer on the > streets? What difference does that make? >>Yet, to them, I am not good to the environment because I have one car >>with a V8 and another that is 32 years old. I can drive many many years >>on what they consume each time they replace a car. > I think we're getting into differing kinds of environmental costs as > well. Let's see, my '73 should have been replaced by 10 cars now, and my '97 with 2. I've saved the manufacture of 12 cars. How many decades will that let me drive before break even? And if my '73 was allowed to slide down the used car consumption chain, it would have vanished before 1980. My '97 would be near vanishing point. I am now seeing '96 model year cars in the U-pull that aren't even smashed. >>>I doubt most of the owners of these hybrids will keep their cars more >>>than 5 years before they seek out something new. Thusly they are consuming [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >So I'm correct, no more than. But that's for ALL cars, not just hybrids. >> Perhaps you keep your vehicle longer, but if hybrid owners keep their >> cars 5 years, they're consuming at a slower pace. > >I didn't write that, read it again. I wrote that - I thought you'd understand the simple concept that if they keep their car 5 years and the typical car is only owned for 3, they are consuming at a slower pace. >> Got any stats on the number of hybrids sold that are no longer on the >> streets? > >What difference does that make? Think about it. >>>Yet, to them, I am not good to the environment because I have one car >>>with a V8 and another that is 32 years old. I can drive many many years [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Let's see, my '73 should have been replaced by 10 cars now, and my '97 >with 2. That's only if you wish to compare yourself to the average. > I've saved the manufacture of 12 cars. How many decades will that >let me drive before break even? > >And if my '73 was allowed to slide down the used car consumption chain, >it would have vanished before 1980. My '97 would be near vanishing point. >I am now seeing '96 model year cars in the U-pull that aren't even smashed. >>>>I doubt most of the owners of these hybrids will keep their cars more >>>>than 5 years before they seek out something new. Thusly they are consuming [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > But that's for ALL cars, not just hybrids. So? Once again, I doubt that most owners of these hybrids will keep their cars more than 5 years. >>> Perhaps you keep your vehicle longer, but if hybrid owners keep their >>> cars 5 years, they're consuming at a slower pace. >>I didn't write that, read it again. > I wrote that - I thought you'd understand the simple concept that if > they keep their car 5 years and the typical car is only owned for 3, > they are consuming at a slower pace. *sigh* 5 years is not a fact, it's a number I pulled from my a.s as an opinion. That's why I said _NO MORE THAN_ 5 years. You responded that the real number is three years. >>> Got any stats on the number of hybrids sold that are no longer on the >>> streets? >>What difference does that make? > Think about it. Again, what difference does it make? None. >>>>Yet, to them, I am not good to the environment because I have one car >>>>with a V8 and another that is 32 years old. I can drive many many years >>>>on what they consume each time they replace a car. >>> I think we're getting into differing kinds of environmental costs as >>> well. >>Let's see, my '73 should have been replaced by 10 cars now, and my '97 >>with 2. > That's only if you wish to compare yourself to the average. You seem to want to grasp some moral superiority to driving a hybrid. I am trying to point out to you that there are many ways to minimize one's impact on the environment. That the ways preached on TV by the environmental movement are not the only way. >*sigh* 5 years is not a fact, it's a number I pulled from my a.s Thanks for admitting that. I figured as much. >as an opinion. That's why I said _NO MORE THAN_ 5 years. You responded that >the real number is three years. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Again, what difference does it make? None. If it's still being driven, it hasn't been scrapped. And of course, you can feel good about supporting your local auto dealer and manufacturer by buying a new one. >>>>>Yet, to them, I am not good to the environment because I have one car >>>>>with a V8 and another that is 32 years old. I can drive many many years [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >You seem to want to grasp some moral superiority to driving a hybrid. No, I mainly objected to CH's claim that people just want to "look intellectual". > I >am trying to point out to you that there are many ways to minimize one's >impact on the environment. I realize that. I test drove a hybrid. I did not buy one, even though the hybrid I test drove was cheaper than what I ended up buying. > That the ways preached on TV by the >environmental movement are not the only way. Hmm - I'm not watching those programs. Why are you? >>Again, what difference does it make? None. > > If it's still being driven, it hasn't been scrapped. A new car was still manufactured. > And of course, you can feel good about supporting your local auto > dealer and manufacturer by buying a new one. And consuming more materials more energy, negatively impacting the environment. >>>Again, what difference does it make? None. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >And consuming more materials more energy, negatively impacting the >environment. Can you quantify the harm to the environment? >>>>Again, what difference does it make? None. >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Can you quantify the harm to the environment? No. But you can start where the iron ore is mined and oil taken from the ground and work your way forward if you wish. All the material and the manufacturing processes all represent some harm as environmentalists define it. Demographics of those interested in hybrids: - they drive less than average (but not all) - they keep cars longer than average - they expect the price of gasoline to increase > Demographics of those interested in hybrids: I'll add translations to reality: > - they drive less than average (but not all) Some drive less than average, some don't. > - they keep cars longer than average They think they keep cars longer than average. > - they expect the price of gasoline to increase They breath and read the paper. SignatureIgnasi. (using SPAM trap e-mail address) >> Hybrids haven't been around long enough for you to make such a >> comparison. > > I doubt most of the owners of these hybrids will keep their cars more > than 5 years before they seek out something new. Thusly they are consuming > resources at a far greater pace than I. Correct. > Yet, to them, I am not good to the environment because I have one car > with a V8 and another that is 32 years old. I can drive many many years > on what they consume each time they replace a car. What do you care what other people think? (R.P. Feynman) I know that taking good care of my current car is going to be much better for the environment in the long run than consuming a Prius every few years and if someone thinks bad of me for that he is stupid. Chris >>> But as pointed out by me, if noone else, part of the reward isn't >>> polluting as much as you. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Hybrids haven't been around long enough for you to make such a > comparison. Hybrids have custom parts like batteries which have a) limited lifespans like all batteries, b) are custom made for this specific car and c) will simply be unavailable 10-15 years from now. Regardless of how well taken care of your Hybrid is, it will be a paperweight. Chris >>>> But as pointed out by me, if noone else, part of the reward isn't >>>> polluting as much as you. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Hybrids have custom parts like batteries which have a) limited lifespans >like all batteries |How long does the Prius battery last and what is the replacement cost? | [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] |much of an issue. Since the car went on sale in 2000, Toyota has not replaced a |single battery for wear and tear. Granted, that's from Toyota's website but feel free to point out specifically where they are wrong. >, b) are custom made for this specific car and c) will >simply be unavailable 10-15 years from now. If there's a market for them, they will be available. >Regardless of how well taken >care of your Hybrid is, it will be a paperweight. > >Chris >>> Hybrids haven't been around long enough for you to make such a >>> comparison. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Granted, that's from Toyota's website but feel free to point out > specifically where they are wrong. Lab tests and real life usually have nothing in common. Least of all battery tests, which simply assume that because of some more charge and discharge cycles in a nice airconditioned lab they will be able to predict the lifespan of a battery that may be frozen today, heated to 200 degrees tomorrow and ... And the 'lifespan' the japanese car manufacturers usually apply is about 5 years, because in Japan you have to junk your car after 5 years if you don't want to perform a total resto with exchange of most safety relevant parts, including the complete brake system (yes, with lines). >>, b) are custom made for this specific car and c) will >>simply be unavailable 10-15 years from now. > > If there's a market for them, they will be available. There is a market for parts for 20 year old Hondas. Yet the parts are _very_ hard to come by or simply unavailable, which makes hacks necessary. The japanese auto makers want you to junk your car every 5 years and buy a new one. They don't care about classic cars or people who don't want to blow 30000 bucks by buying a new car every 5 years. Feel free to buy a Prius and come back in 10 years, when your dealer told you that your battery is damaged and a new one costs $10000 instead of the original 5000 because there are only a handful of them left. Chris >>>> Hybrids haven't been around long enough for you to make such a >>>> comparison. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >the lifespan of a battery that may be frozen today, heated to 200 degrees >tomorrow and ... Replace "they" with "you" in the following excerpt from http://cars.about.com/cs/familysedans/a/hybrid_explain.htm "Perhaps they should ask Vancouver BC's Andrew Grant, the world's first Toyota Prius taxi cab driver. After three years of daily use his Prius had logged over 180,000 miles with only a handful of minor problems. Grant has now purchased a new-generation Prius and more of these remarkable vehicles are being used by cab owners willing to take a chance on the technology." There's your real life example. >And the 'lifespan' >the japanese car manufacturers usually apply is about 5 years, because in >Japan you have to junk your car after 5 years if you don't want to perform >a total resto with exchange of most safety relevant parts, including the >complete brake system (yes, with lines). The lifespan of Japanese cars is only about 5 years? I couldn't find a different source and I'm not going to devote more time looking for one. Feel free to provide your own if you have any. http://www.reliabilityindex.co.uk/man_index_2.html?searchtype=avgage&apc=3138252 2333596 Average age of carss by make (I've only listed those >= 5 here): HONDA 5.1 JEEP 5 MAZDA 5.6 MITSUBISHI 5.8 NISSAN 5.5 TOYOTA 5.5 VOLVO 5 Well, Volvos and Jeeps aren't Japanese at least - then again, they barely made the list. Well, here's another statistic although it doesn't break it down by brand: "The average age of passenger cars in Japan has reached a record 9.96 years.......Sources: Automobile Inspection Registration Association, Nikkei Industrial Daily" http://www.phaze3.com/Editions/g001113.PDF >>>, b) are custom made for this specific car and c) will >>>simply be unavailable 10-15 years from now. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >There is a market for parts for 20 year old Hondas. Yet the parts are >_very_ hard to come by or simply unavailable, which makes hacks necessary. Whatever gets juice into the car. In 10-15 years, hybrid technology will have advanced enough that this should be trivial. >The japanese auto makers want you to junk your car every 5 years and buy a >new one. They all do. > They don't care about classic cars or people who don't want to >blow 30000 bucks by buying a new car every 5 years. You think Detroit does? >Feel free to buy a Prius and come back in 10 years, when your dealer told >you that your battery is damaged and a new one costs $10000 instead of the >original 5000 because there are only a handful of them left. Nah - I don't want to look "intellectual". >Chris > http://cars.about.com/cs/familysedans/a/hybrid_explain.htm > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > There's your real life example. Um, when you study batteries, and find out why this doesn't equate to 5-10 years of use, get back to us. >> http://cars.about.com/cs/familysedans/a/hybrid_explain.htm >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Um, when you study batteries, and find out why this doesn't equate to 5-10 >years of use, get back to us. We were discussing miles driven. He said 180,000 was only achieved under lab conditions. Elsewhere he claimed you'd have to replace the battery after 90,000 miles. Toyota claims never to have had to replace a battery due to wear and tear. >>> http://cars.about.com/cs/familysedans/a/hybrid_explain.htm >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >>Um, when you study batteries, and find out why this doesn't equate to 5-10 >>years of use, get back to us. > We were discussing miles driven. He said 180,000 was only achieved > under lab conditions. > Elsewhere he claimed you'd have to replace the battery after 90,000 > miles. Probably grabbed that number without the year estimate that goes with it. > Toyota claims never to have had to replace a battery due to wear and > tear. This statement is essentially useless. It's like saying they never have had to replace an engine due to wear and tear. Which is true as well. If fails in warranty, it's a defect. If it fails from wear and tear it's outside of warranty and they don't have to replace it. >Probably grabbed that number without the year estimate that goes with it. More like he grabbed that number out of his a.s. > "Perhaps they should ask Vancouver BC's Andrew Grant, the world's > first Toyota Prius taxi cab driver. After three years of daily use his > Prius had logged over 180,000 miles with only a handful of minor > problems. Grant has now purchased a new-generation Prius and more of > these remarkable vehicles are being used by cab owners willing to take > a chance on the technology." A cab also gives no bearing on how the battery fares over longer timespans. >>And the 'lifespan' >>the japanese car manufacturers usually apply is about 5 years, because in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The lifespan of Japanese cars is only about 5 years? The lifespan that matters for manufacturers of japanese cars is about 5 years, because the Shakken (inspeciton agency) in Japan makes you junk your car after five years anyway. Thus the question 'will a part for my 15 year old car be available' doesn't arise for these manufacturers. And indeed it is difficult to locate parts even for early 90s japanese cars, let alone cars as old as Brent's. >>> If there's a market for them, they will be available. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Whatever gets juice into the car. In 10-15 years, hybrid technology > will have advanced enough that this should be trivial. Try to buy a replacement battery for a 5 year old notebook. That's more or less impossible, because it needs a certain type (form factor, voltage) of battery. That laptop batteries are more advanced today than they were 5 years ago doesn't help you, because you simply don't get a battery that fits. Same is going to happen with the Prius, more modern batteries are going to be available, but they won't fit your old Prius. >>The japanese auto makers want you to junk your car every 5 years and buy >>a new one. > > They all do. Unlike japanese cars US- and european manufacturers either offer parts for old cars themselves or you can access a plentiful aftermarket. A fender for a 1966 Chevy Impala? Choose between 10 offers from $80. A fender for a 1982 Honda Accord? Not a chance. >>They don't care about classic cars or people who don't want to >>blow 30000 bucks by buying a new car every 5 years. > > You think Detroit does? Apparently they provide parts longer and for less money than the Japanese. >>Feel free to buy a Prius and come back in 10 years, when your dealer >>told you that your battery is damaged and a new one costs $10000 instead >>of the original 5000 because there are only a handful of them left. >> > Nah - I don't want to look "intellectual". That's one thing you definitely don't have to worry about, even with a Prius. Chris >> "Perhaps they should ask Vancouver BC's Andrew Grant, the world's >> first Toyota Prius taxi cab driver. After three years of daily use his [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >A cab also gives no bearing on how the battery fares over longer >timespans. But 180,000 miles is the point you were questioning - This is only the 6th year the Prius has been on the road. How many batteries have worn out? Toyota says none - what say you? >>>And the 'lifespan' >>>the japanese car manufacturers usually apply is about 5 years, because in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >years, because the Shakken (inspeciton agency) in Japan makes you junk >your car after five years anyway. Then why is the average age of cars on Japanese roads twice that old? >Thus the question 'will a part for my 15 year old car be available' >doesn't arise for these manufacturers. And indeed it is difficult to [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >fits. Same is going to happen with the Prius, more modern batteries are >going to be available, but they won't fit your old Prius. heh - we shall see. Cars aren't laptops >>>The japanese auto makers want you to junk your car every 5 years and buy >>>a new one. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >That's one thing you definitely don't have to worry about, even with a >Prius. no personal attack, there? bring some facts to the discussion next time >Chris >>> "Perhaps they should ask Vancouver BC's Andrew Grant, the world's >>> first Toyota Prius taxi cab driver. After three years of daily use his [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > But 180,000 miles is the point you were questioning - This is only the > 6th year the Prius has been on the road. He dumped it as a cab at 180,000... hmm.. crown vic cabs have half of that before they even become cabs. > >The lifespan that matters for manufacturers of japanese cars is about 5 > >years, because the Shakken (inspeciton agency) in Japan makes you junk > >your car after five years anyway. > Then why is the average age of cars on Japanese roads twice that old? 'tisn't. Not even close. CH is correct; it is deliberately made economically almost impossible to keep a car more than 5 years old in Japan. They ship their used cars by the tens of thousands to New Zealand, Russia, and other countries around the world where RHD cars conforming to Japanese safety standards are permitted on the road. DS > 'tisn't. Not even close. CH is correct; it is deliberately made > economically almost impossible to keep a car more than 5 years old in > Japan. They ship their used cars by the tens of thousands to New Zealand, > Russia, and other countries around the world where RHD cars conforming to > Japanese safety standards are permitted on the road. And things like engines to the USA and probably the rest of the LHD world. Googled for something to confirm my memory: Where they end up: http://www.enginereplacement.com/htdocs/import.htm And where they come from: http://www.autojapan.net/ A junkyard in japan with english speaking employees answering the phones isn't selling the parts locally. >> >The lifespan that matters for manufacturers of japanese cars is about 5 >> >years, because the Shakken (inspeciton agency) in Japan makes you junk [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >'tisn't. Not even close. I posted a cite stating otherwise yesterday. Here it is again: "The average age of passenger cars in Japan has reached a record 9.96 years.......Sources: Automobile Inspection Registration Association, Nikkei Industrial Daily" http://www.phaze3.com/Editions/g001113.PDF > CH is correct; it is deliberately made >economically almost impossible to keep a car more than 5 years old in >Japan. They ship their used cars by the tens of thousands to New Zealand, >Russia, and other countries around the world where RHD cars conforming to >Japanese safety standards are permitted on the road. So even if the statistic I found is incorrect, it's only because they ship their used cars to other countries, not because the cars won't last more than 5 years. In fact, (some) Japanese cars have quite a reputation for longevity. >DS > >CH is correct; it is deliberately made economically almost impossible > >to keep a car more than 5 years old in Japan. They ship their used cars > >by the tens of thousands to New Zealand, Russia, and other countries > >around the world where RHD cars conforming to Japanese safety standards > >are permitted on the road. > So even if the statistic I found is incorrect, it's only because they > ship their used cars to other countries, not because the cars won't last > more than 5 years. Uh...I don't recall claiming that their cars wouldn't last more than five years. However, there is little incentive for makers to sell particularly durable vehicles in the Japanese market. >> >CH is correct; it is deliberately made economically almost impossible >> >to keep a car more than 5 years old in Japan. They ship their used cars [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Uh...I don't recall claiming that their cars wouldn't last more than five >years. Good, because as far as I know, you didn't say that. It was CH who said the lifespan of Jap cars was 5 years. I hope I didn't confuse you too much. > However, there is little incentive for makers to sell particularly >durable vehicles in the Japanese market. >>A cab also gives no bearing on how the battery fares over longer >>timespans. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Toyota says none - what say you. I say that experiments, that show, how many miles a battery will survive if they are racked up under near-optimum conditions (i.e. in a very short time), have no bearing whatsoever on the question, how long the batteries will last under real-world conditions. >>> The lifespan of Japanese cars is only about 5 years? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > Then why is the average age of cars on Japanese roads twice that old? Yesterday you posted, that the average age was 5 years, how is that twice as old as 5 years? Plus the cars are not made to die after 5 years, they just don't care about supporting them with parts after more than 5 years. >>Try to buy a replacement battery for a 5 year old notebook. That's more >>or less impossible, because it needs a certain type (form factor, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > heh - we shall see. Cars aren't laptops The battery problem is the same. >>> Nah - I don't want to look "intellectual". >> >>That's one thing you definitely don't have to worry about, even with a >>Prius. >> > no personal attack, there? No. You don't want to be seen as an intellectual and I reassured you that you are not at risk. Chris >>>> The lifespan of Japanese cars is only about 5 years? >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Yesterday you posted, that the average age was 5 years, how is that twice >as old as 5 years? If you're not going to bother to read the cites I post, then I'll stop wasting my time. You seem to prefer to pull numbers out of thin air. One set of figures was for the UK and was broken down by make. The other was specific to Japan and did not break down the age of cars by make. What's interesting is that it specifically said that the average age of a car in Japan is 9.?? years old. And of course that means that many cars are older than 10 years. >Plus the cars are not made to die after 5 years, they just don't care >about supporting them with parts after more than 5 years. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >The battery problem is the same. Actually, it's not. The difference is that the connectors and the space provided to put the battery in the laptop is very proprietary and very customized and it's not really worth the effort to rig something up, but you certainly could. The power that they supply is not proprietary and is easily reproduced. >>>> Nah - I don't want to look "intellectual". >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >No. You don't want to be seen as an intellectual and I reassured you that >you are not at risk. Yeah, whatever. >Chris >>>>> The lifespan of Japanese cars is only about 5 years? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > If you're not going to bother to read the cites I post, then I'll stop > wasting my time. How am I wasting your time? I am entitled to voicing my opinion, if you don't like to read it and still are too stupid to just jump to the next posting that's your problem. > What's interesting is that it specifically said that the average age > of a car in Japan is 9.?? years old. IIRC that includes these little 360cc minicars, which supposedly don't have to go through the Shakken and thus can stay on the road longer. And as there is a very large population of these they drive up the average age. >>> heh - we shall see. Cars aren't laptops >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and very customized and it's not really worth the effort to rig > something up, but you certainly could. The same is true for the Prius. > The power that they supply is not proprietary and is easily > reproduced. I want to see you hack together a battery for your Prius from a bunch of car batteries :) Chris > The lifespan that matters for manufacturers of japanese cars > is about 5 years, because the Shakken (inspeciton agency) in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it is difficult to locate parts even for early 90s japanese > cars, let alone cars as old as Brent's. I have no trouble finding parts for my 1988 Nissan: Nissan stocks them all, at astronomical prices. I do have trouble finding certain parts at good prices (eg. radiator hoses). Prius batteries have lasted up to 280,000 miles in the real world. Somebody in California drove their Prius until the battery died. The dealership tried to charge 4,000 dollars for the replacement. You can get a Prius battery off E-bay or from a junkyard for about 400-1,000 dollars. > Prius batteries have lasted up to 280,000 miles in the real world. And straight ICE vehicles over a 1,000,000 miles.... > Somebody in California drove their Prius until the battery died. The > dealership tried to charge 4,000 dollars for the replacement. You can get a > Prius battery off E-bay or from a junkyard for about 400-1,000 dollars. $400 eh... what is it? cobbled up UPS batteries from china... And a junkyard battery? unless it's a FRESH arrivial, it's folly. > Prius batteries have lasted up to 280,000 miles in the real world. > Somebody in California drove their Prius until the battery died. Magnulus, I know you are not overly bright, but the difference between longevity in the sense of how the battery will hold up over many years in heat, cold and under real world conditions and how it will hold up under laboratory conditions, should be obvious even to you. And yes, racking up a lot of miles in a very short time _is_ close to the lab conditions. > The dealership tried to charge 4,000 dollars for the replacement. You > can get a Prius battery off E-bay or from a junkyard for about 400-1,000 > dollars. ... only until the Prius batteries start to die in bigger numbers. Chris >> The dealership tried to charge 4,000 dollars for the replacement. You >> can get a Prius battery off E-bay or from a junkyard for about 400-1,000 >> dollars. > >... only until the Prius batteries start to die in bigger numbers. They've been around since 2000 - how many of them have had to have their batteries replaced? Longevity matters, but so does usage. >>, b) are custom made for this specific car and c) will >>simply be unavailable 10-15 years from now. > >If there's a market for them, they will be available. Right. Talk to GM about that. Thjey just pulled their electric car for the specific reason that you tried to address. SignatureBill Funk Change "g" to "a" >>>, b) are custom made for this specific car and c) will >>>simply be unavailable 10-15 years from now. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Thjey just pulled their electric car for the specific reason that you > tried to address. No, GM pulled the electric car, because there was _no_ market for it, at least not one big enough to finish development and actually sell it. The car was leased to customers for good reasons, availability of spares being one of them. Electric cars neither make sense from an engergy consumption standpoint nor from an economic one. Chris >>>>, b) are custom made for this specific car and c) will >>>>simply be unavailable 10-15 years from now. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >car was leased to customers for good reasons, availability of spares being >one of them. There has been enough of a market for hybrid cars such that the factories can't make them fast enough. While *initial* estimates of demand for the EV1 were low, there was plenty once the EV1 hit the streets. >Electric cars neither make sense from an engergy consumption standpoint >nor from an economic one. I disagree. As city commuter cars, they make a lot of sense. The major stumbling block is the electrical infrastructure to recharge a klarge number of them isn't in place in the larger cities that would be their perfect market. Can you imagine several thousand electric cars in LA trying to plug in and recharge between 5:30 and 7:00pm? >Chris SignatureBill Funk Change "g" to "a" >>No, GM pulled the electric car, because there was _no_ market for it, at >>least not one big enough to finish development and actually sell it. The [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > demand for the EV1 were low, there was plenty once the EV1 hit the > streets. Plenty being 800, not even close to enough to even gauge public interest. >>Electric cars neither make sense from an engergy consumption standpoint >>nor from an economic one. > > I disagree. > As city commuter cars, they make a lot of sense. They don't. They are unnecessarily heavy, dangerous in crashes because of the batteries, > The major stumbling block is the electrical infrastructure to recharge > a klarge number of them isn't in place in the larger cities that would > be their perfect market. The major stumbling block is that the average American commute is something about 40 miles, which means you will have to recharge your average electric car at work or you won't get home safely. And that in the few places, where an electric car might make a bit of sense because of short commutes (e.g. SF downtown) there is no parking for them nor the infrastructure to charge them plus it is easier and faster to walk or bike to work. > Can you imagine several thousand electric cars in LA trying to plug in > and recharge between 5:30 and 7:00pm? Yes, I can. Can you imagine a million electric cars trying to recharge? Electric cars are a novelty item for the uninformed. Chris >>>No, GM pulled the electric car, because there was _no_ market for it, at >>>least not one big enough to finish development and actually sell it. The [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Plenty being 800, not even close to enough to even gauge public interest. There have been many who tried to buy EV1s, when GM started pulling them and announcing their intention to not leave them on the toad. BTW, there were 1000 initially. >>>Electric cars neither make sense from an engergy consumption standpoint >>>nor from an economic one. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >They don't. They are unnecessarily heavy, dangerous in crashes because of >the batteries, Where did you hear this? >> The major stumbling block is the electrical infrastructure to recharge >> a klarge number of them isn't in place in the larger cities that would [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >infrastructure to charge them plus it is easier and faster to walk or bike >to work. The EV1 went far more than 80 miles on a charge. >> Can you imagine several thousand electric cars in LA trying to plug in >> and recharge between 5:30 and 7:00pm? > >Yes, I can. Can you imagine a million electric cars trying to recharge? > >Electric cars are a novelty item for the uninformed. AH, now it's clear. Thank you. >Chris SignatureBill Funk Change "g" to "a" >>Plenty being 800, not even close to enough to even gauge public interest. > > There have been many who tried to buy EV1s, when GM started pulling > them and announcing their intention to not leave them on the toad. > BTW, there were 1000 initially. Wikipedia says 800, maybe there were 1000, doesn't really matter for the question of public interest. >>> I disagree. >>> As city commuter cars, they make a lot of sense. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Where did you hear this? From a fireman, who specializes in research in this field. For the Prius they even have a special document for the firefighters because the Prius is rather difficult to handle in case of fire. >>The major stumbling block is that the average American commute is >>something about 40 miles, which means you will have to recharge your [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > The EV1 went far more than 80 miles on a charge. ... under optimum conditions. Chris >From a fireman, who specializes in research in this field. For the Prius >they even have a special document for the firefighters because the Prius >is rather difficult to handle in case of fire. The "special document" just tells rescuers where to cut to avoid electrocuting themselves. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >Electric cars neither make sense from an engergy consumption standpoint > >nor from an economic one. > I disagree. > As city commuter cars, they make a lot of sense. ...except that they don't reduce pollution, and depending on how electricity is generated, they can worsen it. Ontario, for instance, still makes electricity by burning dirt (coal). >> But as pointed out by me, if noone else, part of the reward isn't >> polluting as much as you. > >I pollute less than the hybrid driver by the mere fact that I keep my >cars for a very long time. I don't require a new car to be built for me >anywhere close to as often. You compare your specific habits to a group of people - how about comparing them to the guy who keeps his Insight 32 years? >>> But as pointed out by me, if noone else, part of the reward isn't >>> polluting as much as you. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You compare your specific habits to a group of people - how about > comparing them to the guy who keeps his Insight 32 years? This guy will need 4-5 new batteries along the way and eventually the Insight will simply not be usable any more because parts for it are unavailable. Try to buy a part for a '1973 Honda Accord, then try the same with a 1973 Chevelle. You will find out that Chevelle parts are cheap and plentiful whereas you will pay through your nose for old Honda parts if they are available at all. And in case of the Insight or Prius the added complication is that if some part of the hybrid system fails the parts are going to be even harder to locate, especially things like batteries. Chris >>>> But as pointed out by me, if noone else, part of the reward isn't >>>> polluting as much as you. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Insight will simply not be usable any more because parts for it are >unavailable. Try to buy a part for a '1973 Honda Accord, That would be pretty f.cking difficult, especially given that the Accord wasn't introduced until 1976. No need for you to let silly things like facts get in your way though. > then try the same >with a 1973 Chevelle. You will find out that Chevelle parts are cheap and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Chris >>This guy will need 4-5 new batteries along the way and eventually the >>Insight will simply not be usable any more because parts for it are >>unavailable. Try to buy a part for a '1973 Honda Accord, > > That would be pretty f.cking difficult, Calm down, you don't want to burst an artery. > especially given that the Accord wasn't introduced until 1976. Then try to get a part for a '76 Accord or maybe for a '73 CVCC. Doesn't change the fact that parts for old japanese cars are often unavailable or very difficult to come by and expensive to boot. Even parts for new japanese cars are ridiculously expensive. And http://learn.to/quote is your friend. Chris >>>This guy will need 4-5 new batteries along the way and eventually the >>>Insight will simply not be usable any more because parts for it are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Calm down, you don't want to burst an artery. Don't worry - I'm actually laughing as I type this. >> especially given that the Accord wasn't introduced until 1976. > >Then try to get a part for a '76 Accord or maybe for a '73 CVCC. Doesn't >change the fact that parts for old japanese cars are often unavailable or >very difficult to come by and expensive to boot. Even parts for new >japanese cars are ridiculously expensive. And how many Accords did Honda make in 1976? >And http://learn.to/quote is your friend. When it takes up more than half a screen, I'll trim, okay? Geez - who's gonna burst an artery? >Chris >>> That would be pretty f.cking difficult, >> >>Calm down, you don't want to burst an artery. >> > Don't worry - I'm actually laughing as I type this. Good for you, not many people are able to laugh at their own stupidity. >>Then try to get a part for a '76 Accord or maybe for a '73 CVCC. Doesn't >>change the fact that parts for old japanese cars are often unavailable or >>very difficult to come by and expensive to boot. Even parts for new >>japanese cars are ridiculously expensive. >> > And how many Accords did Honda make in 1976? That doesn't matter for the question whether parts for old japanese cars are available and affordable. Chris >>>> That would be pretty f.cking difficult, >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Good for you, not many people are able to laugh at their own stupidity. No personal attack there either? >>>Then try to get a part for a '76 Accord or maybe for a '73 CVCC. Doesn't >>>change the fact that parts for old japanese cars are often unavailable or [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >That doesn't matter for the question whether parts for old japanese cars >are available and affordable. wrong. >Chris > That doesn't matter for the question whether parts for old japanese cars > are available and affordable. Mid 80s japanese cars aren't too bad parts wise now a days it seems. >>> But as pointed out by me, if noone else, part of the reward isn't >>> polluting as much as you. >> >>I pollute less than the hybrid driver by the mere fact that I keep my >>cars for a very long time. I don't require a new car to be built for me >>anywhere close to as often. > You compare your specific habits to a group of people - how about > comparing them to the guy who keeps his Insight 32 years? Unlikely. And battery replacements will count against the total. Now, if they were atomic cars..... I'm just sick of people who think that replacing everything with new equates a better condition without considering the costs involved with building the new product. > > The graft of the dealership is anywhere from 3,000 to 5,000 over MSRP. > > Prius has a demand and buzz that's even bigger than the PT Cruiser and the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > look intellectual, not because they care for the environment. It's the > Volvo of the new decade. Can't hybrids use the diamond lane with only the driver? SignatureCheers, Bev = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 'Politics' comes from an ancient Greek word meaning 'many blood-sucking leeches.' -- Mark Russell >Can't hybrids use the diamond lane with only the driver? Yep - which for some people (namely residents of The 909) is worth the hybrid price premium all by itself. SignatureSloth Kills! http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/ >> > The graft of the dealership is anywhere from 3,000 to 5,000 over MSRP. >> > Prius has a demand and buzz that's even bigger than the PT Cruiser and the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Can't hybrids use the diamond lane with only the driver? In Washington D.C. yes, but not for too much longer, here in California they are debating it. IMO Hybrids should not be allowed to use the diamond lane with only the driver, because the diamond lane is not meant to reward fuel economy but reduce congestion and a Hybrid with the driver only congests just as much as a regular car with only the driver. Chris >>> > The graft of the dealership is anywhere from 3,000 to 5,000 over MSRP. >>> > Prius has a demand and buzz that's even bigger than the PT Cruiser and the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >fuel economy but reduce congestion and a Hybrid with the driver only >congests just as much as a regular car with only the driver. Some places allow motorcycles to use the the "diamond" lanes (what a funny thing to call them, but since motorcycles and hybrids are allowed, I guess HOV isn't entirely accurate). Of course, claiming that hybrid owners just want to look "intellectual" is akind to claiming that motorcycle owners just want to look like Fonzi. >Chris > Some places allow motorcycles to use the the "diamond" lanes (what a > funny thing to call them, but since motorcycles and hybrids are > allowed, I guess HOV isn't entirely accurate). I think "HOV" works, at least in the case of motorcycles. On a motorcycle, one rider will take up either 50% or 100% of the available seating, which is certainly higher occupancy as a percentage than a 5+ passenger vehicle with only two people on board... Signature~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. ******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant." (pgp@v6stang.com for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) >> Some places allow motorcycles to use the the "diamond" lanes (what a >> funny thing to call them, but since motorcycles and hybrids are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >seating, which is certainly higher occupancy as a percentage than a 5+ >passenger vehicle with only two people on board... By that logic Corvette, Porsche, and even Miata drivers should be able to use the HOV lanes. SignatureSloth Kills! http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/ >>> Some places allow motorcycles to use the the "diamond" lanes (what a >>> funny thing to call them, but since motorcycles and hybrids are [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >By that logic Corvette, Porsche, and even Miata drivers should be able >to use the HOV lanes. Ah - they can afford to pay the ticket if they're caught - well, maybe no the Miata driver. Okay, Miata's can use the HOV lane, but not Corvettes ;-) > >> Some places allow motorcycles to use the the "diamond" lanes (what a > >> funny thing to call them, but since motorcycles and hybrids are [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > By that logic Corvette, Porsche, and even Miata drivers should be able > to use the HOV lanes. How about using the human-to-metal ratio as a qualifier? The other day I saw a cop, sirens and lights blazing, using the HOV lane requiring a succession of cars to pull across the double yellow to get out of his way. If other cops followed along and cited those cars for crossing the line, I wonder how many people would bother to fight the ticket. Easy pickings. SignatureCheers. Bev =============================================================== It's not true that Lucas, in 1947, tried to get Parliament to repeal Ohm's Law. They withdrew their efforts when they met too much resistance. >>>Some places allow motorcycles to use the the "diamond" lanes (what a >>>funny thing to call them, but since motorcycles and hybrids are [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > By that logic Corvette, Porsche, and even Miata drivers should be able > to use the HOV lanes. I wouldn't have a problem with that... :) That was just one possible explanation. It's all bureaucracy anyway, so it doesn't need to make a whole lot of sense. Signature~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie. Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave. ******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant." (pgp@v6stang.com for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) > The KTLA Morning News reports that *used* Toyota Priuses are selling > for as much or more than new ones. One apparently sold for $31,000. > Maybe I'll buy a Prius or two for MSRP and auction them off on eBay > for a quick profit... I hear the trick would be to buy one for MSRP..... Bernard Unfortunately buyers are focusing on one number...mpg...and not really considering all the costs of owning and maintaining a car and the tradeoffs. Sure a Prius will get improved milage in town over a Camry or Corolla, but currently you have to pay a premium for that milage. The Prius is a very small car...not as roomy as a Camry or Corolla and yet you pay much more for a Prius than a Corolla. And the one big unknown is the long term cost of maintaining the hybrid power system. I suspect it will not be cheap. If improved milage is the real reason for buying a Prius, there are several options. The Corolla gets only 10 mpg less than the Prius on the road and the VW Golf Turbo Diesel gets even better. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.