 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / December 2005Dear Valued Hybrid Customer...
Toyota isn't so green afterall... And does owning a hybrid make sense ? Let us assure you that the Prius remains one of the most fuel-efficient cars on the road. Toyota applauds your willingness to spend $9,500 over the price of any comparable vehicle for the privilege of saving, at current gasoline prices, approximately $580 a year. And should the price of gasoline rise to $5, after 10 years and/or 130,000 miles of driving, you might even come close to breaking even on your investment in hybrid technology. Contrary to any loose statements made by our marketing partners in the environmental community and media, petroleum not consumed by Prius owners is not "saved." It does not remain in the ground. It is consumed by someone else. Greenhouse pollutants are released. Also, please note that the warranty and owner's manual say nothing about reducing America's dependence on foreign oil. This is not an oversight. The Prius is an "oil-dependent" vehicle. It runs on gasoline, supplied by the same world market that fuels other vehicles. The Toyota Corporation regrets any misunderstanding our marketing may inadvertently have caused (or may cause in the future). We share your belief that the days of the internal combustion engine are numbered. Further research by our economists suggests this will happen when the price of gasoline rises high enough to make alternative technologies cheaper than gasoline-powered cars. We at Toyota want you to know we recognize this effect and have taken steps to compensate with the rest of our vehicle lineup. Our 2006 Tundra pickup will be equipped with Toyota's new eight-cylinder engine, making it every bit as much of a gas guzzler as any American pickup. We are also redirecting our efforts to use our Hybrid Synergy Drive to increase power output rather than reduce gasoline consumption. Take our new hybrid SUV, which produces 38 more horsepower but gets the same mileage as our conventional version. A New York Times reviewer wrote, "One question lingers after driving the 2006 Lexus RX400h: How did it come to this, that Toyota is now selling a hybrid gas-electric vehicle with no tangible fuel economy benefits?" We hope this corrects any misimpression caused by our latest slogan ("Commute with Nature"). Hybrid technology is not "green" technology. Like heated seats or flashy exterior trim, it's merely an expensive option that generates large markups for the Toyota Corporation and its dealers. You will share our pride in the latest figures from J.D. Power & Associates, which show that the Prius continues to move off a dealer's lot in just eight days, compared to 36 days for a Honda Civic hybrid. Clearly, our customers are willing to pay handsomely for the privilege of showing themselves behind the wheel of so conspicuously virtuous a vehicle. But we are also a far-seeing corporation. We recognize that the Prius's distinctiveness may be a wasting asset for reasons outlined in this letter. Other motorists may see the Prius operator and think "sucker." Our lawyers advise us this may affect your car's resale value. Toyota regrets any inconvenience. We want you to know that Toyota remains committed to advancing hybrid technology just as long as our customers are willing to make it worth our while. Our esteemed competitor, Nissan's Carlos Ghosn, was recently quoted saying, "There's such a buzz today that no CEO of a car manufacturer dares to say his real opinion of hybrid because he's accused of being retarded." Another esteemed competitor, GM, has suggested that hybrid technology is best deployed in city buses, where large fuel consumption and stop-and-go driving might actually make it economically sensible. These are just two examples of the short-sighted, stick-in-the-mud marketing instincts of our fellow automakers that are helping to make Toyota the largest car company in the world. Yours Truly, the Toyota Corporation. BUSINESS WORLD By HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR. November 30, 2005; Page A19 www.wsj.com > Toyota isn't so green afterall... And does owning a hybrid make sense ? Every new technology is priced at a premium when it first comes out until volume can decrease manufacturing costs. If the product is viable enough, volume WILL increase. Look at every new CPU, HDTV, DVD Player, CD Player, VCR, etc. The costs of each of those are now fractions of what they first were introduced into the market. Hell, DVD players were $400 5 years ago. Now they're $40 throw-aways. So the question isn't "Is the hybrid currently cost-effective?", the question is "will the hybrid be around long enough so that increased volume makes it cost-effective?". Only time will tell. > > Toyota isn't so green afterall... And does owning a hybrid make sense ? > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Only time will tell. Not at $2 a gallon, anyway... And even if everyone in the usa had a hybrid, oil consumption would return to it's current level in a matter of a few years because low gas prices would increase consumption. Not to mention the strong growth in the economy. In effect, hybrids would only delay the inevitable for maybe a few years, which is the depletion of world oil reserves. > > So the question isn't "Is the hybrid currently cost-effective?", the > > question is "will the hybrid be around long enough so that increased [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Not at $2 a gallon, anyway... You don't know that. In 5 or 10 years it could be that it's a $500 option to have a hybrid over gas only. Used to be that an automatic transmission was extra, now often a manual tranny costs more. > And even if everyone in the usa had a hybrid, > oil consumption would return to it's current level in a matter of a few > years because low gas prices would increase consumption. Not necessarily. People have a finite amount of time to of discretionary travel, so there IS a limit to the amount of miles that can be driven, hence a finite amount of fuel that people can burn in a given amount of time. > Not to mention the > strong growth in the economy. In effect, hybrids would only delay the > inevitable for maybe a few years, which is the depletion of world oil > reserves. Technically "world oil reserves" are depleted every time you fill your tank, so I'm not sure what your point is, except to try and make a political point using some hot button verbage. > > > So the question isn't "Is the hybrid currently cost-effective?", the > > > question is "will the hybrid be around long enough so that increased [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > option to have a hybrid over gas only. Used to be that an automatic > transmission was extra, now often a manual tranny costs more. Moot point, gas prices are not going to be $2 a gallon in 5 to 10 years. > > And even if everyone in the usa had a hybrid, > > oil consumption would return to it's current level in a matter of a few [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > can be driven, hence a finite amount of fuel that people can burn in a > given amount of time. I'll use your answer, you don't know that. People will demand more cars and more people will drive. Furthermore, electric companies would also consume more oil if the cost was low enough. And cheap oil would be used for other uses that are currently cost prohibitave. > > Not to mention the > > strong growth in the economy. In effect, hybrids would only delay the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > tank, so I'm not sure what your point is, except to try and make a > political point using some hot button verbage. You are wrong again .... These are the oil reserves I was talking about: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html Greatest Oil Reserves by Country, 2005 Rank Country Proved reserves (billion barrels) 1. Saudi Arabia 261.9 2. Canada 178.81 3. Iran 125.8 4. Iraq 115.0 5. Kuwait 101.5 6. United Arab Emirates 97.8 7. Venezuela 77.2 8. Russia 60.0 9. Libya 39.0 10. Nigeria 35.3 Source: Oil & Gas Journal, Vol. 102, No. 47 (Dec. 10, 2004). From: U.S. Energy Information Administration. http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/petroleu.html . >These are the oil reserves I was talking about: >http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html >Greatest Oil Reserves by Country, 2005 > Rank Country Proved reserves (billion barrels) > 1. Saudi Arabia 261.9 > 2. Canada 178.81 Um, *huh*?! Couldn't we just get our oil from O, Ca-na-da and eliminate a *host* of problems (including marginalizing terorrists, as there's no reason to give a sh.t about Islam if it weren't for their oil)? -Kenny  SignatureKenneth R. Crudup Sr. SW Engineer, Scott County Consulting, Los Angeles H: 3630 S. Sepulveda Blvd. #138, L.A., CA 90034-6809 (310) 391-1898 > >These are the oil reserves I was talking about: > >http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > a *host* of problems (including marginalizing terorrists, as there's > no reason to give a sh.t about Islam if it weren't for their oil)? It is not currently economically feasible to obtain oil from Canada. They have large deposits of oil sands. Conventional oil (e.g., Saudi oil) can be pumped from the ground and sent to the refinery. Oil sands must be mined and rigorously treated before it can be sent to the refinery. More oil may come from Canada if (1) the price of oil rises to justify the costs of recovery and/or (2) new technology is developed to reduce the costs of extraction. OTOH Canada is a sovereign nation. Why should they suffer any environmental, social, or other problems so that spoiled Americans can continue to speed on highways? > -Kenny > > -- > Kenneth R. Crudup Sr. SW Engineer, Scott County Consulting, Los Angeles > H: 3630 S. Sepulveda Blvd. #138, L.A., CA 90034-6809 (310) 391-1898 "Kenneth Crudup" <kenny@panix.com> wrote > "fclaugus" <fclaugus@yahoo.com> says: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > a *host* of problems (including marginalizing terorrists, as there's > no reason to give a sh.t about Islam if it weren't for their oil)? Mostly because that Canadian figure includes oil sands and shale, which costs a lot to extract the oil from. Floyd >> Greatest Oil Reserves by Country, 2005 >> Rank Country Proved reserves (billion barrels) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Um, *huh*?! Couldn't we just get our oil from O, Ca-na-da Believe me, we Canadians think about this every day. Not in terms of how much money we stand to make from the Americans, but in terms of how long before the American tanks roll in to "spread democracy" to us. "Daniel J. Stern" <dastern@127.0.0.1> wrote in message > Believe me, we Canadians think about this every day. Not in terms of how > much money we stand to make from the Americans, but in terms of how long > before the American tanks roll in to "spread democracy" to us. Well, if you keep exporting your potty-mouthed tv shows and movies, we may have to do something to save the children. Think of the children! > >> Greatest Oil Reserves by Country, 2005 > >> Rank Country Proved reserves (billion barrels) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > much money we stand to make from the Americans, but in terms of how long > before the American tanks roll in to "spread democracy" to us. What's our oil doing underneath your snow? You said -> "Believe me, we Canadians think about this every day. Not in terms of how much money we stand to make from the Americans, but in terms of how long before the American tanks roll in to "spread democracy" to us." I don't think you need to worry Daniel. The last two times we tried it, it did not work out so well. After the war of 1812, you guys gave us Michigan back as punishment. If we tried it again, you might make us take Quebec. Ed > > > > So the question isn't "Is the hybrid currently cost-effective?", the > > > > question is "will the hybrid be around long enough so that increased [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Moot point, gas prices are not going to be $2 a gallon in 5 to 10 years. If it's higher, even more incentive to buy a hybrid. Do you think gas will be lower in 10 years? > > > And even if everyone in the usa had a hybrid, > > > oil consumption would return to it's current level in a matter of a few [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I'll use your answer, you don't know that. Of course I know that. There's a finite amount of time in a day, therefore there's a finite amount of time each person can drive. > People will demand more cars and more people will drive. There's also a finite amount of people that can drive. > > Technically "world oil reserves" are depleted every time you fill your > > tank, so I'm not sure what your point is, except to try and make a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > These are the oil reserves I was talking about: > http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0872964.html So what? What's your point? Geologically the Earth isn't creating more oil than we're using. > > > > > So the question isn't "Is the hybrid currently cost-effective?", the > > > > > question is "will the hybrid be around long enough so that increased [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > If it's higher, even more incentive to buy a hybrid. Do you think gas > will be lower in 10 years? My point is hybrids are not economical at 2$ a gallon, we are talking about today, not in 10 years. Yes, gas will be more scarce and more expensive in 10 years. > > > > And even if everyone in the usa had a hybrid, > > > > oil consumption would return to it's current level in a matter of a few [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > There's also a finite amount of people that can drive. But there are plenty of people who cannot afford to drive because it's too expensive. Or can't afford services that consume fuel such as air travel. > > > Technically "world oil reserves" are depleted every time you fill your > > > tank, so I'm not sure what your point is, except to try and make a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > So what? What's your point? Geologically the Earth isn't creating > more oil than we're using. You are confused, you said you didn't understand what I meant by oil reserves and I explained it. What more do you want ? You though we consume our reserves in a short amount of time, and I showed that this is impossible. There are billions of barrels in reserve all over the world. My point is, we will deplete all reserves in a matter of time, no matter how efficient our cars are. > > > Toyota isn't so green afterall... And does owning a hybrid make sense ? > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > oil consumption would return to it's current level in a matter of a few > years because low gas prices would increase consumption. That's a misunderstanding of the law of supply and demand. It also presumes that ppl *want* to drive more. I doubt that's true. Graham > That's a misunderstanding of the law of supply and demand. > > It also presumes that ppl *want* to drive more. I doubt that's true. I'm tired of explaining basic econ.... When price goes down, long term demand will go up. I never said people would drive more. It's possible that more people would drive and oil would be used more for other purposes such as power generation. Also, services such as shipping and air travel become cheaper, leading to more demand for those services, which consume large quanities of oil derived fuels. > > That's a misunderstanding of the law of supply and demand. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > cheaper, leading to more demand for those services, which consume large > quanities of oil derived fuels. Driving is just one use for oil. Many clothes are made of synthetic materials (IOW they are petroleum based). If petro was free, why would you wash your clothes. It would be easier just to throw away your current set and buy a new set every day. > > > That's a misunderstanding of the law of supply and demand. > > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > you wash your clothes. It would be easier just to throw away your > current set and buy a new set every day. Exactly, with lower oil prices, we will consume more oil. > > That's a misunderstanding of the law of supply and demand. > > > > It also presumes that ppl *want* to drive more. I doubt that's true. > > I'm tired of explaining basic econ.... When price goes down, long term > demand will go up. No kidding. Which would cause prices to go up, which would cause demand to go down... we all know this. What's your point? > I never said people would drive more. Sure you did: "And even if everyone in the usa had a hybrid, oil consumption would return to it's current level in a matter of a few years because low gas prices would increase consumption." How else would one use more gas if not by driving more? > > > That's a misunderstanding of the law of supply and demand. > > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > How else would one use more gas if not by driving more? I've already told you.... "It's possible that more people would drive and oil would be used more for other purposes such as power generation. (which we already do) Also, services such as shipping and air travel become cheaper, leading to more demand for those services, which consume large quanities of oil derived fuels." > > > That's a misunderstanding of the law of supply and demand. > > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > return to it's current level in a matter of a few years because low gas > prices would increase consumption." Also, there is a difference between saying more people will drive and people will drive more. The first refers to more drivers, the second refers to more miles per driver. Hasn't it been obvious that 3$ gallon gas has lowered demand ? > > That's a misunderstanding of the law of supply and demand. > > > > It also presumes that ppl *want* to drive more. I doubt that's true. > > I'm tired of explaining basic econ.... When price goes down, long term > demand will go up. No ! There isn't limitless demand. > I never said people would drive more. It's possible that > more people would drive and oil would be used more for other purposes such > as power generation. Also, services such as shipping and air travel become > cheaper, leading to more demand for those services, which consume large > quanities of oil derived fuels. Since the price of petroleum products isn't going to reduce in the overall long-term your ideas are moot anyway. Graham > So the question isn't "Is the hybrid currently cost-effective?", the > question is "will the hybrid be around long enough so that increased > volume makes it cost-effective?". > > Only time will tell. Friend: "I'm going to get a hybrid!" Me: "Do you really want to spend $8000 in new batteries every few years?" Friend: "Huh? What are you talking about?" Me: "Think about what ever goes bad with anything you buy which uses rechargeable batteries after a few years; flashlights, shavers, cordless drills - you name it. The device is still good, but the batteries wear out. It ends up usually cheaper to buy a whole new device." Man, these hybrid doo-gooders are in for a ruuuude awakening. > > So the question isn't "Is the hybrid currently cost-effective?", the > > question is "will the hybrid be around long enough so that increased > > volume makes it cost-effective?". > > > > Only time will tell. > Me: "Think about what ever goes bad with anything you buy which uses > rechargeable batteries after a few years; flashlights, shavers, cordless > drills - you name it. The device is still good, but the batteries wear out. > It ends up usually cheaper to buy a whole new device." There definitely is more to being cost effective than just taking initial purchase price into account, but as battery technology and volume increases, battery costs will go down. Don't forget however, on the other side of the balance sheet is the tax break you get from buying one. I personally don't get the warm fuzzies with hybrid technology, but battery costs may be irrelevant if one can lease a hybrid in the future. Then it'll be the dealer's problem. > I personally don't get the warm fuzzies with hybrid technology, but > battery costs may be irrelevant if one can lease a hybrid in the > future. Then it'll be the dealer's problem. A dealer will either be smart enough to know this upfront and charge separately for "battery wear" or won't be around for very long to lease anything. ;) >> Toyota isn't so green afterall... And does owning a hybrid make sense ? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >fractions of what they first were introduced into the market. Hell, >DVD players were $400 5 years ago. Now they're $40 throw-aways. And NOTHING about a car has ever decreased in cost. > >> Toyota isn't so green afterall... And does owning a hybrid make sense ? > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > And NOTHING about a car has ever decreased in cost. It may not look like that only because you're taking the car as a whole. You get a lot more for your (adjusted) buck these days. Don't forget about safety advances, emission reduction, MPG increase, etc. IOW, it'd be like saying the cost of computers hasn't gone down because when you bought your first PC in 1986, it was $2000, and today you'd still spend $2000. Until of course you compare what you were getting in '86 compared to today. >> Toyota isn't so green afterall... And does owning a hybrid make sense ? > > Every new technology is priced at a premium when it first comes out > until volume can decrease manufacturing costs. Environmentally, one can do considerably more for the environment by not having another vehicle manufactured. That doesn't change with the price. |
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
|
©2008 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.