 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / General Car Topics / August 2007Smart people buy Priuses
San Jose Mercury News: http://www.mercurynews.com/greenenergy/ci_6420656 copied at http://priuschat.com/index.php?showtopic=36299&pid=483156&st=0&#entry4831 56 It should be noted of course, that - 1. Smart people do a lot of things, not all of which are necessarily smart, and 2.Therefore, whether or not some smart people do a certain thing has very little to do with whether or not that thing is a "smart" thing to do. Bob M. > 2.Therefore, whether or not some smart people do a certain thing > has very little to do with whether or not that thing is a "smart" > thing to do. "If everybody else jumped off of a cliff, would you?" > It should be noted of course, that - > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > has very little to do with whether or not that thing is a "smart" > thing to do. True enough. I've even heard that a few smart people voted Republican. >> It should be noted of course, that - >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > True enough. I've even heard that a few smart people voted Republican. Yesss... and I've heard a lot of folks that thought they were smart who voted Democrat. Jeff DeWitt >>> It should be noted of course, that - >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Jeff DeWitt I know a lot of smart Republicans who voted for a moron named Bush who thinks he's the Messiah and will never vote Republican again. >>>> It should be noted of course, that - >>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I know a lot of smart Republicans who voted for a moron named Bush who > thinks he's the Messiah and will never vote Republican again. That's funny, I know of a smart guy named Bush who keeps outsmarting a bunch of Democrats in Congress. Just what have those guys accomplished this year? Jeff DeWitt > That's funny, I know of a smart guy named Bush who keeps outsmarting > a bunch of Democrats in Congress. He outsmarted them so much that the wrested both houses from his party's control. Bush is smart only in comparison to those who think that he is smart.  SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. >> That's funny, I know of a smart guy named Bush who keeps outsmarting >> a bunch of Democrats in Congress. > > He outsmarted them so much that the wrested both houses from his party's > control. That wasn't Bush, that was the Republican Congresscritters spending too much time playing games and not enough time actually doing what they should have been doing, along with a bit of corruption. So the Democrats took power, they are playing even more games, getting less done, are even more corrupt, and have a lower approval rating than the Republicans they they replaced, and an approval rating less than have of the Presidents. > Bush is smart only in comparison to those who think that he is smart. See, he's outsmarted you too! Jeff DeWitt > >> That's funny, I know of a smart guy named Bush who keeps > >> outsmarting a bunch of Democrats in Congress. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > too much time playing games and not enough time actually doing what > they should have been doing, along with a bit of corruption. That was the voters getting fed up with the GOP, which Bush was the head of. It was the voters getting fed up with GOP congresscritters which never gave Bush a bill he didn't like. Well, once; a stem-cell research bill. > So the Democrats took power, they are playing even more games, getting > less done, Considering that what the GOP controlled congress got done was harmful to the country, that's an improvement. >are even more corrupt, Got any citations for that? > and have a lower approval rating than the Republicans they they replaced, Got any citations for that? > and an approval rating less than have of the Presidents. The democrats have less than a 15% approval rating? Got any citations for that? > > Bush is smart only in comparison to those who think that he is smart. > > > See, he's outsmarted you too! You have a reading comprehension problem. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. >>>> That's funny, I know of a smart guy named Bush who keeps >>>> outsmarting a bunch of Democrats in Congress. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > never gave Bush a bill he didn't like. Well, once; a stem-cell research > bill. Whatever, the current crop of Congresscritters are doing even worse. >> So the Democrats took power, they are playing even more games, getting >> less done, > > Considering that what the GOP controlled congress got done was harmful > to the country, that's an improvement. As you are obviously far to the left of me we will disagree on this one. >> are even more corrupt, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The democrats have less than a 15% approval rating? Got any citations > for that? According to the latest CBS News/New York Times polls Bush is at 30%, Congress at 26% >>> Bush is smart only in comparison to those who think that he is smart. >>> >> See, he's outsmarted you too! > > You have a reading comprehension problem. No I read very well, although sometimes I have trouble understanding lefties. As for the rest... do your own digging, I really came here to talk about cars. Jeff DeWitt > Whatever, the current crop of Congresscritters are doing even worse. How so? Got any examples? > > Considering that what the GOP controlled congress got done was > > harmful to the country, that's an improvement. > > As you are obviously far to the left of me we will disagree on this > one. As you are so far to the right of me, we may never agree on this one. > >> and an approval rating less than have of the Presidents. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > According to the latest CBS News/New York Times polls Bush is at 30%, > Congress at 26% Well, 26% is quite a bit more than half of 30%. I can see why the congress has such a low approval rating; they haven't kept their word about getting us out of Iraq, and haven't successfully addressed the corruption in the executive branch. > >>> Bush is smart only in comparison to those who think that he is > >>> smart. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > No I read very well, although sometimes I have trouble understanding > lefties. Well, if you had read it right, you would see that I said that Bush is smarter than you. The reason that you have trouble understanding "lefties" (by whom I think you mean anyone to the left of the far right) is that you're in your own little world, divorced from mainstream America. > As for the rest... do your own digging, In other words, you can't back up what you say. > I really came here to talk about cars. Then why did you respond to the political digression? SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. >> Whatever, the current crop of Congresscritters are doing even worse. > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Well, if you had read it right, you would see that I said that Bush is > smarter than you. Very possibly, and I expect he's smarter than you too (and with all humility I'm no dummy), you don't get to be President without being pretty bright, and the man DOES have a MBA from Harvard AND he flew fighters for the National Guard. You just can't do those things without some smarts. The reason that you have trouble understanding > "lefties" (by whom I think you mean anyone to the left of the far right) > is that you're in your own little world, divorced from mainstream > America. Not hardly, I deal with lefties all the time and can probably argue your side about as well as anyone on it, it's just that most of what passes for liberal thought is divorced from reality and common sense. >> As for the rest... do your own digging, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Then why did you respond to the political digression? Sometimes I'm like a moth to a flame... Jeff DeWitt > Very possibly, and I expect he's smarter than you too (and with all > humility I'm no dummy), Oh, I know that he's not smarter than I am. My SATs were in the high 1500s. Bush's SAT score was 1206 (566 Verbal, 640 Math). See the upper-left corner of his Yale transcript: http://www.iuptown.com/YaleProtest/bushs_yale_transcript.htm This web page offers a theoretical conversion of pre-1974 SAT scores to IQ: http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/Pre1974SAT.html Based on that conversion chart, Bush's IQ would be about 129. Another web page, "SQ, IQ, and self-skills in recent US Presidents" mentions that Charles Murray, author of a book on IQ called "The Bell Curve," compares a that SAT score to an IQ of about 125. "On his SAT's, President GW Bush scored 566 verbal and 640 math, for a total of 1206 (from http://members.shaw.ca/delajara/SATIQ.html ). The Bell Curve author Murray estimates a 1206 SAT equates to about 125 IQ. " http://www.sq.4mg.com/Presidents.htm " Finally, when it comes to raw IQ, Bush is in the mid-range of American Presidents. In 1999, Charles Murray and I calculated, based on Bush's SAT score of 1206 (old-style scoring system), that his IQ was probably about 125 or a little higher..." source: Steve Sailer, vdare.com: http://www.vdare.com/sailer/karl_rove.htm > you don't get to be President without being pretty bright, Sure; all you need is charisma and good handlers. > and the man DOES have a MBA from Harvard AND he flew fighters for the > National Guard. You just can't do those things without some smarts I've known quite a number of dumb jet jocks in my life. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. >>>>> It should be noted of course, that - >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Jeff DeWitt In Nazi Germany, there was an expression: "If only the Fuhrer knew what was happening..." The implication was that Hitler was totally unaware of the abuse and he was such a fair sweetie, if only he knew, he would stop it. For RIPigs, ignorance IS their religion. Poll: Most Americans trust Congress over Bush on Iraq http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2339188020070724 >>>>> It should be noted of course, that - >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Jeff DeWitt Bush smart? What flavor Kool-Ade is that you're drinking? >>>>>> It should be noted of course, that - >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Bush smart? What flavor Kool-Ade is that you're drinking? Yep, stupid people, of whatever party, just don't get elected President of the United States... and I havn't had Kool Aid in years, you? Jeff DeWitt >> It should be noted of course, that - >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > True enough. I've even heard that a few smart people voted Republican. Not true. > >> It should be noted of course, that - > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Not true. :-) >> >> It should be noted of course, that - >> >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > :-) Funny, but what a tragic result. As Mencken once said: "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American people". Hopefully (but I doubt it), the American people have learned their lesson - never elect a president who doesn't read books. >> It should be noted of course, that - >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > True enough. I've even heard that a few smart people voted Republican. Before this continues to veer off into Yet Another Endless Political Shouting Match, let's get back to the original subject: Is there any real reason that we believe that buying a Prius (or more generally, any comparable hybrid) at this stage of the game is really a "smart" thing to do, or is the current spate of hybrid-buying really more about image than sensibility? I'm pretty certain that hybrid drivetrains do show a good deal of promise; I am, however, far from convinced that the purchase of a hybrid can actually be justified NOW on purely rational grounds. Bob M. > Is there any real reason that we believe that buying a Prius (or > more generally, any comparable hybrid) at this stage of the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that the purchase of a hybrid can actually be justified NOW > on purely rational grounds. It's very well justified if the goal is to buy a car which minimizes air pollution and petroleum consumption. Mass transit or a bicycle would of course be even better for those goals but they are not useable in many situations. And if the goal is to minimize the total cost of ownership of a car, one should buy a used Kia or the like. > I am, however, far from convinced that the purchase of a hybrid can > actually be justified NOW on purely rational grounds. In September, 2004, I bought a Prius for about the same price as a comparably equipped Camry would have cost, and I've averaged 46 MPG since then. Let's assume the Camry would have gotten 30 MPG. I've driven 72,000 miles and have used about 1565 gallons of gas, whereas the Camry would have used about 2400 gallons. Is that rational enough? Signature<http://designsbymike.info/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.info/shop/musings.cgi> Muckraking T-shirts <http://designsbymike.info/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.info/shop/dance.cgi> Ballroom dance shirts & gifts >> I am, however, far from convinced that the purchase of a hybrid can >> actually be justified NOW on purely rational grounds. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > driven 72,000 miles and have used about 1565 gallons of gas, whereas the > Camry would have used about 2400 gallons. Is that rational enough? What is it going to cost to replace the batteries when they go bad? How about those two motor/generators? Some of us keep our cars for a really long time, I've got well over 300,000 miles on my little Cherokee and have no plans to replace it. What is going to happen to a Prius as it gets really high mileage? Those cars are a lot more complected then a conventional car. http://www.cleangreencar.co.nz/page/prius-technical-info There is a lot to be said for the KISS principal. I think the current hybrid technology is very much a transitional technology, much as the turboprop was. Technologies like GM is developing for the Chevy Volt are going to become a lot more common than current hybrid technology. http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/01/07/detroit-auto-show-its-here-gms-plug-in-h ybrid-is-the-chevy-v/ Jeff DeWitt > What is it going to cost to replace the batteries when they go bad? > How about those two motor/generators? What makes you assume that they're going to go bad? > I think the current hybrid technology is very much a transitional > technology, much as the turboprop was. Technologies like GM is > developing for the Chevy Volt are going to become a lot more common > than current hybrid technology. *Any* technology is transitional technology. But I'd rather have a hybrid now than have a gas guzzler now. It's like computers; no matter when you buy one, a better model will be coming along sooner or later. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. >> What is it going to cost to replace the batteries when they go bad? >> How about those two motor/generators? > > What makes you assume that they're going to go bad? What makes you think they won't? EVERYTHING wears out eventually. That isn't a dig against Toyota, that's real life/ >> I think the current hybrid technology is very much a transitional >> technology, much as the turboprop was. Technologies like GM is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > hybrid now than have a gas guzzler now. It's like computers; no matter > when you buy one, a better model will be coming along sooner or later. Well to a point, but basic automotive technology hasn't changed that much in over 50 years... the engine and drivetrain in my 1960 Studebaker Champ isn't much different than the engine and drivetrain in a new F150... V8, stick, driving the real wheels. The Prius is very different, and when things settle down again the drivetrain in a mainstream car may be quite different from today, but it won't be much like a Prius either. Jeff DeWitt > >> What is it going to cost to replace the batteries when they go > >> bad? How about those two motor/generators? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What makes you think they won't? EVERYTHING wears out eventually. > That isn't a dig against Toyota, that's real life/ That doesn't mean that they will go bad before the internal combustion engine goes bad. That doesn't mean they will go bad before the body rusts out. They have fewer moving parts than the ICE, so I'd expect the ICE to go bad before either of them do. > The Prius is very different, and when things settle down again the > drivetrain in a mainstream car may be quite different from today, but > it won't be much like a Prius either. And that's a reason not to buy a Prius today? SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. >>>> What is it going to cost to replace the batteries when they go >>>> bad? How about those two motor/generators? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > rusts out. They have fewer moving parts than the ICE, so I'd expect the > ICE to go bad before either of them do. BATTERIES?!? If that engine is anything like most modern engines it should be good for 10 years and 150,000 miles or so, are the batteries going to last that long? And those motor/generators, does anyone really know how long they are going to last? I've heard they had real problems with them in first generation Prius's. >> The Prius is very different, and when things settle down again the >> drivetrain in a mainstream car may be quite different from today, but >> it won't be much like a Prius either. > > And that's a reason not to buy a Prius today? Well yes. Oddball technology is harder to get fixed when it starts aging. It may be (will probably be) that hardly anyone except the dealer will be able to work on the things, and when it gets to be 10 to 20 years old the dealer may not be able (or willing) to either. Jeff DeWitt > BATTERIES?!? If that engine is anything like most modern engines it > should be good for 10 years and 150,000 miles or so, are the > batteries going to last that long? Considering that the batteries are warranted for 10 years and 150,000 miles in California and other states that have implemented California's emissions-control legislation, I'd say that the batteries will last at least that long. > >> The Prius is very different, and when things settle down again the > >> drivetrain in a mainstream car may be quite different from today, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Well yes. Oddball technology is harder to get fixed when it starts > aging. Well, no. The reason to buy a Prius today is to help reduce pollution today and to help reduce petroleum consumption today. > It may be (will probably be) that hardly anyone except the dealer > will be able to work on the things, and when it gets to be 10 to 20 > years old the dealer may not be able (or willing) to either. Oh, oh; I guess the people who bought the first Priuses ten years ago better start worrying. NOT! SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. > > In September, 2004, I bought a Prius for about the same price as a > > comparably equipped Camry would have cost, and I've averaged 46 MPG [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > What is it going to cost to replace the batteries when they go bad? How > about those two motor/generators? _IF_ I end up having to pay for any of those, how much more will I have saved on gasoline by then? I'm already down 835 gallons, and at an average price of about $2.35 per gallon over the time I've had the Prius, that's a savings of almost $2000 already. Signature<http://designsbymike.info/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts <http://designsbymike.info/shop/musings.cgi> Muckraking T-shirts <http://designsbymike.info/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers <http://designsbymike.info/shop/dance.cgi> Ballroom dance shirts & gifts In alt.autos.toyota.prius Jeff DeWitt <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote: > What is it going to cost to replace the batteries when they go bad? How > about those two motor/generators? What makes you think they will go bad? > Some of us keep our cars for a really long time, I've got well over > 300,000 miles on my little Cherokee and have no plans to replace it. > What is going to happen to a Prius as it gets really high mileage? > Those cars are a lot more complected then a conventional car. Most conventional cars don't go to 300000, because keeping them stops being economical quite some time before that. Glad that your Cherokee gives you good service, but why wouldn't a Prius do that? > http://www.cleangreencar.co.nz/page/prius-technical-info > > There is a lot to be said for the KISS principal. Like having a gear box with at least 11 cogs, and moving them in an out all the time, pushing against synchronizing rings to adjust rotation differences? Standard technology is well understood and known. But KISS looks different to me :-) > I think the current hybrid technology is very much a transitional > technology, much as the turboprop was. Technologies like GM is > developing for the Chevy Volt are going to become a lot more common than > current hybrid technology. Actually turbo prop was developped after jet engines. 50 years on, people still buy them and on short hops they seem to be very economical and loved by the airlines. Why would the fact it may be a transitional technology speak against hybrids? Today it's a quite interesting package to eco conscious new car buyers. That's what counts. cu .\\arc > In alt.autos.toyota.prius Jeff DeWitt <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote: >> What is it going to cost to replace the batteries when they go bad? How >> about those two motor/generators? > > What makes you think they will go bad? I don't know that they will, electric motors and generators potentially have very long lives, there are electric cars almost 100 years old with their original motors. But we just don't know about these, they haven't been around that long... and however reliable they are they aren't gong to be cheap to replace. >> Some of us keep our cars for a really long time, I've got well over >> 300,000 miles on my little Cherokee and have no plans to replace it. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > being economical quite some time before that. Glad that your Cherokee > gives you good service, but why wouldn't a Prius do that? Even assuming the motor/generators, the power split device and the drive chains hold up to get that kind of life the engine is going to have to be rebuilt and the batteries replaced. I've no doubt a Prius COULD be made to last that long, when you come right down to it any car can be kept going for as long as you are willing to spend money on it. I've got a total of about $4,000 in repairs aside from normal maintenance stuff in that 300,000 miles. (Engine, clutch and radiator) >> http://www.cleangreencar.co.nz/page/prius-technical-info >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Standard technology is well understood and known. But KISS looks > different to me :-) Ever look inside an automatic? As you say stick shift technology is well understood and I know more about the inside of those things than I'd care to remember... my Jeep may be about as reliable as a cement block but my 48 year old Studebaker is something else again! >> I think the current hybrid technology is very much a transitional >> technology, much as the turboprop was. Technologies like GM is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > people still buy them and on short hops they seem to be very economical > and loved by the airlines. I stand corrected. > Why would the fact it may be a transitional technology speak against > hybrids? Today it's a quite interesting package to eco conscious new car > buyers. That's what counts. It speaks against hybrids if you want to keep the thing for a long time, if your going to buy one, drive it for a few years and sell it again that's something else again. Jeff DeWitt In alt.autos.toyota.prius Jeff DeWitt <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote: >> Most conventional cars don't go to 300000, because keeping them stops >> being economical quite some time before that. Glad that your Cherokee [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > made to last that long, when you come right down to it any car can be > kept going for as long as you are willing to spend money on it. Look at the battery as no more than 166 D cells, because that's in the end what it is (they're even replaceable in packs of 6 or 8, I think). Does the thought of these frighten you? There's 6 of them in every ghetto blaster. There's no drive chains, and the power split device is a bunch of gears in constant mesh. Old technology, never breaks. The engine is just an engine, and the traction motors are just plain old electric motors that live a hundred years. > I've got a total of about $4,000 in repairs aside from normal > maintenance stuff in that 300,000 miles. (Engine, clutch and radiator) I would still expect the battery to keep up over 300000 - there's a bunch of Priuses around that age really, really well. And 4000 in repairs already buys a handful of shiny new parts for a Prius. >> Standard technology is well understood and known. But KISS looks >> different to me :-) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'd care to remember... my Jeep may be about as reliable as a cement > block but my 48 year old Studebaker is something else again! PSD has what... 5 cogs, in constant mesh? >> Why would the fact it may be a transitional technology speak against >> hybrids? Today it's a quite interesting package to eco conscious new car [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > if your going to buy one, drive it for a few years and sell it again > that's something else again. So, would you buy a conventional car today, understood it's aged technology past its prime? cu .\\arc > So, would you buy a conventional car today, understood it's aged > technology past its prime? ROTFL! What are you, like 12 years old? You must be very young and stoopid, little one. Conventional technology is well-proven and *in* its prime, little one. ("New" and "improved" are not necessarily the same thing.) SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email.) In alt.autos.toyota.prius Roger Blake <rogblake10@iname10.com> wrote: >> So, would you buy a conventional car today, understood it's aged >> technology past its prime? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and *in* its prime, little one. ("New" and "improved" are not > necessarily the same thing.) Roger, if this is to be the level of our discussion, I wouldn't care at all if you added me to your kill file. cu .\\arc > Roger, if this is to be the level of our discussion, I wouldn't care at > all if you added me to your kill file. Marc, the wonderful thing is I don't have to give a rat's a.s what you "think." If you are under the age of 40 or so you have no opinion. SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email.) > Marc, the wonderful thing is I don't have to give a rat's a.s what > you "think." If you are under the age of 40 or so you have no > opinion. Of course you don't care what others think, seeing as how you don't think yourself, boy. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. > Roger, if this is to be the level of our discussion, Haven't you noticed that the more ignorant, bombastic, and dogmatic one is, the sooner they resort to that level of discussion. I expect that he hasn't reached bottom yet. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. > ROTFL! What are you, like 12 years old? You must be very young and > stoopid, little one. Not nearly as stupid as you, boy. If he acts 12, you must be 8. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. > Not nearly as stupid as you, boy. If he acts 12, you must be 8. I really could not care less what some Commumist bitch "thinks." The only thing more pathetic than a young person attempting to purvey wisdom that is beyond his years is an aging hippie who should know better -- but doesn't. (At least the young have an excuse for their idiocy.) SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email.) > > Not nearly as stupid as you, boy. If he acts 12, you must be 8. > > I really could not care less what some Commumist bitch "thinks." Well, that leaves me out. I'm as much of a Communist as you are a fascist. > The only thing more pathetic than a young person attempting to purvey > wisdom that is beyond his years is an aging hippie who should know > better -- but doesn't. (At least the young have an excuse for their > idiocy.) That leaves me out too. I never got to be a hippie; I was too busy being a soldier and saving your sorry a.s from the Commie hordes. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. > That leaves me out too. I never got to be a hippie; I was too busy > being a soldier and saving your sorry a.s from the Commie hordes. If that is indeed the case your service is appreciated. (Of course anyone can claim anything about themselves in this type of forum.) However, having said that, I still believe your position is basically a fetid pile of dingoes' kidneys. SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email.) > What makes you think they will go bad? In the case of the batteries, all batteries have a limited lifetime. If the Prius is using some exotic type of battery, such as the Ford sodium-sulphur battery, it is difficult to estimate how long that lifetime will be. However, if it uses a type of battery that is used commercially in other devices (such as lithium-ion), we can have an idea of the useful battery life. (How long does the battery in your cell phone last before it loses significant capacity?) > Most conventional cars don't go to 300000, because keeping them stops > being economical quite some time before that. Glad that your Cherokee > gives you good service, but why wouldn't a Prius do that? Because it's a tin can with a complex, unconventional Rube Goldberg drivetrain and thousands of dollars worth of batteries ready to crater? It is certainly possible to drive vehicles with conventional drivetrains over 300,000 miles, if you maintain them properly it is the most economical way to drive. > Like having a gear box with at least 11 cogs, and moving them in an out > all the time, pushing against synchronizing rings to adjust rotation > differences? Technology that has proven itself to be extremely reliable for decades. Gearboxes of this type can easily last 50 years or more. > hybrids? Today it's a quite interesting package to eco conscious new car > buyers. That's what counts. You misspelled "left-wing idiots." How much energy was used, raw material used, and waste produced in the manufacture of your "eco conscious" Prius, little one? SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email.) In alt.autos.toyota.prius Roger Blake <rogblake10@iname10.com> wrote: >> What makes you think they will go bad? > > In the case of the batteries, all batteries have a limited lifetime. Apart from heat, everything has a limited lifetime. Prius battery life time is proven to cover the expected usage of the car. > It is certainly possible to drive vehicles with conventional > drivetrains over 300,000 miles, if you maintain them properly > it is the most economical way to drive. Currently you may be borderline right. But depending on the place of the world you're in and the evolution of gas prices, you'll be wrong in the near future. Plus, economy is but one reason to go there. > How much energy was used, raw material used, and waste produced in the > manufacture of your "eco conscious" Prius, little one? Quite a bit less than on a comparable diesel car, and it's nicely recyclable, too. cu .\\arc > Apart from heat, everything has a limited lifetime. Prius battery life > time is proven to cover the expected usage of the car. LOL! "Proven" by who? Unless of course the cars are already going to the junkyard having reached their expected usage. (Even I didn't believe it would be happening quite that fast.) > Currently you may be borderline right. But depending on the place of the I am 100% right. I have done it. (In fact I have been driving the same car for over 30 years.) Many others that I know have done it as well. Cars do not have to be a disposable item. > world you're in and the evolution of gas prices, you'll be wrong in the > near future. Oh, so now you have a crystal ball? (If gas prices triple or more, I'll still be hanging onto my gas burner and loving it.) > Plus, economy is but one reason to go there. I see no reasons to go there. Hybrids simply make no sense, particularly for a long-term vehicle. > Quite a bit less than on a comparable diesel car, and it's nicely > recyclable, too. Riiiigght. And if you close your eyes, Tinkerbell will live. Of course you once again miss the point. Given the large amount of waste and energy usage in the production of any new car, the "eco concsious" thing to do is to keep your old one on the road. You really should take your comedy act on the road, little one, you're a laugh riot. SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email.) In alt.autos.toyota.prius Roger Blake <rogblake10@iname10.com> wrote: >> Apart from heat, everything has a limited lifetime. Prius battery life >> time is proven to cover the expected usage of the car. > > LOL! "Proven" by who? Unless of course the cars are already going > to the junkyard having reached their expected usage. (Even I didn't > believe it would be happening quite that fast.) Prius production started in 1997, so the oldest ones on the road are about 10 years, and a bunch passed 200000 miles. They hold up well, and battery performance over this span has decreased an average of 2%. So they're clearly in the green. >> Quite a bit less than on a comparable diesel car, and it's nicely >> recyclable, too. > > Riiiigght. And if you close your eyes, Tinkerbell will live. The bits different than a normal car are mostly copper 'n stuff for the traction motors and the NiMH battery. Recycling for these bits is known. > Of course you once again miss the point. Given the large amount of waste > and energy usage in the production of any new car, the "eco concsious" > thing to do is to keep your old one on the road. With an average life span of 250000 miles on a modern car, manufacturing energy usage is about 30% of the entire energy usage, while 'consumption' (gas, oil, etc) makes up for about 70%. cu .\\arc > Prius production started in 1997, so the oldest ones on the road are > about 10 years, and a bunch passed 200000 miles. They hold up well, and Ten years is nothing. How will they be doing at the 15-year mark? The 20-year mark? A conventional 20-year old car in good condition still has utility and economic value. A 20-year-old hybrid with a dead battery pack will most likely wind up rusting away in the junkyard. > The bits different than a normal car are mostly copper 'n stuff for the > traction motors and the NiMH battery. Recycling for these bits is known. So what? Conventional cars are also recycled, if one happens to be interested in recycling. (I am not.) > With an average life span of 250000 miles on a modern car, manufacturing > energy usage is about 30% of the entire energy usage, while > 'consumption' (gas, oil, etc) makes up for about 70%. I expect you are not including the mining and refining of raw materials, etc., and energy is not the only factor due the the amount of waste produced that must be dealt with. However, I only point that out as a data point that people who think that they are somehow "making a difference" by buying a shiny new hybrid are fooling themselves. (I personally am not concerned about energy usage or "saving the planet." My daily driver of choice gets a whopping 15 miles per gallon and I'm perfectly happy with that.) SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email.) > So what? Conventional cars are also recycled, if one happens to be > interested in recycling. (I am not.) Why am I not surprised? It goes with your "I've got mine; f.ck everyone else" mentality. > However, I only point that out as a data point that people who think > that they are somehow "making a difference" by buying a shiny new > hybrid are fooling themselves. You're offering an unsubstantiated opinion, period. > (I personally am not concerned about energy usage or "saving the > planet." My daily driver of choice gets a whopping 15 miles per > gallon and I'm perfectly happy with that.) Why am I not surprised? It goes with your "I've got mine; f.ck everyone else" mentality. You are a miserable excuse for a human being. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. > You're offering an unsubstantiated opinion, period. The pot calls the kettle black once again. No surprise there. > You are a miserable excuse for a human being. All for driving a car that you don't like! Ah, the open-mindedness and "caring" of the American Left knows no bounds! LOL! You are ugly and your mother dresses you funny. SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email.) In alt.autos.toyota.prius Roger Blake <rogblake10@iname10.com> wrote: >> Prius production started in 1997, so the oldest ones on the road are >> about 10 years, and a bunch passed 200000 miles. They hold up well, and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > has utility and economic value. A 20-year-old hybrid with a dead battery > pack will most likely wind up rusting away in the junkyard. 10 years currently is the best they can offer in real world data. Extrapolating from that is promising - but no hard proven data, of course. OTOH, on the 10 year mark they're doing a bunch better than the average car. I don't know the age distribution of cars in your part of the world, but 'over here' it's about 15-18 years. From the already available data, I wouldn't really worry. >> The bits different than a normal car are mostly copper 'n stuff for the >> traction motors and the NiMH battery. Recycling for these bits is known. > > So what? Conventional cars are also recycled, if one happens to be > interested in recycling. (I am not.) The discussion doesn't work that way - whenever I counter one of your unsubstantiated claims, you decide it's not important. Gets really boring... >> With an average life span of 250000 miles on a modern car, manufacturing >> energy usage is about 30% of the entire energy usage, while [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > etc., and energy is not the only factor due the the amount of waste > produced that must be dealt with. The usual way to compare is by looking at raws (like copper, or aluminum), and factoring in the usage of any given one of these. As well as capturing what it takes to disassemble and recover materials out of it. An example, although not directly related to the hybrid technology: the steering wheel, after removing the airbag and electronic bits clipped on to it, is one single piece of polyurethane in order to facilitate recycling. Ever visited a modern recycling facility? Cars, dishwashers, doesn't matter... the organisation of dismantling is amazing. > However, I only point that out as a data point that people who think > that they are somehow "making a difference" by buying a shiny new > hybrid are fooling themselves. (I personally am not concerned about > energy usage or "saving the planet." My daily driver of choice gets a > whopping 15 miles per gallon and I'm perfectly happy with that.) I'm sure we all know. And we all know that if gas were 5 times the price, you're filthy rich so you can finance it. But with more and more people caring about their energy usage, less and less will be impressed. cu .\\arc > > hybrid are fooling themselves. (I personally am not concerned about > > energy usage or "saving the planet." My daily driver of choice gets a > > whopping 15 miles per gallon and I'm perfectly happy with that.) Then you are part of the problem and not the solution. Thanks for sharing. > If gas prices triple or more, I'll still be hanging onto my gas > burner and loving it. That's because you don't give a sh.t about the planet or about people. > Hybrids simply make no sense, particularly for a long-term vehicle. They make sense to people who give a sh.t and who bother to think. > And if you close your eyes, Tinkerbell will live. I'm sure you know all about having your eyes closed. Try opening yours for a change. > You really should take your comedy act on the road, little one, > you're a laugh riot. You're anything but a laugh; you're pathetic. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. > That's because you don't give a sh.t about the planet or about people. LOL! You are an idiot if you believe that gas mileage equates with "caring about the planet or about people." Typical left-wing maggot. No doubt given the opportunity you would seek to forcibly impose your values on the rest of us, just because you *care* so damned much! > They make sense to people who give a sh.t and who bother to think. Another whopper!! Gad you libs are nothing if not predictable! SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email.) > > That's because you don't give a sh.t about the planet or about > > people. > > LOL! You are an idiot if you believe that gas mileage equates with > "caring about the planet or about people." I'd call you an idiot, but that would be an insult to all the idiots of the world. Reducing pollution is caring about the planet and about people. You're too stupid to understand that. > Typical left-wing maggot. Typical right-wing fruckwit. > No doubt given the opportunity you would seek to forcibly impose your > values on the rest of us, just because you *care* so damned much! No, that's what you right wingers do, and if you deny that, you're a lying sack of feces. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. > I'd call you an idiot, but that would be an insult to all the idiots of > the world. I was just thinking the same thing about you. Funny how that works. > Reducing pollution is caring about the planet and about people. You're > too stupid to understand that. Oh, you lefties just *care* so much it hurts! LOL! The so-called "environmental movement" is little more than a thinly-veiled attempt at forcibly imposing socialistic, left-wing ideals on the public using "saving the planet" as an exuse. > Typical right-wing fruckwit. Ah, yes, let out all of that liberal hatred! Anyone who doesn't toe the DNC party line *must* be a brain-dead moron! > No, that's what you right wingers do, and if you deny that, you're a > lying sack of feces. ROTFL!! I do deny it you low-grade moron! It is LIBERAL DEMOCRATS who seek to dictate every aspect of our lives, and enlarge the role of government to the N'th degree. It is LIBERAL DEMOCRATS who seek to use the force and violence of the State against individuals who do not wish to live their lives by "enlightened," "caring" left-wing standards. The only question is when they manage to seize complete power, will they use gulags or insane asylums for the refuseniks? (After all, anyone who questions the Workers' Paradise must be insane or a criminal!) It is CONSERVATIVES who are for limited government and personal liberty. (Unfortunately they are few and far between in the Republican party at this point. It has been taken over by so-called "neocons" as the Democrat party has been taken over by left-wing radicals.) Frankly it is you who are a lying sack of cow dung if you deny this! (Hell, we have Hillary Clinton out on the campaign trail practically quoting Karl Marx!) SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email.) > The so-called "environmental movement" is little more than a > thinly-veiled attempt at forcibly imposing socialistic, left-wing > ideals on the public using "saving the planet" as an exuse. You owe me a new keyboard. I laughed so hard at that comment that I spewed all over the keyboard. Do you really believe that balderdash, or is it merely rhetoric? > > Typical right-wing fruckwit. > > Ah, yes, let out all of that liberal hatred! Anyone who doesn't toe > the DNC party line *must* be a brain-dead moron! You have it backwards; anyone who doesn't buy into the right-wing propaganda is a stupid liberal socialist commie. There is more hatred coming out of your side than there is from anywhere else--your side is almost nothing but hatred. > > No, that's what you right wingers do, and if you deny that, you're > > a lying sack of feces. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > not wish to live their lives by "enlightened," "caring" left-wing > standards. Bullshit. It is you rightwingnuts who are passing laws preventing same-sex marriage. It is you rightwingnuts who are preventing gays from serving openly in the military. It is you rightwingnuts who are decreeing that abstinence is the only thing that should be taught in sex education. It is you rightwingnuts who are decreeing that doctors pass on false information such as abortion causes breast cancer. It is you rightwingnuts who are trying to outlaw abortion. It is you rightwingnuts who are telling people to leave the US if they don't like the government. It is you rightwingnuts who put religion and ideology above science, fact, and logic. You are a bunch of control freaks who would turn this country into one like in _The Handmaids Tale_ or _1984_. > It is CONSERVATIVES who are for limited government and personal liberty. See above! You preach "personal liberty" but you practice anything but that. If you hate America, vote Republican. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. > Because it's a tin can with a complex, unconventional Rube Goldberg > drivetrain Unconventional yes, but definitely not Rube Goldberg, nor complex. > > hybrids? Today it's a quite interesting package to eco conscious > > new car buyers. That's what counts. > > You misspelled "left-wing idiots." Spoken like a true right wingnut. > How much energy was used, raw material used, and waste produced in > the manufacture of your "eco conscious" Prius, little one? No more than in the production of conventional cars, ignorant one. Thanks for demonstrating that you right-wing fringe nuts don't bother to think, but merely parrot the party line. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. > Spoken like a true right wingnut. Typical "open-minded" liberal. Anyone who doesn't agree with the DNC is a "wingnut." Presumably if you dimbulbs get back into power you'll introduce Soviet-style insane asylums in which to place the refuseniks. > No more than in the production of conventional cars, ignorant one. The point being that if you keep your current vehicle rather than have a new one built, you are saving "the environment" from quite a bit of waste and energy use. > Thanks for demonstrating that you right-wing fringe nuts don't bother to > think, but merely parrot the party line. LOL! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! You libs are at least good for a laugh! SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email.) > > Spoken like a true right wingnut. > > Typical "open-minded" liberal. Anyone who doesn't agree with the DNC > is a "wingnut." What's the matter, boy? Can't stand it when someone hits back? > Presumably if you dimbulbs get back into power you'll introduce > Soviet-style insane asylums in which to place the refuseniks. You mean like Bush does, you hypocritical a.s. > > No more than in the production of conventional cars, ignorant one. > > The point being that if you keep your current vehicle rather than > have a new one built, you are saving "the environment" from quite a > bit of waste and energy use. You better tell that to the millions of people who buy new cars, SUVs, and trucks; preach to them, there are more of them than there are those of us who make intelligent choices when we have to buy a car. > > Thanks for demonstrating that you right-wing fringe nuts don't > > bother to think, but merely parrot the party line. > > LOL! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! You libs are at > least good for a laugh! At least I speak the truth. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. > What's the matter, boy? Can't stand it when someone hits back? Have you hit? I hadn't noticed! All I see here is the same old, same old DNC/liberal Democrat Party line. "We are caring! We are intelligent! You are stupid if you don't think as we do! When we take power we will FORCE you to abide by our caring, intelligent values!" Same old crap I've been hearing from your lot for decades. > You mean like Bush does, you hypocritical a.s. Where did I say I support Bush? More unsubstantiated supposition on your part. > You better tell that to the millions of people who buy new cars, SUVs, > and trucks; preach to them, there are more of them than there are those > of us who make intelligent choices when we have to buy a car. I have no interest in "preaching" to them. In my view anyone has the right to purchase any vehicle they like and can afford, whether I like what they drive or not. You want a Prius, go knock yourself out. Ditto if you want an Escalade. It's all a matter of individual choice. Neither you nor I have to approve anyone else's choices. (I might poke fun at someone's choices and motivations but in the end it is their choice to make.) What the libs want to do, of course, is forcibly impose THEIR choices and THEIR values on the rest of us by using government to dicate what THEY believe are the "intelligent choices." > At least I speak the truth. This is obviously some strange, twisted new definition of the word "truth" with which we were not previously familiar. SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email.) >> What's the matter, boy? Can't stand it when someone hits back? > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > This is obviously some strange, twisted new definition of the word > "truth" with which we were not previously familiar. Ahh sounds like a Hitchhikers fan! Jeff DeWitt > > This is obviously some strange, twisted new definition of the word > > "truth" with which we were not previously familiar. > > > Ahh sounds like a Hitchhikers fan! > > Jeff DeWitt And what I said to him goes double for you, fuckwit. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. >>> This is obviously some strange, twisted new definition of the word >>> "truth" with which we were not previously familiar. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > And what I said to him goes double for you, fuckwit. Whatever kid. > > What's the matter, boy? Can't stand it when someone hits back? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Same old crap I've been hearing from your lot for decades. You are a goddamned motherf..king liar, totally brainwashed by right-wing zealots, and are incapable of having a rational discussion. I am through with you, a.shole. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. > At least I speak the truth. "Understanding is a three-edged sword: your side, their side and the truth." John Sheridan on Babylon 5 - "Into the Light" written by J. Michael Straczynski > In the case of the batteries, all batteries have a limited lifetime. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the battery in your cell phone last before it loses significant > capacity?) The Prius uses NiMH for the hybrid batteries, and an AGM lead-acid traditional 12v accessory battery. The NiMH hybrid batteries are controlled by a very good battery- management computer, such that it is never completely charged or drained, which greatly impacts its lifespan. As opposed to most consumer products, which regularly are drained and then overcharged... > How much energy was used, raw material used, and waste produced in the > manufacture of your "eco conscious" Prius, little one? Here's the 2004 Toyota Prius Green Report (life cycle assessment): http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/k_forum/tenji/pdf/pgr_e.pdf (you'll need to download the Japanese fonts for your PDF reader in order to read it, but the entire document is written in English.) Over the lifespan of the Prius, when compared to a comparable mid- sized gasoline vehicle, the Prius comes out ahead in the life cycle assessment (LCA) for airborne emissions for CO2, NOx, SOx, HC, but actually does worse for PM (thanks to the material and vehicle production stages). Lifespan is given as 10 years use/100,000km. The CO2 break-even point for the 2004 Prius compared to this unnamed gasoline vehicle is given at 20,000km. (more CO2 is emitted during Prius production, but the Prius makes up for it over it's driven lifetime.) >> In the case of the batteries, all batteries have a limited lifetime. >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Prius production, but the Prius makes up for it over it's driven > lifetime.) Only 100,000km? That can't be right, that's only about 62,000 miles. If your lucky a Yugo would go that far! (OK maybe not a Yugo but a Pinto would!). Jeff DeWitt > I think the current hybrid technology is very much a transitional > technology, much as the turboprop was. Technologies like GM is developing > for the Chevy Volt are going to become a lot more common than current > hybrid technology. I disagree with that. I see hybridization as a central enabling technology for passenger cars for at least half a century. The primary power source may not always be a combustion engine; hybridization works well with fuel cells, as Toyota is finding. The essence of hybridization is to provide an optimized load for the power generation regardless of what the nut behind the wheel is doing with his right foot, and in so doing it makes acceleration performance increasingly independent of the size of the power source. Even in the present generation (no pun) hybrids are disconnecting accessories from the engine. I see that as a crucial step toward any future cars. BTW - turboprops are still a modern powerplant and eminently practical for shorter hops where turbofans are just too inefficient or where runways are too short. The wife and I just returned from Alaska and made the Vancouver to Seattle leg on a Bombardier turboprop. When flying higher and faster turbofans come into their own. Mike >> I think the current hybrid technology is very much a transitional >> technology, much as the turboprop was. Technologies like GM is developing [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Mike I stand corrected on turboprops, however please note I said the CURRENT hybrid technology. A Prius or similar car is more of a gas powered car with an electric assist and because of that it's a lot more complex and expensive than it needs to be (and so also less efficient). They ARE an advancement over conventional drivetrains, and your right about the usefulness of disconnecting the engine from the accessories, that is going to become increasingly important as automotive technology advances. And of course you do realize there is a form of hybrid technology that has been performing a vital roll in Americas transportation system for the last 50 years or so... the diesel locomotive. Jeff DeWitt In alt.autos.toyota.prius Jeff DeWitt <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote: > And of course you do realize there is a form of hybrid technology that > has been performing a vital roll in Americas transportation system for > the last 50 years or so... the diesel locomotive. Although many diesel locomotive are diesel electric, there's no buffer battery between the diesel engine and the train. The generator-traction motor setup is nothing more than the system that transmit power from the engine to the wheels. cu .\\arc > In alt.autos.toyota.prius Jeff DeWitt <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote: >> And of course you do realize there is a form of hybrid technology that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > cu > .\\arc True, but having diesel engines and electric motors meets the dictionary definition of hybrid. "something (as a power plant, vehicle, or electronic circuit) that has two different types of components performing essentially the same function" Both the diesel engine and the electric motors produce mechanical energy sufficient to operate the locomotive... and yes I realize I'm being a bit picky here <G> Jeff DeWitt >> In alt.autos.toyota.prius Jeff DeWitt <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote: >>> And of course you do realize there is a form of hybrid technology that [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Jeff DeWitt If I'm understanding it right, the electric part is merely a transmission rather than a motive source. Oddly, "how stuff works" still refers to it as a hybrid system although there is no secondary source of electric power; it comes straight from the diesel. The train doesn't move if the engines aren't generating power. Now it's my turn to be picky ;-) http://travel.howstuffworks.com/diesel-locomotive.htm Mike >>> In alt.autos.toyota.prius Jeff DeWitt <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote: >>>> And of course you do realize there is a form of hybrid technology that [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Mike I wonder... In the northeast there are a lot of trains that get their power from overhead wires. I wonder if any of those locomotives also have diesel engines to provide power when the overhead lines aren't available. Jeff DeWitt In alt.autos.toyota.prius Jeff DeWitt <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote: >> Although many diesel locomotive are diesel electric, there's no buffer >> battery between the diesel engine and the train. The generator-traction [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > sufficient to operate the locomotive... and yes I realize I'm being a > bit picky here <G> No, you're not being picky, you're just wrong <eg> The diesel is what moves the train. The generator/motor is just the transmission. Without the diesel the whole electric setup is worth just as much as a gearbox without the engine. cu .\\arc > In September, 2004, I bought a Prius for about the same price as a > comparably equipped Camry would have cost, and I've averaged 46 MPG > since then. About the same as a 30-year-old VW Rabbit diesel. Very impressive. SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email.) >> In September, 2004, I bought a Prius for about the same price as a >> comparably equipped Camry would have cost, and I've averaged 46 MPG >> since then. > > About the same as a 30-year-old VW Rabbit diesel. Very impressive. Yeah. That was a real non-polluter, wasn't it? Quiet too, eh? > Yeah. That was a real non-polluter, wasn't it? Quiet too, eh? We were discussing fuel economy, not "pollution" or "quietness," little one. However having said that, you will find that today's diesels are much more refined that those of 30 years ago, while still offering outstanding fuel economy. (Of course you knew that, you were simply being disingenuous.) All without hundreds of pounds of expensive batteries or a complex Rube Goldberg drivetrain, and of course a properly-designed diesel engine will run nearly forever by automotive standards. To today's hybrids I say "Thanks, but no thanks." But I would certainly consider a diesel. SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email.) > > Yeah. That was a real non-polluter, wasn't it? Quiet too, eh? > > We were discussing fuel economy, not "pollution" or "quietness," little one. Yeah, who cares about pollution and quietness, anyway. Buncha God-damned treehuggers. > However having said that, you will find that today's diesels are much > more refined that those of 30 years ago, while still offering outstanding [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > To today's hybrids I say "Thanks, but no thanks." But I would certainly > consider a diesel. Meanwhile you'll stand on the sidelines and snipe? Thanks for sharing. > However having said that, you will find that today's diesels are much > more refined that those of 30 years ago, while still offering [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > properly-designed diesel engine will run nearly forever by automotive > standards. Well, around here (the Phoenix area), except for about three months in the Summer, Diesel fuel costs more than Premium gasoline. Fortunately, the Prius doesn't have a Rube Goldberg drive train either. Don't forget that there are a number of states where you can't buy a Diesel automobile at all--namely, California, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Rhode Island, Maine and New Jersey. SignatureSupport the troops: Bring them home ASAP. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message