 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Subaru Cars / June 2004Hybrids are coming...get your name on the list
Kidd you not...2 years tops..Hybrid drive vehicles are in development stage..no idea if Honda or Toyota drive versions...at the same time I'm bugging dealership to see if Subaru will drop a V6 into the Forester anytime soon. I've got a Forester and a H6 VDC Sedan that really ROCKS  SignatureSubaru Fan Toyota and Honda have had hybrids for about 3 years now. My friend has a Prius. He got one of the first ones available. > Kidd you not...2 years tops..Hybrid drive vehicles are in development > stage..no idea if Honda or Toyota drive versions...at the same time I'm > bugging dealership to see if Subaru will drop a V6 into the Forester > anytime soon. I've got a Forester and a H6 VDC Sedan that really ROCKS Have you been hiding under a rock? I'm thinking 5 years or so is when the first mass produced Honda insight went on sale. The hybrids have not been a big deal though....The insight and Prius are extremely ugly and the insight doesn't have any room, the Civic is nice and a fairly normal car but what's the point? The economy isn't that great. Now if Mitsubishi rolls out the all-wheel-drive Eclipse hybrid in '06 I WILL get exited. TG > Kidd you not...2 years tops..Hybrid drive vehicles are in development > stage..no idea if Honda or Toyota drive versions...at the same time I'm > bugging dealership to see if Subaru will drop a V6 into the Forester > anytime soon. I've got a Forester and a H6 VDC Sedan that really ROCKS > Have you been hiding under a rock? I'm thinking 5 years or so is when the > first mass produced Honda insight went on sale. The hybrids have not been a > big deal though....The insight and Prius are extremely ugly and the insight > doesn't have any room, the Civic is nice and a fairly normal car but what's > the point? The economy isn't that great. Using today's average gas price here, the typical 20k kms per year and city consumption (the hybrid forte), yearly gas costs are: Civic Si (gas only) $1456 Civic Hybrid $892 Insight $710 Prius $728 I would say the Prius (or any hybrid) makes lots of economic sense. Gas today here is 91?/litre Consumption, city, from CanadianDriver.com Civic Si 8.0l/100km Insight 3.9l/100km Civic Hybrid 4.9l/100km Prius 4.0l/100km > > Have you been hiding under a rock? I'm thinking 5 years or so is when the > > first mass produced Honda insight went on sale. The hybrids have not been a [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Civic Hybrid 4.9l/100km > Prius 4.0l/100km From your analysis it looks like this type of vehicle makes sense where you live. I'm in the US and this past week E-85 fuel was on a promotional sale of US$0.85 per gallon. At this price, I believe that the annual fuel cost for an FFV Ford Taurus would be lower than the Insight. Admittedly, E-85 is not usually priced that low, but an FFV (Flexible Fuel Vehicle) Taurus is much more readily available and is more spacious than any of the Hybrids you listed. I believe that the Taurus would have lower initial and maintenance costs too. Too bad Subaru doesn't do FFV, Bi-Fuel CNG or LPG (the solution I like the best), or Hybrid. I realize that your reply is based on the previous poster's claim that "the economy isn't that great" and that statement has to be put into context. For you, that statement might not be true. For him - and me - his statement is very true. Here is why: Even with what are historically high prices for gasoline (in my area it is actually E-10 fuel that is sold as regular petrol), it still is substantially lower priced than $0.91/liter. The recent "outrageously high" price would be about US$0.54/liter, and during bargain times it would be about half that price. With that low a price for fuel, even for what we consider high priced gas, it would likely take longer than the life of the car for the fuel cost savings to pay back the additional cost of a Hybrid or most any other alternate fuel vehicle. E-85 is the exception, because manufacturers are not charging extra for this feature. Unfortunately most of them aren't doing a very good job of advertising its availability. Walt Kienzle [chop] > his statement is very true. Here is why: Even with what are > historically high prices for gasoline (in my area it is actually E-10 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > for the fuel cost savings to pay back the additional cost of a Hybrid or > most any other alternate fuel vehicle. [chop] Of course all my numbers were local, including Canadian $ and ?. So our gas is approximately 66?US/litre. Our taxes are higher here. Given the same size of vehicle, and that the Prius is actually a chunk larger than the one gas-only Civic, the ~C$700 per year will pay for batteries long after the warranty has expired. It is also assumed that the Prius (or Civic) will have the same bulletproof type reputation (or even better). Toyota or Honda know that people are going to jump on the reliability statistics and have probably spent more than 'normal' on quality control and design. Gas will only be going up in price. Maybe not as dramatically as in the last couple of months, but given the world oil situation and China's increasing rate of consumption, up is a given. That means the C$700 number is likely very conservative in the longer term. [snip] > Of course all my numbers were local, including Canadian $ and ?. > So our gas is approximately 66?US/litre. Our taxes are higher > here. I don't see what your point is here. My point was that you can't say that the previous poster was incorrect because of the circumstances where you live or how much you or some mythical "average person" drives. Your prices, higher taxes included, may make what you say true for you, but please don't claim that someone else is wrong because of that. BTW I noticed you deleted, without comment, my text about fuel in my area that costs about US$0.21/litre. No matter. Just as a basis of comparison, the last time I fueled up (aside from the US$0.21/liter) I paid about US$0.41/liter. I also question your price adjustment from CAN$ to US$ for the cost of gas. Are your wages increased by 20% or so compared to someone working in the US to make up for the lower value of the CAN$? Unlikely. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I expect that a CAN$ being spent by you has the same impact on the family finances as a US$ spent by me. As an example of how prices are adjusted down to correspond to the lower value of the CAN$, I know that many cars (Chrysler minivans come to mind) that are identicaly equipped to the US conterparts and are sold for substantially less in Canada because of this differential - so much so that US residents buy their cars in Canada and import them themselves to save thousands of dollars. The problem has gotten so bad that US dealers have been given approval to deny warranty service for vehicles bought in Canada. Exceptions are made for Canadians experiencing warranty issues while traveling in the US. > Given the same size of vehicle, and that the Prius is actually > a chunk larger than the one gas-only Civic, the ~C$700 per year > will pay for batteries long after the warranty has expired. Actually I dispute this number also, primarily because I only drive 12,000km per year. Again, averages don't apply to everyone, so you can't shoot down someone else's claim because of circumstances applicable to you but not to them. Even if the number is accurate and the savings will pay for the $2000 batteries, it wouldn't have also fully paid for the extra $5,000 to $10,000 initial purchase price (compared to a similarly sized conventional car, plus the markup above list price that many dealers are charging for these limited supply hybrids) and the extra insurance costs for a car more expensive to buy and repair. > It is also assumed that the Prius (or Civic) will have the same > bulletproof type reputation (or even better). Toyota or Honda > know that people are going to jump on the reliability statistics > and have probably spent more than 'normal' on quality control > and design. Probably not a good thing to assume with new technology like this. I expect that the extra quality control and testing will make the quality ratings break even with the normal vehicles at best, particluarly with the low volume hybrid cars. Do you realize that Toyota only sold about 4,000 Prius' last year? > Gas will only be going up in price. People have been saying this for the past 30 years, and I don't believe this any more now than I did last year, or the year before, or the year before that, etc. Adjusted for inflation, gas in the US is still less expensive than it was 20 years ago. Sure, we will run out eventually, but by that time I expect to be dead, my Subaru will be an antique, and technological advancements will have a replacement solution fully implemented. Crude oil prices are dropping already from $42/barrel to 40.50/barrel, but that is only a small part of why prices are high. The cost of gasoline is high in the US because of a drop in the number of refineries over the past 30 years - not a single new refinery has been built in the US since the early 1970's, but many refineries have been closed since then because of age, lack of profitability, or inability or lack of cost effectiveness to make improvements required by regulations (environmental, safety, etc). That, combined with with governmental requirements for different blends of fuel in various regions which change twice a year is causing a supply shortage in gasoline that causes a temporary shortage during the transition from winter to summer fuels that happens each Spring, and to lesser extent each Autumn. When supply finally catches up with demand, I fully expect prices to drop by 20% from their current levels. I have been doing my part - I haven't bought gasoline since the end of April. > Maybe not as dramatically > as in the last couple of months, but given the world oil situation > and China's increasing rate of consumption, up is a given. > > That means the C$700 number is likely very conservative in > the longer term. According to my figures, I didn't even buy $700 worth of gas for all of my driving last year -- or any other year. My credit card company reports that I have bought $252 of gasoline so far this year (that doesn't include the $20 in fuel rebates I received from BP/Amoco recently). Even adjusting that amount to make it comparable with the CAN$, it would be impossible for me to save $700 unless I didn't drive at all. No hybrid needed for that. > [snip] >> Of course all my numbers were local, including Canadian $ and ?. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > comparison, the last time I fueled up (aside from the US$0.21/liter) I > paid about US$0.41/liter. Nowhere did I say anybody was wrong. I just stated that for a typical driver here a hybrid can make economic sense. I also didn't mention that Venezuelans rioted a few years ago when gas went from 5? to 10? a gallon. > I also question your price adjustment from CAN$ to US$ for the cost of > gas. Are your wages increased by 20% or so compared to someone working [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > bought in Canada. Exceptions are made for Canadians experiencing > warranty issues while traveling in the US. And I have virtually free health care. It's a different country with different tax structures. All I said was that hybrids make sense here. Since the mini-van you're talking about is made here, there are cost advantages for us. >> Given the same size of vehicle, and that the Prius is actually >> a chunk larger than the one gas-only Civic, the ~C$700 per year [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > hybrids) and the extra insurance costs for a car more expensive to buy > and repair. And I drive less than 5,000 kms per year so a hybrid is not cost effective for me. People need to do their own comparisons. Some people value clean air. As soon as the tax system is reformed to penalize polluting vehicles here, the hybrids will have major economic advantages. >> It is also assumed that the Prius (or Civic) will have the same >> bulletproof type reputation (or even better). Toyota or Honda [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the low volume hybrid cars. Do you realize that Toyota only sold about > 4,000 Prius' last year? Likely because they're limiting their quality control costs. >> Gas will only be going up in price. > > People have been saying this for the past 30 years, and I don't believe > this any more now than I did last year, or the year before, or the year > before that, etc. . . . Which is why SUV and truck sales continue. >> Maybe not as dramatically >> as in the last couple of months, but given the world oil situation [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > CAN$, it would be impossible for me to save $700 unless I didn't drive > at all. No hybrid needed for that. Which is why I always promote lowering consumption as a tool to keep your costs down - it is very effective. > Which is why I always promote lowering consumption as a tool to keep > your costs down - it is very effective. I agree, but it seems to be an alien concept to way too much of our population. TV stations trying to make news are having a field day with runaway gas prices here in SoCal, and only one thing seems to be constant with the attitude of people interviewed: "I can't afford these prices, but no way am I gonna get rid of my gas hog or cut back on my driving." With that kind of attitude, is there any solution until we run out completely? Rick That's funny. They took the same attitude over the rolling blackouts. New power plants were needed to be built, but "not in my backyard" attitude prevailed. Just an observation. > > Which is why I always promote lowering consumption as a tool to keep > > your costs down - it is very effective. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Rick <snip> > Using today's average gas price here, the typical 20k kms per year > and city consumption (the hybrid forte), yearly gas costs are: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I would say the Prius (or any hybrid) makes lots of economic sense. You may have missed a few recent articles in US newspapers regarding hybrids. It seems they get MUCH worse mileage than their EPA ratings. The EPA tests do not accurately measure the true fuel consumption of a hybrid vehicle. Charles Perry P.E. > You may have missed a few recent articles in US newspapers regarding > hybrids. It seems they get MUCH worse mileage than their EPA ratings. The > EPA tests do not accurately measure the true fuel consumption of a hybrid > vehicle. > > Charles Perry P.E. Note that they're still getting the best mileage overall. The big problem is that Toyota, et al, CANNOT use realistic numbers -- they are required by law to display and advertise the EPA numbers and as you note, the EPA's testing gives erroneous numbers for hybrids. -FPtM The Toyota Echo can be had for under $10,000 at 38 MPG combined. The Volkswagen Golf and Jetta TDI models get 32/41 respectively (combined city and hwy) and cost thousands less than the hybrids. Hybrids are getting better and I like the development of new choices but they are certainly not answer for the vast majority of consumers at this point. TG > > You may have missed a few recent articles in US newspapers regarding > > hybrids. It seems they get MUCH worse mileage than their EPA ratings. The [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > -FPtM I agree. My brother has a '92 Saturn sedan. 35/40 mileage. Then again, the car is made mostly out of fiberglass. > The Toyota Echo can be had for under $10,000 at 38 MPG combined. > The Volkswagen Golf and Jetta TDI models get 32/41 respectively (combined [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > > > -FPtM > The Toyota Echo can be had for under $10,000 at 38 MPG combined. > The Volkswagen Golf and Jetta TDI models get 32/41 respectively (combined > city and hwy) and cost thousands less than the hybrids. And the TDI's would get even better numbers if they had a CVT. SignatureScott Johnson / scottjohnson at kc dot rr dot com >>You may have missed a few recent articles in US newspapers regarding >>hybrids. It seems they get MUCH worse mileage than their EPA ratings. The [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > -FPtM I own a 2004 Toyota Prius hybrid, which now has close to 5000 miles on it, and also follow the Prius-2G group on Yahoo Groups. The following is my 2 cents on this whole hybrid thread and not specifically in response to the above messages. I can tell you that indeed Prius owner mileage varies and this has been an active topic on the group. My wife commutes about 45 miles each way to work on I-66 in Northern Virginia and averages about 55 mpg and has seen one tank over 60 mpg. Others report from around 40 mpg to over 70 mpg! If one buys a hybrid *solely* for gas mileage, they will find a relatively long payback period of several years as compared to other high-mpg cars that are not hybrid. However, hybrids -- and the Prius in particular -- offer a variety of features; such as, very low emissions, good overall driveability and size, interesting (indeed fascinating) technology and features in addition to the high mpg. An important feature for buyers in Norther Virginia is that the hybrids qualify for special Clean Fuel license plates, which in turn permit (through June, 2006) the cars to be operated in High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes with only the driver aboard. Battery pack replacement expense is not the only issue. With all of the high tech components and computers, it appears advisable to buy Toyota's 7yr/100k service contract and replace the car about the time the contract runs out. Fortunately, history with the 2001-2003 Priuses bodes well for the 2004 model's reliability and longevity. What is *important* to understand is that hybrid technology appears to be a viable alternative and that hybrids can and do drive with much of the feel and performance that one would normally expect from a car. It will be interesting to see how the Toyota Highlander, Lexus, Ford and other brands of hybrid SUV's perform. Anyone interested in the hybrids should view the FAQ's at Yahoo Groups/Prius-2G or http://www.vfaq.net. Ed P Reply To address munged. Not true....The legal requirement is to not post numbers that are HIGHER than the EPA tests. The CAN legally post lower numbers. But, of course, they would be crazy to do so. > > You may have missed a few recent articles in US newspapers regarding > > hybrids. It seems they get MUCH worse mileage than their EPA ratings. The [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > -FPtM > Not true....The legal requirement is to not post numbers that are HIGHER than > the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > > > -FPtM Not worth the extra cost. My gas cost for my vehicle is about $600/yr. Right, I don't drive a lot, and you know, I don't need to. At any rate, for the $3000 premium for a hybrid, I can drive for 5 yrs..and then it's trade-in time. So what's the point? And how much does it cost to replace the batteries? Think life cycle costs and you'll stick with IC engines. Al SignatureThere's never enough time to do it right the first time....... > In article <40BB7871.FAC54979@comcast.net>, > Not worth the extra cost. My gas cost for my vehicle is about $600/yr. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the batteries? Think life cycle costs and you'll stick with IC > engines. Think clean air for your children and a reduced dependence on dead dino juice from a terribly unstable region of the planet, and demand more efficient vehicles. Hard dollar thinking and gas prices that were (quite artificially) lower than the cost of a gallon of milk have gotten us to where we are today....both in terms of gas prices, and continued involvement in that political nightmare known as the Middle East. -- Todd H. 2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4 Chicago, Illinois USA > > In article <40BB7871.FAC54979@comcast.net>, > > Not worth the extra cost. My gas cost for my vehicle is about $600/yr. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > 2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4 > Chicago, Illinois USA I disagree with both of your claims and believe that you have fallen into the trap of the eco-fanatics. 10 years ago, production cars were being made - and sold - that had emissions that were cleaner that the ambient air that they took in. With the current emission standards ("current" being those in place since 1985), a highway full of automobiles is causing less pollution than a herd of cows. Nobody is protesting this existence of cows or asking for the development of hybrid cows. Contrary to the cries from Al Gore, the automobile is not our greatest enemy. Now if we could get the same reduction in pollution from heavy equipment, you would have something. But I don't see anybody making, buying, selling or talking about hybrid Freightliners, Mack trucks or diesel locomotives. For someone that spends only $600/year on gasoline, and I am in that camp along with the OP, the few gallons saved by going to a hybrid isn't going to reduce the rate of dependence on "dead dino juice". We could fuel our cars with ethanol and get that result without the expense of hybrids. Since you live in the Chicago area, as I do, you are already using gasoline with 10% ethanol. Many cars (and trucks) are equipped to run on 85% ethanol. Did you hear that it was on a promotional sale for $0.85/gal a couple of weeks ago in Chicagoland? That would have been the thing to buy to reduce emissions and dependence on oil. Oil goes into more things than automobiles. It is used to generate electricity, make plastics and chemicals, and more. Saving a minute amount of oil by switching to a hybrid vehicle isn't going to make any difference in when we run out. The problem I have with hybrid vehicles is that they still use gasoline and they have batteries, which IMHO are not a very efficient method for storing energy. What about all the pollution generated and/or energy needed to dispose of or recycle the batteries in that hybrid at the end of their useful life? I see the true solution to the items you ask us to think about is by developing vehicles that operate on something other than oil. Walt Kienzle >Now if we could get the same reduction in pollution from heavy equipment, >you would have something. But I don't see anybody making, buying, selling >or talking about hybrid Freightliners, Mack trucks or diesel locomotives. > GM hasn't made hybrid cars or light trucks (yet) because it's focusing on the big pollution producers. http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?article=7193&sid=173&n=156 They delivered a fleet of 235 diesel-electric hybrid buses which will save Seattle 750,000 gallons of fuel a year. And the maintenance schedule is less expensive too. >Saving a minute amount of oil by switching to a hybrid >vehicle isn't going to make any difference in when we run out. > Um, changing to hybrid buses saves one city a lot of gallons. (a mere drop multiplied by many cities) If in 5-10 years the world auto market switched almost entirely to hybrid (especially diesel powered ones) powertrains and saved a conservative 25% in fuel economy, don't you think that will help conserve the supply for a while? >The problem I have with hybrid vehicles is that they still use gasoline and >they have batteries, which IMHO are not a very efficient method for storing >energy. Depends what kind of efficiency. Batteries used on modern EVs are quite efficient storing and giving back electrical power. However they are very inefficient when compared to liquid fuels with an energy to weight ratio. >What about all the pollution generated and/or energy needed to dispose >of or recycle the batteries in that hybrid at the end of their useful life? Might be equivalent to reducing the number of tankers (sea and land) needed to carry all that gasoline weight around the world. >I see the true solution to the items you ask us to think about >is by developing vehicles that operate on something other than oil. I agree on that point, but fuel cell cars are probably decades away from being produced economically. They exist now, but check out the development costs. And don't forget to factor in the cost of replacing or augmenting most every gas station in the world with a hydrogen/whatever station. Hybrids will help bridge the gap. Plus, what if the hydrogen needed to power fuel cells is most economically derived from oil? - Byron > I disagree with both of your claims and believe that you have fallen into > the trap of the eco-fanatics. 10 years ago, production cars were being [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > pollution than a herd of cows. Nobody is protesting this existence of cows > or asking for the development of hybrid cows. Rightly so cus cows aren't manufactured goods. > Contrary to the cries from Al Gore, the automobile is not our > greatest enemy. It's certainly the most numerous. > Now if we could get the same reduction in pollution from heavy > equipment, you would have something. How many front end loaders or locomotives do you see on our morning commute? > For someone that spends only $600/year on gasoline, and I am in that camp > along with the OP, the few gallons saved by going to a hybrid isn't going to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > chemicals, and more. Saving a minute amount of oil by switching to a hybrid > vehicle isn't going to make any difference in when we run out. That's where your math is troublesome. If you can double the mileage of all production automobiles, you multiply that by how many millions of vehicles there are... and you sure as hell make a huge difference. It's progress that tailpipe emissions on a given automobile are cleaner than they once were. It's embarassing from an engineering perspective that average mileage is little changed over the past 15 years. With the SUV boom, average mileage I believe has in fact gone down. > The problem I have with hybrid vehicles is that they still use gasoline and > they have batteries, which IMHO are not a very efficient method for storing > energy. What about all the pollution generated and/or energy needed to > dispose of or recycle the batteries in that hybrid at the end of their > useful life? I see the true solution to the items you ask us to think about > is by developing vehicles that operate on something other than oil. If Subaru made a natural gas fired outback, I'd buy one. Nothing out the tailipe but water vapor. If one isn't part of the solution on this issue, they're part of the problem. Consumers only looking at the bottom line of today's fuel cost are hampering the adoption of LEV's and alternative fuel vehicles, and the future doesn't look too rosey -- Todd H. 2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4 Chicago, Illinois USA > > those in place since 1985), a highway full of automobiles is causing less > > pollution than a herd of cows. Nobody is protesting this existence of cows > > or asking for the development of hybrid cows. > Rightly so cus cows aren't manufactured goods. They aren't? When did herefords thunder across the Serengeti? > It's embarassing from an engineering perspective that average mileage > is little changed over the past 15 years. With the SUV boom, average > mileage I believe has in fact gone down. Ford gets a lower average MPG now than they did in their Model T days. That's downright disgusting. (I'm not knocking the Model T, but you'd think a century of refinement could improve the efficiency.) > If Subaru made a natural gas fired outback, I'd buy one. Nothing out > the tailipe but water vapor. And CO2. If you want water vapor as your only byproduct, you have to burn pure hydrogen. Any CxHy (hydrocarbon) fuel is going to produce both CO2 and H2O, unless you fail to burn the carbon at all. -DanD Signature# Dan Duncan (kd4igw) dand@pcisys.net http://pcisys.net/~dand # Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company. -Mark Twain The conflict in the Middle East is only a portion of gas prices. Both China and the US have increased consumption and with the trend of bigger, heavier and less-efficient vehicles continuing, well, it comes down to supply and demand. Greater demand means greater price. It's been over 100 years for the life of the IC engine. It's time for a new alternative that does not fund terrorist organizations. Henry > > In article <40BB7871.FAC54979@comcast.net>, > > Not worth the extra cost. My gas cost for my vehicle is about $600/yr. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > 2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4 > Chicago, Illinois USA > You may have missed a few recent articles in US newspapers regarding > hybrids. It seems they get MUCH worse mileage than their EPA ratings. The > EPA tests do not accurately measure the true fuel consumption of a hybrid Hi, FWIW, a Los Angeles TV station recently did a head to head with a Honda Insight and a Toyota Prius to see what they would do in a typical "drive around SoCal" kinda loop of freeway, city, etc. with lots of traffic all the way. At the end of the test, the Honda returned ~55 mpg, the Toyota ~59 mpg. Don't know how that compares to EPA specs, but we can't forget where "YMMV" originally came from! Rick > You may have missed a few recent articles in US newspapers regarding > hybrids. It seems they get MUCH worse mileage than their EPA ratings. The > EPA tests do not accurately measure the true fuel consumption of a hybrid > vehicle. These are not EPA ratings. > I would say the Prius (or any hybrid) makes lots of economic sense. Don't forget the cost of batteries! I understand Toyota recently upped their warranty on the battery pack to 100k miles to help entice people to buy the Prius. Why? The article I read said the battery pack alone is $2000 US. Something to think about... Rick Factor in the Toyota Echo and other high fuel economy gas only models that cost 1/2 as much as the hybrids....initial and overall cost are important, not just how much you save on gas. TG > > Have you been hiding under a rock? I'm thinking 5 years or so is when the > > first mass produced Honda insight went on sale. The hybrids have not been a [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Civic Hybrid 4.9l/100km > Prius 4.0l/100km > Using today's average gas price here, the typical 20k kms per year > and city consumption (the hybrid forte), yearly gas costs are: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Insight $710 > Prius $728 Hybrids are most effective in city driving -- lots of stop-and-go. This is the environment where internal combustion engines are least efficient. Here in the US most people (not all) tend to drive longer distances at constant speeds. I know I do. Hybrids lose their advantage in such long-distance driving. This is why they're so much more popular in Japan and congested parts of Europe than here in the United States. I'm not trying to dismiss the benefits of hybrids, just to put those benefits into a realistic context. The benefit a particular person will see from a hybrid depends a great deal on the type of driving he does. And my mother owns a Prius, so I'm not talking *completely* out of my butt here. - Greg Reed Signature2001 Chevy Astro AWD (wife's) 2004 Subaru Forester Turbo 5-Speed Plus, in hot states like Texas, if you use the air conditioner the gas engine is 'on' almost continually anyway - further reducing the benefits or the system. BTW- is there an option on either the Toy or Honda for overnight battery recharging from the grid? Carl 1 Lucky Texan > *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com *** > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > - Greg Reed Signatureto reply, change ( .not) to ( .net) > Plus, in hot states like Texas, if you use the air conditioner the gas > engine is 'on' almost continually anyway - further reducing the > benefits or the system. > BTW- is there an option on either the Toy or Honda for overnight > battery recharging from the grid? Not in the Prius. I don't believe the Honda has this ability either, but I don't have first-hand knowledge of that car like I do of the Prius. BTW, my folks both absolutely love my Mom's Prius. My Dad has a really nice Dodge Caravan, but unless they have more than four people to carry, they *always* take the Prius on all their trips. Now that my Dad's retiring, I expect that his Caravan will probably get driven something very close to never. - Greg Reed Signature2001 Chevy Astro AWD (wife's) 2004 Subaru Forester Turbo 5-Speed Screw hybrids and their costly batteries, go Diesel: > Using today's average gas price here, the typical 20k kms per year > and city consumption (the hybrid forte), yearly gas costs are: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Insight $710 > Prius $728 VW Jetta Diesel $600 (US) > I would say the Prius (or any hybrid) makes lots of economic sense. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Civic Hybrid 4.9l/100km > Prius 4.0l/100km Jetta Diesel 5.1l/100km -- Dominic Richens | dominic@alumni.uottawa.ca "If you're not *outraged*, you're not paying attention!" > Screw hybrids and their costly batteries, go Diesel: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > VW Jetta Diesel $600 (US) So more like $824 but >> I would say the Prius (or any hybrid) makes lots of economic sense. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Jetta Diesel 5.1l/100km Consumption is listed at 5.6l/100km So $905. Plus maybe a higher price. And diesel in North America is still dirty compared to European. Diesel does have a big edge for longevity and proven track record. > And diesel in North America is still dirty > compared to European. When I watched a Jetta with "TDI" on the trunk pull out in front of me yesterday (illegally), I rolled my eyes in anticipation of having to smell diesel exhaust for the next 8 miles (the likely distance before I'd have an opportunity to pass). I neither smelled nor saw anything in those 8 miles that would lead me to suspect the car had a diesel in it. Diesel engines have come a long way since the black plume-spewing 1978 Rabbit my friend Mark sometimes drives. But he gets 45 mpg in it, and pays about 70 cents less per gallon for his fuel than I do -- all this being US dollars and gallons. And miles. (Does anybody else still use miles?) - Greg Reed Signature2001 Chevy Astro AWD (wife's) 2004 Subaru Forester Turbo 5-Speed I bought the Forester over the Honda CR-V because of the gas economy, among other things. So, I am interested in economy. At this time, it gets the same or less mileage than my 94 Pontiac Bonneville. But, I wanted a wagon and AWD. I've thought about hi-breds but as my miles pile up on the highway, question what the economy versus payback would be then. Currently, I think diesel is the way to go. I might consider a Jetta wagon. I find the AWD without locking axel is ineffective when the going gets tough. Why would Subaru put limited slip on the Outback and not the Forester where such a feature would be expected? Sorry about changing the topic but hopefully Subaru corporate is reading and understands some catching up is needed. I'd love a turbo but will not pay for premium fuel. So, if I can't have a snorting power wagon, I want fuel economy. Steve Bukosky wrote: > I find > the AWD without locking axel is ineffective when the going gets tough. > Why would Subaru put limited slip on the Outback and not the Forester > where such a feature would be expected? My XT has a limited slip differential on the rear axle, though I'm not sure of exactly what variety. Since you've indicated a distate for the turbo, you might want to check Subaru.com to find out whether the XS also has a limited slip. I know it has many of the XT's other upgrades (but not the turbo). - Greg Reed Signature2001 Chevy Astro AWD (wife's) 2004 Subaru Forester Turbo 5-Speed >Steve Bukosky wrote: >> I find [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >My XT has a limited slip differential on the rear axle, though I'm not sure >of exactly what variety. Since you've indicated a distate for the turbo, Yes, I might be out of date with my objection. My Forester is a 2002 and I think I got caught up in the AWD sales hype. In fairness, I have taken it through some deep snow and had a blast. However, I once got stuck where only two diagonal wheels would move. I used to have that problem plowing airport runways with an old Jeep CJ5. I learned the importance of axel locks then. |
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.