backtop


Print 169 comment(s) - last by blwest.. on Jan 18 at 11:58 AM

Toyota shows off the third generation Prius

Although the 2010 Prius was first leaked to the public in mid-October, Toyota today took the time to officially unveil its third-generation hybrid today at the Detroit Auto Show. The 2010 Prius builds upon the solid foundation of the first two generations and brings some new ammunition to the hybrid part this time around the block.

As previously reported on DailyTech, the new Prius uses a larger 1.8-liter gasoline engine which is paired with a significantly improved Hybrid Synergy Drive (HSD) -- Toyota says that the HSD is 90 percent new, torque losses are 20 percent less, and the hybrid components are now 20 percent lighter. The gasoline engine now pumps out 90 HP and 105 lb-ft of torque. The electric motor now is rated at 80 HP with 153 lb-ft of torque -- total combined power is 134 HP.

The increase in power hasn't done much for performance, however. Toyota quotes that 0-60 is achieved in 9.8 seconds. While this is an improvement over the previous model by more than a second, it's still not exactly what most people would call "fast" by any means.

The 2010 Prius is instantly recognizable as the most iconic hybrid on the planet and shares much stylistically with the second generation model. Toyota refined the shape to make it cut through the air -- in fact; the new model's coefficient of drag (Cd) is now 0.25 instead of 0.26 for the previous model.

When it comes to technology, the Prius again doesn't disappoint. The vehicle will be available with a moonroof package that incorporates solar panels to power a ventilation system. The vehicle will also be available with remote air conditioning which runs on battery power.

Other available options will include LED lighting front and rear, Dynamic Radar Cruise Control, Intelligent Parking Assist, and a backup monitor.

When it comes to the one aspect of the Prius that everyone wants to know about, fuel economy, Toyota just gives one statistic: 50 MPG combined (city/highway). That figure is based on Toyota's own internal testing and doesn't reflect the final numbers which will come down from the Environmental Protection Agency (EP).

Pricing also wasn't announced; however, expect Toyota to hold the line to compete with the sub-$20,000 Honda Insight.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

2 digit hp out of a 1.8??
By tastyratz on 1/12/2009 2:18:24 PM , Rating: 1
Hardly an example in "efficiency" for a 2010 car.

1.8l 2zzge in the last gen celica made 180hp and 34mpg on the highway (I have friends who got 40+ all the time) that being without any electric hybrid assist system.

Obviously the tune, a/f ratio, etc. come into play.... but at a 50% power cut + a likely single digit mpg change (latter being pure speculation since we don't know what the Prius would net without the hybrid drive).




RE: 2 digit hp out of a 1.8??
By Mitch101 on 1/12/2009 2:31:12 PM , Rating: 2
40mpg to 50mpg is a 25% increase. I think that's pretty good but I cant fault someone for getting the 40mpg either. Or course torque translates to how hard/easy the engine is capable of moving the vehicle and these are really respectable numbers and about a 50% increase. I don't see Priuses sitting on the side of the road or sitting in trees because they were run over unable to merge into traffic of course they never seem to pass me either.

I think the key to getting a new car is to get what you really need not the biggest thing out there because everyone else is. The wife has a gaz guzzler mini van because she generally lugs around the kids. I'm looking for a commuter car just me to get to and from work. I would buy a 2 seater Prius if it existed but I'm sure the market doesn't call for one. In the end I just don't want to be caught driving a 13MPG commuter car if the gas prices whip back up again and if they dont skyrocket again well more power to everyone.


RE: 2 digit hp out of a 1.8??
By sprockkets on 1/12/2009 3:16:36 PM , Rating: 3
While you may have gotten 34-40mpg, just remember, you didn't get 180hp unless you reved that lousy engine till near redline, and I guarantee you, you don't get 34-40mpg at redline.

No such thing as a free lunch.


RE: 2 digit hp out of a 1.8??
By FITCamaro on 1/12/09, Rating: -1
RE: 2 digit hp out of a 1.8??
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/12/2009 3:36:59 PM , Rating: 5
Then again, no one buys a Prius for performance. There's nothing wrong with a $22k car that gets 50 MPG.


RE: 2 digit hp out of a 1.8??
By Dreifort on 1/12/2009 4:13:57 PM , Rating: 3
wasn't the Honda CRX a cheap affordable car in the 90s? and sported 40-50 mpg (on the manufacturer sticker)?


RE: 2 digit hp out of a 1.8??
By Hoser McMoose on 1/12/2009 9:21:52 PM , Rating: 3
The 1990 Honda CRX is rated at an estimated 43mpg. At the time it was rated at 50mpg, but the rating system changed a few years ago (hence why the 2009 Prius is rated for 46mpg instead of 55mpg under the old rating system).

The CRX achieved it's high fuel economy the old fashioned way, but having very little power. It's 1.3L engine was rated for 58hp.

Similarly GM marketed the (Suzuki made) Geo Metro XFI in 1990 that managed an estimated 46mpg (55mpg under the old ratings). It had a whooping 49hp under the hood.

Getting good fuel economy in a car is EASY. Getting good fuel economy in a car that people are willing to put their hard-earned money down to buy is HARD.


RE: 2 digit hp out of a 1.8??
By Alexstarfire on 1/12/2009 11:27:32 PM , Rating: 2
That'd be true if you actually needed the extra power. I'm not saying it's NEVER used, but come on. Are you going to sit there and tell me that you regularly NEED more than even 100 HP to drive. I highly doubt it.

Though, we all have different opinions. I just feel that you can't count EXTRA as part of the value of a product if you don't use it. It'd be like getting a Mig fighter plane for $10. Yea, that's one hell of a deal, but you'd never use the plane, unless you are connected or have some serious money laying around. Getting a license to operate, fuel, and clearance to fly isn't going to come cheap my friend. Not to mention that you could "accidentally" be shot down by US planes. In the end I'd rather have just kept my $10. Though, if you're getting it for bragging rights, like I would assume most owners of high HP cars do, then it'd probably be worth it, for the Mig anyways, since $10 for some serious bragging rights is hard to come by.


RE: 2 digit hp out of a 1.8??
By Jimbo1234 on 1/13/2009 2:23:08 PM , Rating: 2
I don't NEED it, but it sure is nice on a metered on ramp with less than an 1/8 mile to get up to speed (~50-55 when the ramp is metered). I also often drive to and from work on 2 lane county roads with moderate traffic. Being able hit 80MPH in a handfull of seconds to pass the truck doing 40 in a 55 sure helps reduce the time in the wrong lane too.


RE: 2 digit hp out of a 1.8??
By Alexstarfire on 1/14/2009 10:31:53 AM , Rating: 2
My 2002 Prius does just fine.


RE: 2 digit hp out of a 1.8??
By Spuke on 1/13/2009 3:09:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are you going to sit there and tell me that you regularly NEED more than even 100 HP to drive.
We could get into lengthy debates on what's actually NEEDED but I'll stick to your post. My car has 260 hp, I don't need any of it. I don't need a car. I could do a life changer and move to downtown LA and live within walking distance to my job. But I don't. I wanted a fast car since I was 11 years old and now I have one. Am I using all 260 hp all of the time? Nope. Sometimes it's just dangerous to use it all, other times it's just expensive. I can tell you my foot is planted to the floor more often than not and I use more power than my "old" 180 hp Nissan Spec V.


RE: 2 digit hp out of a 1.8??
By Hare on 1/13/2009 3:35:25 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure that the 90s CRX is comparable to a modern car. I mean who wouldn't rather drive to a wall in a CRX which has the structural strength of an aluminum bucket.

I'm pretty sure the Prius also weighs just a "bit" more. It all adds up and lowers the mpg.


RE: 2 digit hp out of a 1.8??
By 9nails on 1/13/2009 7:59:41 PM , Rating: 2
That CRX they're talking about was the 1.3L CRX HF model. (HF for High Fuel) Which wasn't your average CRX DX or the tuned 1.6L VTEC CRX Si which had significant performance improvements over the HF.

The CRX HF had weight savings features all over the car, which included plastic front fenders, lack of power brakes lack of power steering, and no AC as a standard item. (Motorcycles can be found with more displacement, cylinders, and higher performance than this car!)

So I totally agree with what you said, the CRX HF does have better MPG's, but only that. Everything else on the Prius is leaps ahead and far safer.


RE: 2 digit hp out of a 1.8??
By tastyratz on 1/12/2009 4:24:46 PM , Rating: 2
Absolutely,

But my argument is why is it so limited. They could easily get more hp out of the gasoline engine without sacrificing very much gas mileage. The Celica and Corolla are perfect comparable examples of efficiency in a gasoline engine with more power. Why is the 1.8l limited to 90hp? That sounds to me like its not a very efficient engine after all.

That being the case why couldn't they make an extremely efficient 1.4l for example which got better gas mileage?

The bar was set very high with several other cars in the fleet. If you ask me, their iconic Prius econosipper only barely exceeds the bar there in comparison.

There is nothing wrong with a $22k car that gets 50 MPG, but I don't understand why they cant make a $22k hybrid that gets 60MPG if they can approach 50 without hybrid complexity.


RE: 2 digit hp out of a 1.8??
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/12/2009 4:46:29 PM , Rating: 1
Name a current U.S. production car that gets close to 50 MPG combined without hybrid technology.

The current 1.8-liter Corolla gets 30 MPG combined. The Honda Fit and Civic get 31 MPG and 29 respectively. The Jetta TDI is rated at 34 MPG combined. Hell, even the Smart fourtwo is only rated at 36 MPG combined.

The only way you can make a gasoline engine-only car approach 50 MPG today is with something that is sub 2,000 pounds with a weak sauce motor. The Smart fourtwo is about as close as you can get (2,300 pounds) and it still falls way short of 50 MPG.


RE: 2 digit hp out of a 1.8??
By Spuke on 1/12/2009 4:59:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Name a current U.S. production car that gets close to 50 MPG combined without hybrid technology.
You are missing his point. The point is, the gas engine in the Prius is not as efficient as it could be. There are other more efficient gas engines out there. The Prius's gas mileage could be improved even more with a more efficient gas engine. Toyota's not even using direct injection, HCCI or anything else that could vastly improve the efficiency of the Prius. It's like they stopped at 50 mpg and said, good enough because no one else can get any better.


RE: 2 digit hp out of a 1.8??
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/12/2009 5:05:52 PM , Rating: 3
Those technologies cost $$$.

The point is not to pair an expensive gasoline engine with an equally expensive hybrid system. The goal is to use a detuned off the shelf gasoline engine switched to the Atkinson cycle and pair it with an efficient hybrid system. That's the most cost effective solution.

If Toyota had put in a high-tech gasoline engine coupled with a high tech hybrid system, everyone would be complaining b/c it cost $28,000 base. It's also the reason why you don't see more diesel hybrids -- it's cost prohibitive.

That being said, you say that there are more efficient gas engines out there... I'm not seeing it with current U.S. production vehicles. Even with the best gasoline engines available today in the U.S., I don't see any of them in vehicles with fuel economy over 36 MPG combined.


RE: 2 digit hp out of a 1.8??
By Spuke on 1/12/2009 11:44:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If Toyota had put in a high-tech gasoline engine coupled with a high tech hybrid system, everyone would be complaining b/c it cost $28,000 base.
Ford's premium for their DI AND turbo'd Ecoboost engines is $700. We'll say $1000. So that makes the Prius $23k not $28k. Automatic transmission options in other cars cost more than that and people buy the hell out of those. I don't really see an excuse for Toyota not to use the most efficient gas engine tech for the Prius. Hell, they're not even doing it for their Lexus hybrid only car.


RE: 2 digit hp out of a 1.8??
By Jimbo1234 on 1/13/2009 2:25:49 PM , Rating: 2
I'd be curious to see what the Prius would do performance and MPG wise if the cheap engine and expensive hybrid powertrain was replaced with just an expensive efficient forced induction direct injected gas engine. It would also weight less and have more trunk space.


RE: 2 digit hp out of a 1.8??
By chavv on 1/14/2009 9:16:38 AM , Rating: 2
google "Atkinson engine" , then ask.
In 2 words, Atkinson cycle engne is not as efficient on mid-high rpms, but is way more efficient on low-rpms. And a hybrids engine oftenly has to work at low rpm.


RE: 2 digit hp out of a 1.8??
By Andrwken on 1/16/2009 10:29:29 PM , Rating: 2
Uh Oh! Are you suggesting that even the mighty green Toyota is only going to make their cars more efficient when it would be profit driven to do so? And that keeping the cost down on the drivetrain makes it profitable at the expense of our mother earth?

BLASPHEMOUS!

Sounds like they are taking lessons from Detroit.

(end sarcasm)


RE: 2 digit hp out of a 1.8??
By tastyratz on 1/12/2009 5:01:57 PM , Rating: 2
Mileage claims have long been inflated, especially hybrids. People get them home and are sorely disappointed with real life true gas mileage.
Do people with the prius actually get close to 50mpg? The celica wasn't rated at 40+ mpg yet people regularly exceeded epa estimates. I would call 40+ closing in on 50mpg.

This isn't even factoring diesel which is a grossly underadopted technology in the US.

Also, I am talking highway mpg because city mpg will obviously be greatly increased with a hybrid drive system.
The original insight was 60/66. 50 is a far cry from that but the insight shows what hybrid is capable of.


By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/12/2009 5:14:40 PM , Rating: 4
You seem to be forgetting one thing -- cars back in the 80's were much lighter. The CRX and its ilk were 2,000 pound vehicles.

The original Insight was rated at 60/66 with the old inflated EPA numbers. It's rated at 48/58 with the new EPA calculations (the same calculations used to get the numbers that I provided up above) which equals 53 MPG combined -- impressive but not Earth shattering.

And the Insight was ultra efficient because it was ultra-light and used aluminum and other expensive lightweight materials. In fact, I believe that Honda took a loss on every one they made, whereas Toyota makes a profit on the Prius.

A big part of the Insight's fuel efficiency came not from its hybrid system, but from the fact that its low-powered engine only had to pull around 1,850 pounds. The second generation Prius weighs 2,900 pounds.

That should put things like mileage into perspective between the two vehicles. The third generation Prius pulls in close to the same MPG (50 vs 53) while weighing over 1,000 pounds more than the Insight.


RE: 2 digit hp out of a 1.8??
By Alexstarfire on 1/12/2009 11:38:37 PM , Rating: 1
Well if you're just going to ignore the positive aspects of a hybrid car then you aren't really comparing anything. It'd be like comparing Salmon to Crab. Yea, they both taste great if you ignore the fact that you are allergic to shell fish and will die if you have any. That's an extreme case of course, but I'm sure you get my point.


RE: 2 digit hp out of a 1.8??
By Alexstarfire on 1/12/2009 11:42:38 PM , Rating: 2
Don't mean to double post, but I forgot to mention that it's only because people try to drive them the same way they drove their old gas-only cars. If you treat city roads like highways in a hybrid then you're naturally going to get lower FE... and I don't mean like speeding either. People tend to believe that a constant speed yields the best FE, but that's not true. Though for a gas-only car, and every other car actually, it can be under certain circumstances.


By usbseawolf2000 on 1/15/2009 1:21:23 AM , Rating: 2
People get them home and are sorely disappointed with real life true gas mileage.

Consumer Report survey shows 92% of Prius owners are satisfied for the 4th year.

Do people with the prius actually get close to 50mpg?

I get 54 MPG on average. My best tank was 64 MPG. I had to drive below the speed limit and it was not fun! So, I decided to drive at the speed I like.

The celica wasn't rated at 40+ mpg yet people regularly exceeded epa estimates. I would call 40+ closing in on 50mpg.

I would call that a BS. I had a Celica before and you and I know that's a lie or a very far stretched truth. Remember Prius is mid-size but Celica is a compact very light weight car.


By usbseawolf2000 on 1/15/2009 1:11:38 AM , Rating: 2
Why is the 1.8l limited to 90hp? That sounds to me like its not a very efficient engine after all.
It uses Atkinson cycle and it redlines at 5,200 RPM. Atkinson cycle is more efficient than the Otto cycle that the Celica and Corolla use.

Just put it this way, this new Prius can get better MPG than a motorcycle or a scooter!


RE: 2 digit hp out of a 1.8??
By haschid on 1/13/2009 8:47:34 AM , Rating: 2
I think you are just confused about what maximum power means in a engine. Power can be understood as a product of torque vs the speed of the engine. Usually car companies show the maximum power at the maximum rotation of the engine, about 6,000/6,500 rpm. Prius petrol engine will never rotate higher then 4,500 rpm, since it's not directly controlled by the driver. It's just how it is designed. That doesn't mean the car doesn't have a good torque.


RE: 2 digit hp out of a 1.8??
By pixelslave on 1/13/2009 11:31:56 AM , Rating: 2
I have a Prius. 43, 44 are normal without changing any driving habit. If you drive it a bit more wisely, 46 to 48 is entirely possible -- my record is 47.8.

AC, radio, etc doesn't really affect the mpg too much. But in cold winter, if you turn on the car in the morning, then go back home to drink a coffee to wait for the heat to warm up the interior of the car, you will definitely not get 46. You can only get around 42 to 43 if you do that.


RE: 2 digit hp out of a 1.8??
By Hare on 1/13/2009 3:33:30 PM , Rating: 3
What does efficiency have to do with liters and hp? They decided to use a 1.8L engine tuned to relatively low horse power FOR good FUEL efficiency.

Efficiency is all about used fuel for a given hp/torque figure. The big picture: MPG.

Of course they could have tuned it to produce 300hp from that 1.8L but what would be the point? This is a hybrid car and the whole point is to have low consumption. Toyota doesn't seem to have any problems getting 780hp out of a 2.4L engine (F1), I would imagine that their countless engineers have this thing pretty much optimized.

The internet. Full of experts.


By usbseawolf2000 on 1/15/2009 1:04:14 AM , Rating: 2
I had a Celica GT with 140 hp and got 34 MPG also. I now have the 06 Prius and I average 54 MPG. This new one should enable me to reach that magical 60 MPG.

Remember EPA revised their MPG testing in 2008. You can not compare pre-2008 MPG vs. post-2008.


hybrid rally car? not in foreseeable future
By Dreifort on 1/12/2009 1:58:09 PM , Rating: 2
The sub 100 horsepower still beats out the ole' Ford Escort with it's psaltry 88 HP and 0-60 in 11 secs or the old Cheverolet Chevette's 70 HP. At least the Chevette was used in offroad racing.

If the auto industry and/or government really wants American's to start driving more eco friendly cars - the prices still need to come way down. Poor ppl still buy cars, and a $11,000 Hyundai Accent is more appealing than a $25,000 Prius.

quote:
The increase in power hasn't done much for performance, however. Toyota quotes that 0-60 is achieved in 9.8 seconds. While this is an improvement over the previous model by more than a second, it's still not exactly what most people would call "fast" by any means.


Will they make a street mod versions for the kids who like to street race?




By Chaser on 1/12/2009 2:48:01 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah. It will have a gigantic add on generator bolted onto the rear.


RE: hybrid rally car? not in foreseeable future
By 67STANG on 1/12/2009 2:49:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Poor ppl still buy cars

Very true. The problem is that they aren't just buying Accents anymore. They are also buying cars they can't afford. (and houses too). One of the main reasons we are in this economic downturn...

Thanks poor people.
Thanks.


By Dreifort on 1/12/2009 2:52:52 PM , Rating: 3
that would be MTV promoting such a lifestyle.


RE: hybrid rally car? not in foreseeable future
By Solandri on 1/12/2009 3:14:35 PM , Rating: 2
It's odd how expectations and norms have changed. When I was in high school in the mid '80s, anything with a sub-10 sec 0-60 time was fast. Most cars did it in 11-13 sec. My parents bought a standard family sedan at the time - a 4 door Accord with a whopping 104 hp.

Now if your car can't do 0-60 in 8 sec, it's considered underpowered. 0.o I'd say if the industry/government wants Americans to drive more eco-friendly cars, they need to change these expectations. That Accord got 28 mpg, so the engines have gotten more efficient. Unfortunately that efficiency is being converted into more power, not better mileage.


RE: hybrid rally car? not in foreseeable future
By sprockkets on 1/12/2009 7:38:54 PM , Rating: 2
++

And ppl say the V6 in the Honda Ridgeline is underpowered, and yet that 3.5l puts out the same HP as the older 5.9l Dodge Ram engine, which at the time was the large V8 used for heavy loads. Up from there was the 8.0l V10, a lousy 300hp, which Ford's 6.8l at the same time frame put out the same output.

Of course, the new "Hemi" (all engines use the "hemi" principle, it's just stupid to bring that name back) puts out a lot for its size, but the V6 still is not competitive with the Honda.


By Runiteshark on 1/12/2009 11:13:14 PM , Rating: 2
Your post shows extreme ignorance in what an engine's power is meant for, and the magic thing called a torque curve.

I will bet you anything in the world that that old 5.9L Ram engine puts out a hell of a lot more torque and a lot earlier then Honda's shitty J35 engine. Comparing it to the 8L and 6.8L engines is even more hilarious, some of the diesel 8l engines put out over 700-800ft lbs of torque or more.

Please, go read Wikipedia some more and skim numbers.


By Andrwken on 1/16/2009 10:41:21 PM , Rating: 2
On the contrary, nobody uses the hemi principle anymore. Wedge head and "polyspherical" (what modern hemi's actually are) designs are the norm. Don't give Chrysler too much credit for modern head design.


RE: hybrid rally car? not in foreseeable future
By FITCamaro on 1/12/2009 3:28:13 PM , Rating: 2
If you try to mod a Prius to make it faster, you deserve the laughter that will come your way.


RE: hybrid rally car? not in foreseeable future
By Dreifort on 1/12/2009 4:05:21 PM , Rating: 2
because of the trailer attached containing all the extra batteries?


RE: hybrid rally car? not in foreseeable future
By FITCamaro on 1/13/2009 7:42:17 AM , Rating: 1
No because you're just an idiot.


RE: hybrid rally car? not in foreseeable future
By Dreifort on 1/13/2009 2:58:59 PM , Rating: 2
FIT wasn't calling me an idiot - just anyone who would mod a hybrid.


By corduroygt on 1/14/2009 6:40:41 PM , Rating: 2
Correction, anyone who would mod a hybrid to make it faster is an idiot.

Inflating the tires to max psi and duct taping the edges of the headlights are valid mods to improve fuel efficiency.
Doing a plugin conversion is ok I guess as well


By usbseawolf2000 on 1/15/2009 1:27:15 AM , Rating: 2
Dude, the battery pack is 99 lbs... probably lighter than your gas tank.

To put things in perspective, your lead acid battery to start the car weights 40-50 lbs.


By Andrwken on 1/16/2009 10:45:30 PM , Rating: 2
But dude,

Imagine if you had 400 lbs of battery pack at your disposal?

Watch out Tesla motors,,,,,,,,,,


Hybrid
By 2bdetermine on 1/12/2009 4:38:48 PM , Rating: 3
I thought U.S. is one of the most innovative country and yet when it comes to their car they're still relies on gas guzzler technology.




RE: Hybrid
By Spuke on 1/12/2009 5:03:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I thought U.S. is one of the most innovative country and yet when it comes to their car they're still relies on gas guzzler technology.
What exactly is "gas guzzler technology"?


RE: Hybrid
By SpaceJumper on 1/12/2009 9:13:18 PM , Rating: 2
They tend to design vehicles by slapping something together without in depth research of efficiency and reliability. For example, all US made 4x4 trucks exhaust smell really bad even when new, but the Japanese 4x4 trucks are not that way.


RE: Hybrid
By mcturkey on 1/12/2009 10:45:58 PM , Rating: 2
Did you really just complain about the smell of the exhaust? THAT is the best you can do??


RE: Hybrid
By Spuke on 1/12/2009 11:48:31 PM , Rating: 2
LOL! I really did not expect a serious answer and I got what I expected. That was some funny sh!t dude!! Exhaust smell? LMAO!


RE: Hybrid
By FITCamaro on 1/13/2009 7:41:02 AM , Rating: 2
I guess little things like the fact that the Prius was developed and is produced by a JAPANESE company is of little concern to you.

And seriously. The smell of exhaust? What's next? You going to complain that motor oil is "icky"?


RE: Hybrid
By Andrwken on 1/16/2009 10:48:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They tend to design vehicles by slapping something together without in depth research of efficiency and reliability. For example, all US made 4x4 trucks exhaust smell really bad even when new, but the Japanese 4x4 trucks are not that way.


I just lost 10 IQ points for reading this. I need an aspirin.


RE: Hybrid
By 2bdetermine on 1/13/2009 1:57:03 PM , Rating: 1
We got ourselves to the moon I think we can do better than relies on internal combustion engine to get us around.

But then again you guys votes for Bush junior.


Really?
By chmilz on 1/12/2009 2:22:31 PM , Rating: 2
Ugly, boring, and barely any better fuel economy than the upcoming Fusion Hybrid, which is 5x the car (IMHO) and equal or better quality. Hopefully the folks that blindly purchase anything foreign will open their eyes and look at the alternatives.

I'm am aware that the Prius and Fusion are in different classes, but it seems anything hybrid is being lumped together so...

Link on Ford's quality
http://wkzonews.blogspot.com/2009/01/consumer-repo...




RE: Really?
By UNHchabo on 1/12/2009 2:32:26 PM , Rating: 2
I think the hatchback-styled car with a spoiler across the rear window is about the ugliest design to hit the car industry. Merc C-class, Europe's current Civic Type R, and now this. Either move the spoiler up or down, and you have a car with potential for good looks.


RE: Really?
By chmilz on 1/12/2009 2:41:53 PM , Rating: 2
They're not all ugly... I liked the looks of the Mazdaspeed 3 and even the SRT4 Caliber (still a piece of junk though). Overall though, I agree, I'm not a fan of hatchbacks with spoilers.


RE: Really?
By UNHchabo on 1/12/2009 4:05:21 PM , Rating: 2
Hatchbacks with spoilers are fine with me (both of the ones you mention are fine with me). It's the mid-window spoiler that I hate:

The Merc:
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/autoreview/400...
The Type R:
http://www.caradvice.com.au/wp-content/uploads/200...

Now, if either of those spoilers are moved up, like with that Mazdaspeed, or down (can't think of any examples at the moment), then they'd look fine.


RE: Really?
By Dreifort on 1/12/2009 4:19:49 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Really?
By Spuke on 1/12/2009 5:02:11 PM , Rating: 2
An old Wings West aero kit!!! Now THAT'S old school. I wanted one of those way back when but I ended up buying a POS VW instead. No aero kit on the VW though as I hated it too much to spend money on it.


What a train wreck that thing is...
By Beenthere on 1/12/2009 10:05:03 PM , Rating: 1
If you like it, buy it, but I wouldn't touch something this ugly.




RE: What a train wreck that thing is...
By Spuke on 1/12/2009 11:50:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you like it, buy it, but I wouldn't touch something this ugly.
I don't know man, I've "touched" MUCH uglier than this car.


By Andrwken on 1/16/2009 10:54:44 PM , Rating: 2
It probably wasn't an automobile either. LOL

Let me guess, too much to drink and would rather chew your arm off rather than wake up what you "touched" the night before.

Been there. dammit.


RE: What a train wreck that thing is...
By Bateluer on 1/13/2009 8:40:31 AM , Rating: 2
I find it funny that people dislike aerodynamically shaped cars, but rave about the 'sportiness' of blocks like the Dodge Charger, the new Mustang, the Hummer H2 and H3, and the epitome of ugliness, the PT Cruiser.


By Spuke on 1/13/2009 3:18:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I find it funny that people dislike aerodynamically shaped cars
WE (humans) have diverse likes and dislikes. Duh!


This ventilation system
By Bateluer on 1/12/2009 3:28:45 PM , Rating: 2
How exactly does it work? Do the solar panels actually power an AC system, or is it just blowing fans?

If I park my car outside in Phoenix in July, which I do, will this system do anything more than act as a blow dryer?




RE: This ventilation system
By Anonymous Freak on 1/12/2009 6:19:15 PM , Rating: 2
Even if that's all it does; that helps. While the outside air may be 100+ (F), the inside air, without circulation, will easily hit 130+. Just swapping out the air every few minutes will help. Then when you get in and turn the AC on, you'll start out with not-quite-as-hot air.

(And who knows, maybe it does have a 50W condenser in there or something...)


RE: This ventilation system
By Alexstarfire on 1/12/2009 11:30:13 PM , Rating: 2
I think for the high added costs, probably over $1k, that I think I'd be able to manage the extra heat for about 5 minutes. Anyways, you wouldn't get the solar panel package for it's value or function anyways, you get it just because you can or to show it off.


RE: This ventilation system
By Bateluer on 1/13/2009 8:38:56 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. If the solar panel option costs a lot of money, which it probably will, then it'd be better to go without it and just roll the windows down for a few minutes.


2010 Prius vs. 2012 Volt
By timmiser on 1/13/2009 4:00:46 AM , Rating: 2
So I suppose this will be the model of Prius that is out when the 2012 Volt arrives. If that is the case, the 2010 Prius is already looking like outdated technology. Who would want Prius technology when you can get a plug in hybrid?




RE: 2010 Prius vs. 2012 Volt
By FITCamaro on 1/13/2009 7:41:34 AM , Rating: 2
$24,000 ish vs. $40,000ish.


RE: 2010 Prius vs. 2012 Volt
By timmiser on 1/15/2009 12:30:19 PM , Rating: 2
Don't let rumored prices fool you, there is no question that these two vehicles will be in direct competition with each other. Don't forget that your annual fuel bill for the Volt can be $0 vs. $1000 per year on the Prius.


RE: 2010 Prius vs. 2012 Volt
By ipay on 1/15/2009 1:49:25 AM , Rating: 2
Hey, don`t be so quick on the Volt... Last time I heard the car was a total disaster. I've seen an interview on tv with the GM CEO and he was confronted about the recent fiasco when they were supposed to film some sort of promotional video for the car and it wouldn't even make it few hundred feet up the hill on batteries FULLY CHARGED!!! I realize that its still awile before the final production car, but you would think that at this stage of the project they have the main component (BATTERIES) all figured out.


Yeah...
By Callys on 1/14/2009 12:08:55 AM , Rating: 2
And it still looks like the shuttle from Star Tours at Disneyland.




What's the point of a hybrid
By blwest on 1/18/2009 11:58:11 AM , Rating: 2
Besides marketing and making people feel good about themselves, what's the point of a 50 MPG hybrid? German manufacturers have been at 50-60 MPG with their turbo diesels for years?

If anything a hybrid is less efficient than a standard vehicle for 2 main reasons. 1) you're converting energy from gas to electric to movement; the more times energy is converted the more is lost. 2) The batteries and additional components cost additional energy to make in addition to the resources used.

I guess the lemmings will buy what the media tells them to.

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/04/coming-soon-to....




By Karma007 on 1/12/2009 2:01:51 PM , Rating: 5
Yes. It's a good thing gas prices have dropped! Now I don't have to worry that about it ever going back up!

Ever!


By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/12/2009 2:03:46 PM , Rating: 2
It's already going back up. I left for CES and gas prices were around $1.49 - $1.51 here in Raleigh. I came back and gas prices are $1.67.


By Dreifort on 1/12/2009 2:10:14 PM , Rating: 2
yeah, Charlotte saw a spike to around $2/gal.

WBT radio had an "expert" on air this morning predicting its just part of a cycle and we should actually see prices fall next month. we'll see if that happens.


By Samus on 1/13/2009 8:09:25 AM , Rating: 2
It's well above $2.00/gallon again here in Chicago. Did anyone really think the terrorists were going to continue hooking us up for <$40/drum? They need to fund their uranium enrichment programs somehow. Duh!


By FITCamaro on 1/13/2009 9:54:51 AM , Rating: 2
What do you expect in the land of Obama? You guys even have a refinery close by.

It's $1.59-$1.65 for regular here. And oil yesterday was at $38.xx a barrel.


By quiksilvr on 1/12/2009 5:44:16 PM , Rating: 1
Um...I think...he was being sarcastic.


By bjacobson on 1/12/2009 6:06:22 PM , Rating: 4
I don't believe it is. Contract 1 is still <$40 and showing no signs of improving.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/crude2.h...

The simple fact of the matter is that if you want to make the best economic choice for fuel savings, at $4/gallon a Prius barely makes sense compared to a Corolla. At $1.50, it's nowhere near. There's no signs of this recession ending and the commodities re-bubbling either-- not with a national healthcare plan inc and 10,000 new retirees every day beginning to draw on Social Security and Medicare. There's going to have to be a lot of new taxes to pay for all that-- money out of the working force's pockets that they won't be able to spend (thus stimulating the economy).


By Jaybus on 1/13/2009 10:16:30 AM , Rating: 2
If the last line of the article is true, that it will be priced to compete with the sub-$20k Insight, then that cost comparison with the Corolla may no longer be true. The pricing will make or break this car. Not too many will pay a huge premium to be more green in today's economy, while many will buy this car if it saves them money.


By cmdrdredd on 1/12/2009 4:04:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes. It's a good thing gas prices have dropped! Now I don't have to worry that about it ever going back up! Ever!


That's not the point. people going out to buy a car today will take current prices into account. Not many people think years into the future. Besides, I guarantee you can buy a standard gasoline car for much less than a Hybrid. Cost savings right now means a ton more to most people than saving a few cents over their daily commute.


By Anonymous Freak on 1/12/2009 6:10:55 PM , Rating: 5
True. And I wish more would.

Ironically, I've saved *MORE* than my spreadsheet showed I would when I bought my Prius in 2004. (My price was based on $1.50 a gallon at time of purchase, with 7% annual increases. Obviously, other than the past two months, it's been way higher than that.)

My original estimate had the Prius 'breaking even' in comparison to a Hyundai Elantra GT 8 years after purchase. I recently recalculated, and found that the Prius has already "paid off".


By FITCamaro on 1/13/2009 6:03:43 AM , Rating: 2
I was able to bear the $4+/gallon prices but it certainly wasn't any fun to pay $50 to fill up a Cobalt. With my GTO now, I figured the cost of owning the car at those prices so I'll just be returning to what I originally estimated if they go back up that much.


By Spuke on 1/13/2009 3:26:18 PM , Rating: 2
My wife and I had no problem with affording the nearly $5 a gallon prices here in CA but my wife complained a lot. Most people I knew just complained, some actually bought new cars. We crunched the numbers and figure we would be in the hole until about $10 or so a gallon in which case we only need a car that got 28 mpg to save money. Even then, we're only talking $150-$200 a month. You could cut out daily Starbucks coffees and save the same amount of money.


By Aloonatic on 1/13/2009 6:22:43 AM , Rating: 2
What you say is true, to a point. Last years petrol/gas prices will stick in peoples memories for a long time however.

A lot of people have noticed and are now aware of how much money can be saved by driving a more efficient car and that a not inconsiderable about of money can be saved whether petrol is cheap or not, even if they believe that the spike in oil prices that we have seen recently was an anomaly not likely to be seen again any time soon.

Standard petrol gas cars are considerably cheaper though and the current prices mean the time till you see a profit on a hybrid is a long long ways away, if ever so families and the like are not going to buy a hybrid, but they aren't going to go back to buying huuuuge cars that have massive engines either.

It strikes me as a little odd that these hybrid cars have not been focused specifically on the fleet or sales rep market. Make them look a little smarter and fill them with toys to keep the reps happy then try your hardest to make them appeal to the boardrooms budget sheets, rather than individuals wallets.

The problem is that, as stated above, they are just to expensive and the savings aren't there yet. They probably wont ever be there either, which is the real problem that hybrids have. Other technologies will come along and make them redundant soon enough.


By surt on 1/12/2009 2:20:08 PM , Rating: 2
Not one of those sources considers whether or not the work done by the computers obviates a need for a larger carbon emission elsewhere, which they almost certainly do most of the time.

Consider, for example, the case of buying anything on line obviating the need for a trip to the store, plus the need to ship to a merchant. That's a lot of gasoline saved, for a tiny power cost in computer.


By ebakke on 1/12/2009 2:35:38 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention the raw materials needed to build a retail store.


By Dreifort on 1/12/2009 3:03:17 PM , Rating: 3
instead going to the store by car, local mass transist or walking... it gets delivered by a gas powered vehicle... usually few days or weeks after you order it. Plus the packaging material to ship it in. You can't argue ording online is saving the planet one store at a time.

building supplies for new stores? replaced by building supplies for larger warehouses to store online orders.


By Alexstarfire on 1/12/2009 10:49:04 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, because stores don't get products shipped to them EVER. Ohh yea, and they never have their own warehouse. Get real. Shipping to stores might be more friendly than to an individual, from what I've seen anyways, since they don't really have any packing material. It's basically just the product boxes strapped to a pallet. But you also don't consider the fact that stores ship products to each other as well. I don't know how many stores do this, but a good bit of them will get the product shipped to them from another store if they are out of it and will be for a bit.

Hell, if we want to compare all energy consumption why don't we figure out how much energy it takes for the person to get up, walk to their car, drive, etc... and do that for EVERY person that ever handles that product. In a retail store that could be just about everyone who works their. Though that greatly depends on circumstances that are in no way predictable. Ohh damn, can't forget to include the people that inspect the semi-trucks and such. I'm sure that fat guy uses more energy than the skinny one?

My point is that NO ONE is ever going to be able to accurately measure, even in a general sense, how much energy goes into a product... unless you made something out of wood that you chopped down with an axe in your own backyard and a pocketknife to whittle said product. There are just way too many factors to consider when calculating energy requirements of most products.


By Dreifort on 1/13/2009 8:41:06 AM , Rating: 2
its a wash. 40 ppl drive to the store to buy product or several ups trucks drive to 40 different homes.

gas is still gas and someone is still driving same distance.

but forget that the consumer in the car is going to several places while shopping, thus saving gas over the UPS truck. the consumer drives out form home and performs several tasks.


By Jimbo1234 on 1/13/2009 2:42:56 PM , Rating: 2
But the handful of UPS trucks will travel much less distance to deliver all 40 packages, than the 40 people each driving their own cars.

UPS also has an algorithm to minimize the total distance traveled. And they avoid making left turns as well, saving time and fuel. Not to mention those few trucks will deliver much more than 40 packages.

I'll bet the home delivery actually consumes less than the B&M method.


By Dreifort on 1/12/2009 2:50:20 PM , Rating: 2
Oddly enough, Limbaugh is used my ALL networks regarding Global Warming. Limbaugh has taken a huge interest in the subject and has done much research. He himself admits he is no scientist -- but neither is Gore.

Limbaugh is not saying computers will end the world - he is saying a majority of these “the end is near” environmentalists are hypocrites. Try and find how much power consumption Google uses in a year? try... Google does a very good job of hiding that fact. They will attest to their own success at energy efficiency... but that is like Obama doing his own internal investigation regarding Blagojevich -- then telling authorities, "no need to investigate me, I investigated myself".

I doubt you will find documented records of Google's power use.

And again, it's not me citing Limbaugh as a "source". NBC, CBS, CNN, ABC and FOX all use Limbaugh as a commentary/source on global warming. Call it a hobby for Limbaugh to follow the global warming crusade. He doesn't cite his scientific knowledge against global warming - he cites researched facts... such as Google employs over 400,000 servers world wide, and the known evidence of how much power consumption a computer uses. You don't have to be a meteorologist or physicist to put 2 & 2 together.


By Solandri on 1/12/2009 3:45:09 PM , Rating: 5
Let's see. Google handles about 1.2 billion searches a day (2007). If you figure each of the 400,000 servers consume 300 Watts (highly unlikely, they're probably rackmount and consume much less, but let's err on the high side), their total power consumption works out to 120 MW.

120 MW * 24 hr * 3600 sec/hr / 1.2 billion searches per day = 8640 joules per search.

A calorie is 4.186 joules, but food is actually measured in kilocalories (incorrectly labeled as calories). So a google search costs a little more energy than 2 food calories.

Beer has about 2 food calories per teaspoon. So a google search uses about as much energy as you'd get from drinking a teaspoon of beer. If you really want to save energy, I'd say keep using google and cut back on your beer intake by a couple splashes a day.


By Dreifort on 1/12/2009 3:53:12 PM , Rating: 1
I don't know about that. I find I perform better "image searches" after a few beers. The images seem much higher quality to me.


By Alexvrb on 1/12/2009 6:54:09 PM , Rating: 2
I see you've factored in all the non-server power consumption of Google, excellent. Furthermore, I see you've published open specifications for a homemade beer-powered generator capable of producing vast amounts of energy from beer (and beer alone), which is of course completely free because we all have hundreds of beer trees on our property.


By Alexstarfire on 1/12/2009 10:51:15 PM , Rating: 2
The same could be said about calculating the amount of energy it took to make a product. It's far too complex with far too many variables and inconsistencies.


By Alexvrb on 1/14/2009 12:01:19 AM , Rating: 2
That was my point exactly. He was trying (poorly) to compute google's power consumption per search, and then was furthermore trying to compare it to energy in food. Ridiculous.


By Jimbo1234 on 1/13/2009 2:46:54 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, food is not incorrectly labeled. A Calorie with a capital C is 1000 calories. Look at a package of anything and it will always use the version with the capital C.


By docawolff on 1/12/2009 2:37:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Add to that the millions of computers (and energy sucking LCDs) used to by end users


huh... And here I thought that a 17" LCD monitor consumed about 25 watts vs. 70+ watts for an older CRT monitor. Odd definition of "energy sucking LCD" you have.

I do, however, agree that there has been a meteoric rise in power consumption for personal computers. Video cards alone can account for more power consumption than entire computers of six or eight years ago.


By Dreifort on 1/12/2009 2:57:56 PM , Rating: 1
typical LCD uses 50 watts of power vs CRT uses around 100+ watts. just being facetious with the fact that not just computers use power, also have monitors pulling more energy.


By BZDTemp on 1/12/2009 3:47:35 PM , Rating: 3
Very few CRT's last 20+ years.

In fact I challenge you to read DailyTech using a 20+ year old monitor :-)


By Dreifort on 1/12/2009 3:56:40 PM , Rating: 2
well, the monitor I used 20 yrs ago was about 13". And it didn't support anything above CGA. So all these cool thread photos would look like crap - that's half the reason I like DT...for the photos.

plus it married to the PS/2 (and that not playstation for you 20 something yr olds).


By thegrimreaper3 on 1/12/2009 7:27:28 PM , Rating: 5
If you really think anyone who is 20+ reading a technology blog doesn't know what ps/2 means, you should realize were coming to take your jobs and we actually have degree's that are tailored for this new fangled technology not just programmers who ended up there.

/wave


By Dreifort on 1/13/2009 8:44:00 AM , Rating: 3
ppl <20 weren't even alive when IBM's PS/2 was being used on a broad basis.


By Ray 69 on 1/12/2009 8:24:46 PM , Rating: 1
Mine is 10+ years and I'm using it now.


By BZDTemp on 1/13/2009 3:48:18 AM , Rating: 2
10+ is fine except perhaps not as bright as it used to be. But please consider you're only slightly past the half way to 20+ years.

Unless you're computer is of similar age just getting a 20+ year old monitor hooked up will be a challenge (best bet would be using TV-out composite or perhaps RGB).


By Dreifort on 1/12/2009 4:16:44 PM , Rating: 1
wow, I must have really incited some hippies who use DT... they are just tagging every comment I make and rating it down. awesome!

I can post DT is a wonderful scientific and tech savvy website and still get rated down. Hey...getting rated down means they are reading my comments. So its a win for me :D


By Spuke on 1/12/2009 4:51:21 PM , Rating: 1
FIT usually gets rated down too. Although recently, he hasn't been. Don't know why that is. I say unpopular things too and don't half the rate downs you guys get.


By Alexvrb on 1/12/2009 7:01:55 PM , Rating: 2
You're just more diplomatic! On a similar note, I almost guarantee you my above post regarding beer generators and beer trees is going to get downrated by some pissy nerd.


By FITCamaro on 1/13/2009 6:07:51 AM , Rating: 4
I could care less.


By oTAL on 1/13/2009 2:03:12 PM , Rating: 3
By Spuke on 1/13/2009 3:56:35 PM , Rating: 2
He said he COULD care less. ;)


By Anonymous Freak on 1/12/2009 6:17:22 PM , Rating: 2
I just replaced my old 15" LCD with a new 22" one. I was actually worried about the environmental impact of the power consumption.

Then I used a Kill-A-Watt to measure. My old 15" sucks down 5W in standby, 30W while on; regardless of any settings.

My new 22" uses 0.1W in standby, 20-30W while on, depending on settings. Most of the time, I have it in "ECO" mode, which draws 20W. (It's my home display, I most often use it in the evening, so the dimmer display is just fine. When watching a movie; or during the day, I put it on bright mode.)

The 21" CRT I had before I went all enviro-conscious and put the (already obsolete) 15" in its place? I'm afraid to measure it. (I had been using a laptop as my main machine, so rather than keep that power-hog CRT on my desktop, I put the old 1024x768 LCD on. But when my laptop died, I decided to make the desktop my primary again, and found I couldn't live with 1024x768; and didn't want the massive CRT on the new desk.)


By ekv on 1/13/2009 3:24:19 AM , Rating: 2
you got no respect, son.

Derision and ridicule are the main weapons of the -- I want to say "Hard Left", however, I'll simply write -- ignorant. Remember this, it is better to be ridiculed and excoriated as stupid while keeping your mouth shut, than to open it and remove all doubt. If the only tool you have is a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail.

I used to be like you, then the school of hard knocks kicked in. Thank God Almighty [El Shaddai], through the one and only JC, for saving my bacon. A fate worse than prison awaited me, but no more.

O yeah, regarding the OP, did you check out the links that were provided? Rush has an actual argument regarding energy consumption, as it pertains to people who claim to know better, namely Sergey Brin, Larry Page and Al Gore ["my son wasn't racing in a Prius!"].


By FITCamaro on 1/13/2009 7:37:07 AM , Rating: 1
I'll bet you think Obama's "Only the government can fix our nations problems" speech was genius though.

And that his plan to spend over $2 TRILLION dollars in just ONE F*CKING YEAR is equally genius.

I mean under Bush the national debt has gone up around $5 trillion in 8 years. Obama wants to go ahead and score nearly half of that in just 1 year.


By deadrats on 1/13/2009 6:23:44 PM , Rating: 1
I'll bet you think Obama's "Only the government can fix our nations problems" speech was genius though.

And that his plan to spend over $2 TRILLION dollars in just ONE F*CKING YEAR is equally genius.

I mean under Bush the national debt has gone up around $5 trillion in 8 years. Obama wants to go ahead and score nearly half of that in just 1 year.


and you would lose that bet. i didn't vote for obama primarily because he didn't strike me as being genuine, it seemed to me that he was only saying what he thought the general population wanted to hear. judging by the results of the election, it would seem he was right.

furthermore, it is my opinion, that the vast majority, both republicans and democrats, that run for office are complete and utter assholes of the highest caliber. few of them on either the left or the right seem to have even a basic understanding of economic principles and simply count on the general public's even lower understanding of economics to appear as if they have the answers.

personally, i am in favor of the following:

1) passing a federal law that says before anyone can hold a public office such as a senator, congressman, president, governor, mayor, etc they must have a degree in economics, for mayor and local level positions it should be a bachelors degree, for governor and state level positions it should be a masters and for president and federal level it should be a doctorate.

2) we absolutely stop giving money to countries all over the world, we give about 6 billion a year to the israelis, a billion to saudi arabia (and in the books that their kids use in school they refer to the usa as "the great satan", billions more to other arab countries, i say fuck them all, cut them off and take care of the poor in this country before we turn our attention to anyone else.

3) we stop with the idiotic invading of countries because that wastes lives of our soldiers and vast amounts of money that cripples our economy. when japan attacked us at pearl harbor, we never invaded japan and quite frankly we wouldn't have won the war that way since the japanese had that code of honor where they were intent on fighting to the death, we only won because we dropped 2 atomic bombs on them and leveled their cities. what we should have done post 9/11, instead of invading afganistan, we should have sent them a 1 week notice that we intended to level their biggest city, give the residents enough time to flee and then dropped a shit load of the biggest bombs we had (and we have some pretty big ass non-nuclear bombs. after that the president should have issued a statement that the same thing would happen to the next country that aided in any way any terrorists that attacked our interests. no invasion, no need for our soldiers to die, no need to spend billions every month to occupy a country, no need to spend billions more in rebuilding a country we destroyed in the first place (<--tell me that's not the most idiotic thing you ever heard of, we go destroy their infrastructure and then we rebuild it, tell me that ultimately the war in afganistan and iraq isn't designed, supported and prosecuted by those that profit very handsomely from it). basically our foreign policy should be nice and simple: you fuck with us we level your cities and then leave you to rebuild them at your leisure, if you don't fuck with us, then you don't get bombed, but under no circumstances are we going to send in troops for you to attack and kill and under no circumstances are we going to help you rebuild the piles of rubble that used to be your cities.

4) a vast restructuring of our education system from the current chinese fire drill to a more practical focused education system: from kindergarden to about 7th grade we would focus on reading and mathematics exclusively, grades 8-12 (and i actually support adding another 2 grades after that) would be 1 year of intense specialized study, for instance:

grade 8 would focus solely on the law

grade 9 would focus solely on micro and macro economics

grade 10 would focus on medicine, perhaps a sort of paramedical training, or the equivalant of the first year of nursing school

grade 11 would focus on robotics/electronics, since robotics seem to be the future of our society and some basic electrical skills certainly come in handy

grade 12 perhaps could be devoted to mechanical devices, maybe even automotive mechanics (again a nice practical skill to have)

the other 2 grades i'm sure we could think of something equally practical.

but make no mistake about it, we do need a change and badly, obama may not be the change we need, but i really doubt he can be any worse than that cocksucker bush and his cronies.


By Spuke on 1/14/2009 1:34:15 PM , Rating: 2
We didn't invade Japan (yes we had invasion plans) because we would have killed a metric sh!t ton of Japanese and American soldiers. Unlike today, we did understand their philosophy of "till the death" and were much more willing to put it to the test. The History Channel had a show on it. Very interesting!!!

http://shop.history.com/detail.php?a=74421

Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall


By Reclaimer77 on 1/14/2009 6:20:58 PM , Rating: 1
Good stuff.

Anyone comparing WWII era Imperial Japan to modern day Iraq is off their rocker anyway.

Japan, at the time of Pearl Harbor, had a good bit more military might than us. Also we didn't have the luxury, like today, of parking aircraft carriers off their cost and launching strike missions with impunity. Frankly there were a variety of factors involved that we didn't have to deal with when it came to Iraq.

I also <3 History Channel. Wish more people would watch it and learn.


By SoylentG on 1/13/2009 6:03:49 AM , Rating: 2
You don't even know what you're talking about, do you, kid? Google's one of the biggest users of solar energy out there. Last I heard, they had more roof covered with solar panels than not.


By FITCamaro on 1/13/2009 6:12:47 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah and they use that solar energy largely to help cover peak usage times. They do that to save money because power is more expensive in peak usage times. Irregardless of one's view on man made global warming you can see the business sense in doing that. I'm sure they love to talk about how it makes them "green" but in the end solar power provides relatively little of their power needs.


By digimike on 1/12/2009 2:12:37 PM , Rating: 2
I'm all for new tech but the Prius is still ugly as sin. The civic hybrid still wins because it looks like a civic.


By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/12/2009 2:15:07 PM , Rating: 5
It's more expensive and its gets worse fuel economy than the Prius -- and it's smaller on the inside and has less cargo capacity. Yeah, that's some serious "win" right there.


By mondo1234 on 1/12/2009 3:05:58 PM , Rating: 2
But thats part of the trade-off for buying a muscle car! What I would like to know is if you can get factory installed NOS. That would pump it up to atleast 120 HP. It would make that thing buzz like a saw!


By Dreifort on 1/12/2009 3:16:24 PM , Rating: 2
great another pathetic movie will get made...

"The Fast and the Greenvious"


By mondo1234 on 1/12/2009 3:46:26 PM , Rating: 2
The Fast and the PRevIoUS


By Dreifort on 1/12/2009 3:59:23 PM , Rating: 2
hahaha... damn, why didn't I think of that one.

plot could be terrorist group threatening to release aerosol hairspray cans into the public.


By mondo1234 on 1/12/2009 9:26:44 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, all while unleashing all that power and smoking those awsome 3" tires…..


By Andrwken on 1/16/2009 11:10:38 PM , Rating: 2
Just get that wonderful HP girl to do the movie and you'll have a winner. Hell, I would rent it then.

Still wouldn't buy a prius.


By mcnabney on 1/12/2009 3:45:56 PM , Rating: 2
The forthcoming Honda Insight, which performs like a Civic Hybrid, is targeted at a $18k price tag, far less than Prius. It doesn't get quite as good mileage, but the price is far superior.


By Reclaimer77 on 1/12/2009 5:56:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's more expensive and its gets worse fuel economy than the Prius -- and it's smaller on the inside and has less cargo capacity. Yeah, that's some serious "win" right there.


The Civic looks like a Civic though. Not an egg shaped Prius.

If I HAD to buy a hybrid, I would go with the Civic. And then immediately take a screwdriver to the "HYBRID" badge so nobody would know.


By Alexstarfire on 1/12/2009 11:08:32 PM , Rating: 4
I find it quite laughable that those who care about fuel consumption and efficiency even care about looks. If you care about how the car looks then fuel economy is probably not even a distant third in what you are really looking for in a car.

Anyways, if you wanted the best FE vs price you'd get a Versa, provided it suits the vast majority of your needs. Starting at around $11k and getting like 30 MPG combined it can't really be beat. Even if a Prius or some other car cost $19k and got double the MPG you simply can't reasonably recoup the $8k added costs by saving 50% on gas. Even at $5 a gallon and 15k miles a year that's still over 6 years... and that's an extreme good case scenario, unless you're like a taxi car and drive WAY more then 15k a year which is already like 20% above average.


By Reclaimer77 on 1/13/2009 11:29:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I find it quite laughable that those who care about fuel consumption and efficiency even care about looks. If you care about how the car looks then fuel economy is probably not even a distant third in what you are really looking for in a car.


Who said I cared about that ?

I was just stating my opinion. If you put a gun to my head and made me pick a hybrid, I would go with the Civic. It looks like a REGULAR car, and it doesn't scream " yeah I think I'm better than you " like the Prius does.


By Alexstarfire on 1/14/2009 10:37:13 AM , Rating: 2
I assumed that choosing a hybrid would mean that you care. I doubt many people are going to physically be forced to pick a hybrid.

I guess you make just as many assumptions as I do, because I don't drive a Prius because "I think I'm better than you." I drive it because I got a damn good deal on it used. Granted now that I could get a Versa or Fit for such a low price it makes my deal look like crap. I could go with one of them and save money for a decade. I don't know how long my Prius will last, but I'm gonna be using it till it no longer drives.


By usbseawolf2000 on 1/15/2009 1:44:12 AM , Rating: 2
I find it quite laughable that those who care about fuel consumption and efficiency even care about looks.

Change does not require the past "look alike" design. Why does sedan cars have passenger compartment "popping out"?

A smooth curve of the Prius is just voluptuous. It gives a large room for the rear passenger and cargo too.


By Andrwken on 1/16/2009 11:13:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A smooth curve of the Prius is just voluptuous. It gives a large room for the rear passenger and cargo too.


A voluptuous prius? Is that an oxymoron?


By usbseawolf2000 on 1/15/2009 1:39:22 AM , Rating: 2
Go test drive both the Civic hybrid and Prius. I am willing to bet you will want the Prius instead. The statistic is in favor of me 4:1.


By Koder on 1/12/2009 2:19:40 PM , Rating: 2
The following statement relies on several assumptions.

If we assume that cost is a measure of the energy required to build something, then the difference in cost between a conventional & similar I4 Engine to the Prius would give us an idea for how much extra energy is consumed.

Assuming that the energy is obtained from the same source (coal/wind/wave/solar/etc), and all forms of obtaining energy have an impact on the environment, then the difference in energy consumed would give us an idea for what kind of impact the Prius has on the environment.

The higher the cost difference, the more greater the environmental impact.

What I'm interested in knowing is what will be the cost to ethically dispose of the Prius' batteries once they become old and no longer efficient. Anyone have any comments?


By joey2264 on 1/12/2009 2:22:47 PM , Rating: 2
You got any facts to back up that conjecture that people have stopped buying econoboxes. There are none.


By FITCamaro on 1/12/2009 3:26:52 PM , Rating: 2
By foolsgambit11 on 1/12/2009 6:07:37 PM , Rating: 3
Unclear exactly how to interpret that statistic. First, overall auto sales fell 36% in December, according to the same article. It would take a breakout of more vehicles' sales numbers to adequately interpret the additional 9%. While it's very possible (indeed, probably the most likely) that the reason is people don't see the price premium of hybrids to be worth the cost, that's not the only possible explanation from the data given. It could be that Priuses saw a drop in sales because people were diversifying among the hybrids they are buying - more Civic hybrids, for instance.

And the 'econobox' definition can include small, fuel-efficient, non-hybrid cars as well. Then you have to look at all model sales and see where sales are up and where they are down (or, more accurately, where sales are down and where they are waaaaaay down). It could be that people are satisfied with the fuel economies realized by small, efficient, non-hybrid cars, because either can't afford a hybrid or don't feel the additional fuel economy is worth the added price (both purchase and maintenance) and complexity. Are people really abandoning fuel economy as a criteria for vehicle purchases? Possibly. Does the data given support that? Not really.


By Spuke on 1/12/2009 4:16:26 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
You got any facts to back up that conjecture that people have stopped buying econoboxes.
That's an easy one. Look up in Google: <insert carmaker> <insert month> 2008 sales . You'll find sales figures for every car made. Since we're in a new year, you should be able to get total 2008 sales.

PS - Interestingly, Sequoia and Land Cruiser sales are up 31.5% and 16.5%, respectively.

Toyota sales 2008
http://tinyurl.com/7xbj8r


By foolsgambit11 on 1/12/2009 6:23:08 PM , Rating: 2
I think the poster was suggesting that the OP bears the burden of proof. Although a lot of reporting has suggested that truck sales have rebounded slightly from the hit they took in the first half of the year (as a percent of total sales), when the entire auto market is on the run, it's tough to trust any trends in the second half of 2008.

But yes, the trends seem to indicate that people don't feel the hybrid 'premium' is worth it when gas is only $1.50. I would like to see somebody post an in-depth analysis that supports that statement (which I trust because I heard it on the news, not because I've done the research).


By Andrwken on 1/16/2009 11:18:27 PM , Rating: 2
Please try and do your googling off peak please.

Your power grid will thank you.


By deadrats on 1/12/2009 4:50:25 PM , Rating: 1
i actually drove a prius on more than one occassion (not the 2010 model, obviously) and i have to say it is one major piece of shit, i would rather drive a used Yugo.

if i absolutely had to drive a sissified weiny-mobile, i would rather get something with a turbo bio-deisel, maybe something like VW's new car.

this new prius is extremely underpowered, the combined 134 hp is a misnomer, an electric hybrid's horsepower is not "combinable" because the car doesn't use both engines at the same time, what happens is that the gas engine powers the car for a while, under certain condition and the electric motor powers the car the rest of the time, this is also how they get their "impressive" fuel economy, when the car is running on electric power it uses no gasoline, so in effect it is getting infinite mile per gallon, if you combine the range the gas and electric motors get and divide by how much fuel the gas motor used, you get a total miles per gallon, but as should be obvious, it's a head fake, it's a numbers trick.

hybrid motors are not the answer, alternative fuels, like bio-deisel or maybe even a properly done electro-magnetic motor is the future of car engines.


By Steve Guilliot on 1/12/2009 8:01:49 PM , Rating: 3
You are wrong about the Prius drivetrain, and wrong about the "head fake" fuel numbers. If you did indeed drive a Prius "on more than one occasion", then you are either dense or simply not paying attention or both.

The Prius can use both the electric and gas at the same time under acceleration. The electric drive uses power previously generated from the gas engine. It may be "infinite mileage" on electric, but only because the fuel economy hit was taken previously when the gas engine was charging the battery AND propelling the car. Every hybrid also has regenerative braking, so scavenging kinetic energy that would otherwise be converted to heat and brake dust is a valid way of improving efficiency. If a Prius can go 450 miles on 9.5 gallons of gas, the economy is something you can calculate. There isn't any fake involved.


By deadrats on 1/12/2009 10:00:37 PM , Rating: 1
You are wrong about the Prius drivetrain, and wrong about the "head fake" fuel numbers. If you did indeed drive a Prius "on more than one occasion", then you are either dense or simply not paying attention or both.

The Prius can use both the electric and gas at the same time under acceleration. The electric drive uses power previously generated from the gas engine. It may be "infinite mileage" on electric, but only because the fuel economy hit was taken previously when the gas engine was charging the battery AND propelling the car. Every hybrid also has regenerative braking, so scavenging kinetic energy that would otherwise be converted to heat and brake dust is a valid way of improving efficiency. If a Prius can go 450 miles on 9.5 gallons of gas, the economy is something you can calculate. There isn't any fake involved.


no, dumbass, if a prius can go 450 miles on 9.5 gallons of gas, but for 250 of those miles it used the electric motor and for the other 200 miles it used the gas engine, the actual miles per gallon it achieved is 200/9.5 not 450/9.5.

if i was driving a F150 and half the trip was a long descent and i shut the engine off, shifted into neutral, and allowed gravity to propel me for half the trip, would you accept my claims that i got 50 miles to the gallon during that trip?

that's where the head fake come in, it's not possible for an electric motor's efficiency to be measured in miles per gallon since the electric motor isn't really consuming (in any direct way) any gasoline.

you can just as easily achieve the same miles per gallon using an all gas engine if the weight of the vehicle is the same as the prius, it has the the right gearing, aerodynamics and a properly designed small engine.

just because people that are stupid enough want to feel all smug like they are actually doing something that makes a difference doesn't mean the rest of us have to be eaqually homosexual.


By Alexstarfire on 1/12/2009 11:16:07 PM , Rating: 3
I guess by your logic then the Volt is the worst car ever since a gas engine powers the batteries, the batteries power the electric motor, and the electric motor drives the vehicle. I guess it gets 0MPG then?

Since the car is obviously moving it can't get 0MPG. Ohh, and BTW the batteries in the Hybrid didn't magically acquire the energy out of thin air, it came from gasoline that was already consumed.

I'm not even gonna get started on the countless other flaws in you logic as there is no point in arguing with a kindergartner. All they will do is pitch a fit until the other person gives in.


By FITCamaro on 1/13/2009 6:16:32 AM , Rating: 1
You're partly correct but the advantage of the Volt is that if you drive it less than 40 miles a day, you never use any gas. With the Prius, isn't the gas engine still idling even when the electric motor is doing all the work? In those first 40 miles, the Volt's engine isn't even running.


By Alexstarfire on 1/13/2009 9:16:25 AM , Rating: 2
No, if the electric motor is doing ALL the work then the gas engine is shut off. The only exception to this is when the car is going faster than 41 MPH. At this point the gas engine ignites regardless so that the engine can rev, BUT if the electric motor is still doing ALL the work then no gas is going to the gas engine.

Anyways, this wasn't really my point to him. You can't just ignore distance that was traveled on battery power, or no power for that matter. To please him we may as well just go by energy produced per gallon. You can't change how much energy is being produced regardless of what car it is, but each car is going to need a different amount to travel at a given speed. In essence that would give you energy used per mile, with lower being better.


By deadrats on 1/13/2009 6:34:17 PM , Rating: 2
I guess by your logic then the Volt is the worst car ever since a gas engine powers the batteries, the batteries power the electric motor, and the electric motor drives the vehicle. I guess it gets 0MPG then?

the volt is going to go down in history as a modern day vega.

and for the last time, miles per gallon does not apply to electric motors because an electric motor doesn't use any chemical fuel. by your (and the rest of the electric/hybrid fanboys') logic, if i used a gas powered electric generator to recharge the battery in a radio controlled dune buggy then i would be justified with rating the range the car got using miles per gallon, since i burned a gallon of gas to generate the electricity that i used to recharge the batteries in the car.

do you see the stupidity in rating an electric car in terms of miles per gallon or do i have to wait for you to squeeze your head out of your ass?


By matt0401 on 1/15/2009 3:22:13 PM , Rating: 2
The Prius is not an electric car. It's a hybrid, which means it still does use gasoline. Additionally, because any electricity generated and stored in the battery is a result of burning gasoline, gasoline becomes the primary fuel used. That means we can state how much gasoline it consumes in mpg. If you were talking about the Volt, the same thing implies, but depending on how long the trip is. If you travel 40 miles you would use no gasoline, and therefore could state your mpg as "infinity". Keep in mind, however, that that electricity already stored in the batteries you charges last night wasn't free. You'd also state its mileage in "miles per kilowatt-hour" or "mpkwh" or whatever the quick slang form of that becomes in the future because electricity then becomes the primary fuel for the car.


By Alexstarfire on 1/15/2009 3:45:18 PM , Rating: 2
If you use gas to acquire the energy then I fail to see how it's incorrect to state it in MPG. That is one thing that makes the ratings of plug-in hybrids wrong in my opinion. They take the range that they got off the batteries, before the gas engine starts recharging them, into the equation which you really can't do. Those type of cars are more like an electric vehicle and hybrid vehicle in one. The electric portion gets xx range and the hybrid portion gets xx MPG. The way it is now you can basically get infinite MPG on a plug-in hybrid, or the Volt in this case, which is completely inaccurate.

I think you should get your head out of your own ass before you think someone else is wrong/retarded.


By usbseawolf2000 on 1/15/2009 1:59:46 AM , Rating: 2
Shutting down the gas engine is only one way to save fuel. Prius can extract more energy out of every drop of gasoline. This is achieved by using Atkinson cycle engine. All the side-effects of the Atkinson cycle is negated by the electric motor -- only possible in hybrids.

Believe it or not, Prius can get 30 MPG going up a bridge at about 45 mph. Prius will use no fuel coming back down enabling it to AVERAGE 60 mpg. The F150 can not get 30 MPG on a flat highway. It comes down to how you burn the gasoline. Even Prius can only extract 37% of the energy from the gasoline. Imagine how much energy F150 is wasting.

It is not about smug nor sexuality. It is about MPG, low emission, interior room, and acceleration. It all comes down to efficiency because you can slice it up to any of the category.


By Spuke on 1/16/2009 12:12:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is about MPG, low emission, interior room, and acceleration. It all comes down to efficiency because you can slice it up to any of the category.
You started ok here then went into non-sense mode. For a potential Prius owner, it's ALL about MPG. Some people derive some smugness from the ownership experience, others do not. Only the socio-political types care about esoteric things like "efficiency" (especially when they can't even define what type of efficiency they are talking about). Everyone else just wants to save some friggin money.


By usbseawolf2000 on 1/16/2009 10:53:12 PM , Rating: 2
If you only care about MPG, the original Honda Insight is for you. Unfortunately, it is no longer in production because the market for it is too small. Yes, you are in the minority.

Efficiency is everything because you can tune the engine to give more power (larger or faster car), MPG (smaller or lighter), or low emission (after-treatment emission equipment lowers MPG). They are all engineering trade-offs.

A cleverly designed, efficient and elegant powertrain like Hybrid Synergy Drive has less compromises. Instead of shifting gears, it shifts between two engines. Electric motor specializes in low speed and gas engine in high speed. This simple setup enables more room to slice / tune up.


By Anonymous Freak on 1/12/2009 6:29:36 PM , Rating: 2
Toyota did a "lifecycle analysis" early on, right as the current body-style model came out in late '03. They used to have a PDF of it posted on their website, but I can't find it now.

Basically, it freely acknowledged that it takes more energy and materials to produce the Prius than a competitor (they compared it to a Camry, IIRC; which didn't have a Hybrid version available yet,) but that it is completely made up by the 100,000 km mark. (Not miles, kilometers.) And that's assuming you destroy the vehicle at the 100k km mark. (Recycle when appropriate, landfill when not.)

So my Prius, which is well over the 100,000 km mark, is now much 'greener' than if I had gone with my alternate car. And, I've now (thanks to higher-than-predicted gas prices for the past 3 years,) already gone past the break-even point financially.

At this point, I could dispose of my Prius, and the environment would be better than if I had disposed of my runner-up car, a Hyundai Elantra GT. (Of course, I'll likely keep driving the Prius until it completely dies; somewhere near the 300,000 km mark, or higher, most likely.)

My second-runner-up, a VW Jetta TDI, would likely still be a tossup, environment-wise (or possibly even a winner, if I had converted it to a 'greasel', like I was thinking of,) but cost-wise, because diesel fuel is still way more expensive than gasoline, would probably be a financial loser. (Although if I had converted it to run on used cooking oil, it would be hard to quantify, with the time involved.)


By Alexstarfire on 1/12/2009 11:21:01 PM , Rating: 2
I'm just curios, do most people think the Prius will just die if it's Hybrid battery dies? More accurately I should say won't hold a charge any longer, unless something in the battery actually does fall apart. I would argue that if the battery simple can't hold a charge that it'll simply run like a normal car, except it'll probably be far worse off for the MPG since the gas engine, using only the gas engine, isn't the best for accelerating.


By usbseawolf2000 on 1/15/2009 1:51:17 AM , Rating: 2
An easy way to remember is by the time Prius reached third oil change (15,000 miles) you are already ahead in the overall life cycle emission.


"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki