backtop


Print 91 comment(s) - last by aqwan135.. on Dec 20 at 8:26 PM


Audi e-tron EV Sports Car Concept

2010 Audi A3 TDI clean diesel  (Source: CarCollery)

Audi of America president Johan de Nysschen  (Source: Detroit News)
More controversial comments have been delivered by Audi's contentious North American president

Audi of America President Johan de Nysschen isn't impressed with electric vehicles despite flirtations with the battery-driven cars by other German automakers and even designers at his own company.  He has vocally called out the electric vehicle industry, which he sees as a sham, in the past.  He once famously remarked that those buying GM's 2011 Chevrolet Volt are "idiots".

Mr. Nysschen, who prefers clean diesels, delivered a speech at the National Press Club on Monday blasting the U.S. government's decision to back electric vehicles by funding EV research and offering EV makers loans according to the Detroit News.  Ignoring the profitability of Tesla Motors, he insists that electric vehicles cannot be viable in the near terms and accused the U.S. government of "falling in love" with electric vehicles at its citizens' expense.

States Mr. Nysschen, "The 50 percent or so price increase that the Volt represents over a similar gasoline car cannot be offset through the savings from reduced fuel compensation. The only way to offset the extreme premium is through taxpayer-funded subsidies."

He's referring to the $7,500 tax credit the U.S. government is offering citizens who buy electric vehicles.  The credit essentially brings down the price of ownership for the Volt from an estimated $40,000 USD to a more manageable $32,500 USD.  He complains, "Paying customers to drive your cars is not sustainable."

He prefers for the government to avoid intervention, a scenario in which he envisions clean diesel vehicles reigning victorious.  He opines, "I understand why political leaders have fallen in love with hybrids and electrics. But this may be the one time you'll hear someone in Washington say it shouldn't be a monogamous relationship."

He points out that America could cut off all its oil importation from Saudi Arabia if only a third of Americans switched to diesel vehicles.  He describes, "America would save 1.5 million barrels of oil a day.  I make no apologies for being the world's biggest diesel advocate."

U.S. President Barrack Obama, however, remains a firm supporter of electric vehicles and hybrids as the route to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and foreign oil consumption.  He argues that the issue is of importance to national security and points out that many groundbreaking technologies in the U.S. -- such as the railroad system -- came at a steep initial cost to the U.S. government in terms of land or grant money.

As for Audi, the company as a whole is looking at electric vehicles.  However, half of the company's lineup sold in Europe is diesel-driven, so it's clear where the automaker's sympathies lie.  In the States, the Audi A3 TDI is one of two clean diesels sold by the company.  The A3 TDI won green car of the year honors at the 2009 LA Auto Show. 

One thing that President Obama and Mr. Nysschen agree on is the need to improve fleet efficiencies to combat climate change and reduce fuel costs for customers.  Automakers are currently struggling to meet incoming fuel economy mandates that will require fleetwide fuel economy of 34.1 mpg by 2016.



Comments     Threshold


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

I agree
By FreakyD on 12/15/2009 2:46:50 PM , Rating: 5
I'm disgusted at the thought of taxpayer dollars being spent for individuals to buy cars. I was similarly disgusted at the cash for clunkers concept.

Why does the government reward stupidity? If an American car company builds a car that nobody can afford, there's a tax credit for that. If you bought a vehicle with terrible fuel economy, there's a tax credit for that.

If we want to encourage the purchase of more fuel efficient vehicles, then why not simply increase the federal tax on gasoline? A standard income tax credit can then be used to offset this price increase for individuals with a reasonably fuel efficient vehicle and an average commute. For individuals that choose to commute long distances or use an inefficient vehicle, their costs will increase. For individuals that commute short distances or use an efficient vehicle, their costs will decrease. Avoid hurting the trucking industry and encourage efficient fuels by not increasing taxes on diesel fuel as much.

It would be more effective to use this system since it goes beyond just the purchase of the vehicle. If I drive 1 mile to and from work, commuting with a Hummer is not as bad for the environment as someone who drives 60 miles to and from work in the Volt. Yet the Volt gets a tax credit to help someone who is causing more pollution.

All we have here is a tax credit to help prop up the failing GM's last ditch effort at launching a successful product. Helping individuals buy a $40,000 luxury vehicle is just plain stupid if you look at it any other way.




RE: I agree
By Reclaimer77 on 12/15/2009 3:03:53 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Why does the government reward stupidity?


About to be flamed for saying this, but we know it's true. So here goes

*deep breath*

It's because those same stupid Americans keep voting the same party into office because they promise to "give them stuff."

*cough*minorities*cough*


RE: I agree
By FreakyD on 12/15/2009 3:43:13 PM , Rating: 3
I don't mind government assistance in some cases, but helping to buy a luxury car is not my idea of assistance for the needy. I don't think any particular group could have pushed such an absurd idea through other than individuals in support of GM. In this case I think we're looking at the responsibility belonging to the UAW union.

In many other cases though, I would agree that government handouts does equal votes. Anyone receiving their income through the government (even through legit means like contracted work or direct employment) will be more likely to vote for someone who will send more money their way.


RE: I agree
By roykahn on 12/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: I agree
By OrSin on 12/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: I agree
By DougF on 12/17/2009 12:30:19 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
*cough*minorities*cough*


*cough*minorities and white guilt in a certain political party*cough*

Fixed it for ya.


RE: I agree
By naris on 12/16/2009 10:50:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why does the government reward stupidity?


Really? You don't understand this? Have you noticed who actually runs the government (mostly the clerks and other civil servants, but also the politicians)?

quote:
For individuals that choose to commute long distances


What individuals that "choose to commute long distances" are you referring to:

1) Contractors, where their job dictates going to different customers every few months?
2) Those that work in areas where the average house price is in the millions of dollars?
3) Those that lost their jobs where the housing market dropped drastically and can't find work locally and also can't sell their house?
4) Those that lost their jobs, can't find work locally and can't move due to other constraints, such as family?
5) Those from areas where there are no jobs and are not willing to abandon their family to live next to where they work?


RE: I agree
By Spuke on 12/16/2009 3:55:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If we want to encourage the purchase of more fuel efficient vehicles, then why not simply increase the federal tax on gasoline? A
Drum Roll!!!! People with less fuel efficient vehicles and longer commutes ALREADY pay more in gas taxes and other taxes. My wife and I both have roughly the same distance in commute. She drives a Ford F250 diesel and I drive Pontiac Solstice GXP. I pay $35 or so in fuel per week and she pays $75 or so per week in fuel costs. We paid ( and will pay annually) more in registration and taxes for her vehicle than mine. And her maintenance costs are higher than my car. I actually broke down the individual cost differences in another thread.


RE: I agree
By aqwan135 on 12/20/2009 8:22:34 PM , Rating: 1
http://ta.gg/3yu

fr ee sh i pp ing

(jordan shoes) $32

(air max) $34

+++

wow


RE: I agree
By aqwan135 on 12/20/09, Rating: 0
Not neccessarilly wrong.
By bildan on 12/15/2009 11:57:29 AM , Rating: 3
A EV vs Diesel car is probably not a productive argument.

The latest high-tech diesels from Europe are very clean burning and extremely efficient. They deliver sporty performance to boot.

If a way was found to produce bio-diesel efficiently in an economic and environmentally friendly way, diesel cars would make an awful lot of sense.




RE: Not neccessarilly wrong.
By FITCamaro on 12/15/2009 12:19:19 PM , Rating: 5
Algae. Already works. Just have to expand it to mass production.


RE: Not neccessarilly wrong.
By ImJustSaying on 12/15/2009 5:03:25 PM , Rating: 2
Word. Agreed 100%.


RE: Not neccessarilly wrong.
By Kurz on 12/15/2009 12:22:43 PM , Rating: 2
Algae Biofuel has soo much potiential.
Though I can see Plugins with a Biodiesel range extender being a good developement.

There is a Honda Civic Hybrid with TDI... I remember somewhere.


RE: Not neccessarilly wrong.
By Durrr on 12/15/2009 1:50:28 PM , Rating: 2
Honda nixed it.


RE: Not neccessarilly wrong.
By encia on 12/16/2009 5:34:49 AM , Rating: 2
Pure ICE engine still waste energy during the stoping phase.


Audi, you know you made an EV too, right?
By xprojected on 12/15/2009 11:59:57 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.dailytech.com/Audi+etron+EV+Sports+Car+...

Audi e-tron EV Sports Car Concept Has a Staggering 3,316 lb-ft of Torque

I'm getting mixed messages here.




RE: Audi, you know you made an EV too, right?
By encia on 12/16/2009 5:47:24 AM , Rating: 2
Audi doesn't have have one ready for production, hence the FUD.


By encia on 12/16/2009 5:58:31 AM , Rating: 2
Correction;
Audi doesn't have one ready for production, hence the FUD.


Translation
By bubba551 on 12/15/2009 3:08:11 PM , Rating: 4
You Fools!

You are buying the snake-oil that the Japanese are selling rather than the superior snake-oil that the Europeans are pushing, for the ailment that we had to convince you exists in the first place.




RE: Translation
By encia on 12/16/2009 5:46:06 AM , Rating: 2
Did you forget Ford Fusion Hybrid?


Trucks with Desiel
By GruntboyX on 12/15/2009 12:55:08 PM , Rating: 2
If they made a Full Size Pickup with a 6 cycl diesel that got 30MPG. I would buy it in a heart beat. But it cant take 15 quarts of oil that has to be changed every 3000 miles. It also needs to be an affordable main stream option, not a $7500 dollar power add-on.





RE: Trucks with Desiel
By Durrr on 12/15/2009 1:51:44 PM , Rating: 2
Oil changes in diesels are far longer than 3k, closer to 10k. And the reason why their oil sumps are so large is so that the internal soot production doesn't overwhelm the oil and saturate it in an inordinate amount of time.


By killerclick on 12/15/2009 5:39:59 PM , Rating: 4
Sure clean diesel is a better solution than the electric car at this time but so was the horse vs. the automobile at the beginning of the 20th century or SSD vs. the magnetic hard disk two years ago. We need a lot of R&D to move up the S curve in order to reap benefits from EVs but it's clear that it is the technology of the future vs. internal combustion which is the technology of the past.




What is the problem with diesel?
By Rhaido on 12/15/2009 12:05:31 PM , Rating: 3
The concept of using vegetable oil as an engine fuel dates back to 1895 when Dr. Rudolf Diesel developed the first diesel engine to run on vegetable oil. Diesel demonstrated his engine at the World Exhibition in Paris in 1900 using peanut oil as fuel.
http://www.hempcar.org/biofacts.shtml

Anyone have any luck with this?
http://www.frybrid.com/




Truth
By spathotan on 12/15/2009 6:40:56 PM , Rating: 2
Considering they can make a diesel that gets just as good if not better MPG than all hybrids and "electric" cars, hes got some ground to stand on.




RE: Truth
By encia on 12/16/2009 5:53:14 AM , Rating: 1
What diesel car in USA EPA’s medium car size class would beat a Prius G3's USA EPA?

Btw, cars like Alfa 147, VW Polo, VW Golf are not same size class as Prius G3. So don’t bother mentioning them.


I agree
By corduroygt on 12/15/2009 12:01:41 PM , Rating: 2
Especially given the popularity of crossovers and SUV's, a diesel engine would suit them perfectly, you get all your torque and power down low without having to spin the engine very fast.
Electric motors should only be used to supplement the diesel engine and enable regen, with a small/cheap battery. Sort of like a prius but with a diesel engine.




My interpretation...
By CrazyBernie on 12/15/2009 4:53:21 PM , Rating: 2
"We don't have EV's, so they TOTALLY aren't cool enough and you shouldn't buy them."




By Roy2001 on 12/15/2009 4:57:09 PM , Rating: 2
Audi has little market share, why do you worry about? If you have a lot of market share, I could understand.

In addition, disel won't solve the problem of city driving, it still has the pollution!




Meanwhile
By PandaBear on 12/15/2009 4:59:47 PM , Rating: 2
Audi executives have fallen in love with themselves and will get burnt by their own reliability problems.




One real switch
By dagamer34 on 12/15/2009 11:52:38 PM , Rating: 2
Thing is, I think we've only got a shot at one "major" switch per generation or two, and switching from purely from one fossil fuel to another doesn't really solve the problem. While no longer having "cheap oil" may be the primary reason we are spending so much money on research, we have to realize that this problem would have occured sooner or later. Oil itself isn't renewable. The sooner we switch to renewable resources, the better (because in theory, any country will be able to manufacture that energy).




I agree with the guy, except...
By rvd2008 on 12/16/2009 9:51:21 AM , Rating: 2
where can I buy clean diesel non-hybrid car with 50 MPG under $25k in the US?




Oil, cars and trees
By hond on 12/15/2009 9:33:09 PM , Rating: 1
Oil is indirectly subsized by going to war to ensure it's availability. And war isn't cheap either.
Electric cars sure don't exhaust CO2 but they do contain batteries, and those aren't as easy to get rid of as a CO2.
Don't get me wrong, i'd like an electric car. The engine is cheaper and better in every way but the battery-tech to make the performance desirable just isn't there yet.
Off topic; To get the evil CO2 levels down, why don't we just stop cutting down the rainforrest/buying newspapers.




I see...
By ashegam on 12/15/09, Rating: -1
RE: I see...
By amanojaku on 12/15/2009 12:00:43 PM , Rating: 3
In case you hadn't noticed, there has been a lot of controversy around EVs in terms of the impact on the environment. Sure, they don't burn gasoline, but they DO use electricity. Electricity use creates CO2, so there are arguments that say the shift from ICEs to electric motors does little more than shift the CO2 production from cars to the power plants. Oh, and you lower your driving range, increase your power source refill rate, raise your TCO, increases your difficulty in finding a refill station, etc...


RE: I see...
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 12/15/2009 12:54:55 PM , Rating: 3
Electricity PRODUCTION creates CO2 (when not wind, solar or nuclear generated.) Electricity USE does not create CO2.


RE: I see...
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 12/15/2009 12:56:29 PM , Rating: 2
Okay, I'll reply to that and say that wind, solar and nuclear plant development CAN use CO2 as well. But once we are on nuclear, for example, the amount of CO2 to then produce solar or wind generators can be cut to 0. You have to boot strap somewhere.


RE: I see...
By Sunday Ironfoot on 12/16/2009 3:27:03 AM , Rating: 2
Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm sure the CO2 output from ICE engines is far far greater than the CO2 output to produce the electricity used by an EV.

As for the costs to your electric bill, I believe the figure bandied about was around 2-3c per mile, whereas patrol is around 10-20c per mile, diesel probably slightly less. So the increase in your electric bill won't come anywhere remotely near to offsetting your patrol/diesel bill savings.


RE: I see...
By Leper Messiah on 12/15/2009 12:01:06 PM , Rating: 3
There are so many things wrong with this statement...electric cars don't conserve resources or the environment when they use processes that are more polluting than normal manufacturing and are powered by electricity that is generated through non renewable means.

Ultimately it IS about saving money. Aluminum recycling is successful because recycled Aluminum costs less than mined aluminum. Alternative energy sources will never be viable on a large scale until they're able to compete with fossil fuels on a price scale.


RE: I see...
By encia on 12/16/2009 5:40:55 AM , Rating: 2
Ni-MH and Li-ion batteries are recyclable.

Toyota Prius's carbon life cycle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKnNEVdtzi4


RE: I see...
By geddarkstorm on 12/15/2009 12:01:44 PM , Rating: 3
That's exactly what biodiesel does. What do you think are in those car batteries? They don't run on gumdrops and good wishes.

I have to agree with the guy: current diesel tech is superior to EVs in every way, including nicer on the environment. For some reason, we just won't use it. Kinda like are stigma to nuclear power -- never mind how safe for us and good for the environment it is compared to say coal or natural gas.


RE: I see...
By encia on 12/16/2009 5:55:38 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.html

The USA is the world's largest producer of nuclear power, accounting for more than 30% of worldwide nuclear generation of electricity.


RE: I see...
By Ristogod on 12/15/09, Rating: 0
RE: I see...
By mdogs444 on 12/15/09, Rating: 0
RE: I see...
By ImJustSaying on 12/15/09, Rating: 0
RE: I see...
By Ringold on 12/15/2009 2:31:55 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
There does not exist an 'invisible hand' that magically guides the market toward a favorable direction, based on what 'the people' want.


Alright, I stopped reading right about there. I've met your type before. Your type either didn't progress past principles of macro or micro, went to a university with an entrenched tenured Marxist faculty in the economics department, or went to a legitimate department and quit because the professors, fellow students, and textbooks were all saying things you didn't wish to believe. Those are about the only ways to become so blind; you're basically rejecting the entire accepted body of economic thought, shared by even most Democrat economists.

I mean, seriously, even the stauncher socialist economists out there would never suggest there is no 'invisible hand', but would say instead (in an honest moment) that in their opinion people are irredeemably stupid and need to be guided by government for their own good.

Just because you're uneducated with respect to economics doesn't mean mdogs is wrong. It's equally clear however far to the right he leans, you are equally radical in the opposite direction. Stop throwing stones from a glass house.


RE: I see...
By bupkus on 12/15/09, Rating: -1
RE: I see...
By geddarkstorm on 12/15/2009 3:51:43 PM , Rating: 4
Err... did you read his post? At all? Or are you replying to the wrong one?

Why are you talking about civil governance and town hall meetings, and pray tell, where do you see him talking about Al Gore?

Ringold is quite right. To say what ImJustSaying was, well, saying, requires one to not know the basics of economy or to fundamentally disagree with it. Heck, play an MMO and you'll see the very principles of economics in the real world reappear, even if between players on the side and unofficially. One could say there are laws to economics just like their are laws to physics. After all, it does simply boil down to math, and it isn't mystical.


RE: I see...
By Hieyeck on 12/16/2009 4:21:34 AM , Rating: 2
By no means do I support bupkus' views, but economics has one factor physics that does make it 'mystical' - you need people to have an economy and as Ringlod pointed out, people are irredeemably stupid.


RE: I see...
By TSS on 12/16/2009 6:43:07 AM , Rating: 2
Predictably stupid.

Mystical is not the word your looking for, that word is Social. Economics is a social thing, math simply describes it as math describes the laws of physics.

Herd dynamics work pretty well in explaining the economy.


RE: I see...
By ImJustSaying on 12/15/2009 4:36:02 PM , Rating: 1
Not sure how you can conclude any sort of political leaning on my part by reading my post, but it is very revealing of how you may pass assumptions. It's also cute to see you guys rushing to each other's defense. Hey, don't forget the reach-around!


RE: I see...
By lco45 on 12/15/2009 6:22:01 PM , Rating: 2
Just because the PEOPLE want it doesn't make it better.

Here's a list of things the people want:
- Susan Boyle
-
I was going to add more to that list but I think it's complete enough.

Luke


RE: I see...
By stilltrying on 12/15/2009 8:20:01 PM , Rating: 2
Oh and you forgot when Gore stated "The center of the earth is millions of degrees". LOL. This guy is a moron.


RE: I see...
By chick0n on 12/15/09, Rating: -1
RE: I see...
By kufeifies on 12/16/2009 7:47:44 AM , Rating: 1
Christmas gifts come in to pick:
=====h t t p : / / w w w . b h s h o e . c o m====
jewerly $20
ugg boots$50
jordan shoes$32
handbag$35
h t t p : / / w w w . b h s h o e . c o m


RE: I see...
By kufeifies on 12/16/2009 8:10:34 AM , Rating: 1
Christmas gifts come in to pick:
=====h t t p : / / w w w . b h s h o e . c o m====
jewerly $20
ugg boots$50
jordan shoes$32
handbag$35
h t t p : / / w w w . b h s h o e . c o m


RE: I see...
By kufeifies on 12/16/2009 8:14:38 AM , Rating: 1
Christmas gifts come in to pick:
=====h t t p : / / w w w . b h s h o e . c o m====
jewerly $20
ugg boots$50
jordan shoes$32
handbag$35
h t t p : / / w w w . b h s h o e . c o m


RE: I see...
By kufeifies on 12/16/2009 9:36:04 AM , Rating: 1
Christmas gifts come in to pick:
=====h t t p : / / w w w . b h s h o e . c o m====
jewerly $20
ugg boots$50
jordan shoes$32
handbag$35
h t t p : / / w w w . b h s h o e . c o m


right and wrong
By cciesquare on 12/15/09, Rating: -1
RE: right and wrong
By mindless1 on 12/15/2009 9:20:53 PM , Rating: 3
False. Obviously you weren't a driver in the 70's, 80's, 90's. Vehicles have gotten more fuel efficient, have been downsized a bit (for those who choose a car rather than big truck or SUV), it's just been offset by better crash safety and lower emissions.

Typical 4 door car in '75 got what, 14MPG?

EVs are a sham until the day comes when we have sufficient manufacturing and battery tech to make them cost and environmentally effective. At that point, certainly we should switch as a buyer's choice to pay for it, not as a governmental burden on all taxpayers to end up with a losing solution.

There is a simple solution to our oil consumption if you wish to decrease it. Buy a smaller car, drive less, plan your trips, and be less of a consumer in general remembering that personal vehicle fuel is only a fraction of the total oil consumed.

But no, instead here you are using power to post thoughts on the internet in a forum where it makes no difference. At least using energy to drive to the store for food has some need:benefit if you can't walk there.


RE: right and wrong
By Yawgm0th on 12/16/09, Rating: 0
Surprised?
By wiz220 on 12/15/09, Rating: -1
RE: Surprised?
By Bateluer on 12/15/2009 12:01:30 PM , Rating: 5
Audi isn't the only auto maker that makes diesel vehicles.


RE: Surprised?
By dnd728 on 12/15/2009 4:47:10 PM , Rating: 2
But the whole VW group will soon be the only ones without an electric option.
All they seem to have are a million non production concept sketches.


RE: Surprised?
By mcnabney on 12/15/2009 6:22:12 PM , Rating: 1
They figure the suckers in the US will keep spending money and lives in the Middle East to maintain Europe's supply of oil.


RE: Surprised?
By roykahn on 12/15/2009 9:18:43 PM , Rating: 2
And they'd be right. It's natural for a super-power to seek control of the world's resources and trade. Furthermore, it's a good excuse to expand its military power and presence around the world.


RE: Surprised?
By gunzac21 on 12/16/2009 1:13:01 AM , Rating: 2
America is consitently made to be the one to stabilize markets (oil) and europe then profits from it. Hell i mean how much do they spend on their military... oh wait they just rely on the U.S to take care of it all.


RE: Surprised?
By roykahn on 12/16/2009 6:35:59 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, that's right. The US (and non-US) military is doing the whole world a charitable service by stabilizing markets. Please visit some of these places that have been "stabilized" and see for yourself how thankful their populations are.


RE: Surprised?
By gunzac21 on 12/16/2009 10:58:27 AM , Rating: 2
hahahaha true. but i was talking about how Europe indirectly or directly benefits from it. not how the "markets"/"countries"/"people" that we are "stabilizing" suffer

but yes you are right, i completely agree


RE: Surprised?
By corduroygt on 12/15/2009 12:04:34 PM , Rating: 5
You do know that Rudolf Diesel's goal was to make an engine that would run on peanut oil, right? Modern diesels can run on vegetable oil, which is a renewable resource, with the only problem being that the oil gets solidified in low temperatures.


RE: Surprised?
By mindless1 on 12/15/2009 9:09:09 PM , Rating: 2
Not having a vegetable oil pump at the local gas station seems like it might be a problem too. Diverting land from food production to fuel might be a problem too. Granted some land is wasting away but this may remain true either way.


RE: Surprised?
By Hiawa23 on 12/15/2009 12:34:09 PM , Rating: 2
The Audi guy brings up some good points, but does he thinks many Americans would or able to switch vehicles?

I agree that our govt seems to have fallen in love with EVs. I like to see all options, like EVs, diesel vehicles, & more efficient gasoline vehicles, cause let's face it, for most of us, the cars we now own are going to be it, especially in these economic times, so how in the h---, do you get gas prices down, or make more fuel efficient gasoline automobiles that get 40mpgs or better?

I am baffled why a country supposedly as great, so everyone says it, everytime they get a chance the US is, why it hasn't been a priority to produce more of our own fuel & import less from countries that hate us. Blame who you want, Republicans & Dems have had decades to do something, so I don't expect any fixes soon.

I am also surprised as long as car manufacturers have been making gasoline engine vehicles, the technology as far as fuel efficiency hasn't brought us to a vehicle that ran on gas & got 40-50 mps, that actually look good, drives well too. That Prius is one of the ugliest cars I have ever seen. No-way would I buy one of those.


RE: Surprised?
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 12/15/09, Rating: 0
RE: Surprised?
By Yawgm0th on 12/15/2009 2:51:26 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I am also surprised as long as car manufacturers have been making gasoline engine vehicles, the technology as far as fuel efficiency hasn't brought us to a vehicle that ran on gas & got 40-50 mps, that actually look good, drives well too. That Prius is one of the ugliest cars I have ever seen. No-way would I buy one of those.
Ford Fusion Hybrid


RE: Surprised?
By chrnochime on 12/16/2009 12:00:14 AM , Rating: 2
I'm more amazed by how much people believe that everyone around them will look at them, that driving an ugly vehicle will embarrass them. Unless you don't look out of place in a Men's fashion magazine, you're not handsome enough. Besides, I can think of plenty of car that *might* look better than the Prius, but are just not really good in anything. Audis come to mind...


RE: Surprised?
By Hiawa23 on 12/16/2009 9:27:47 AM , Rating: 2
I'm more amazed by how much people believe that everyone around them will look at them, that driving an ugly vehicle will embarrass them

I don't think anyone cares how people will view them in any car, or no man would drive a minivan, but what people have said including myself, is I can't see myself buying a car that I don't like the body style or the way it looks. Could care less what anyone thought I looked like in the car. Prime example is the Prius which to me is an ugly car, I don't like the way it looks at all, which is why I did not buy & instead bought a Mitsu Lancer Ralliart, 2.4l. It looked more appealing, more sporty, to me & I think this is one of the factors people use to buy cars, not what one think some stranger will view them in the car.


RE: Surprised?
By Hiawa23 on 12/16/2009 9:17:28 AM , Rating: 2
Ford Fusion Hybrid

I said a gasoline only vehicle not a hybrid, LOL. Most Americans don't own or buy hybrids.


RE: Surprised?
By Yawgm0th on 12/16/2009 11:45:59 AM , Rating: 2
I'll quote you again since you're having trouble reading your own post.

quote:
the technology as far as fuel efficiency hasn't brought us to a vehicle that ran on gas & got 40-50 mps, that actually look good, drives well too.
Ford Fusion Hybrid runs entirely on gas. It is not a plugin. It looks good. It drives reasonably well and comfortably.

If you meant to say non-hybrid petroleum-fueled ICE-based vehicle, why is the rest of the paragraph about the Prius? Either you're misunderstanding your own post, or you were unclear and followed your own sentence with a non-sequitur.

quote:
Most Americans don't own or buy hybrids.

Most Americans don't buy pickup trucks. Most Americans don't buy compact cars. Most Americans don't buy minivans. Unless there is a specific type of car that >= 50% have purchased, most Americans don't buy or own any type of car. In the meantime, tens of millions do own hybrids, and you better believe that number is going to increase drastically over the next ten years.


RE: Surprised?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/15/2009 2:52:04 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Blame who you want, Republicans & Dems have had decades to do something, so I don't expect any fixes soon.


???

I'm pretty sure Republicans didn't sign a Presidential AND Congressional BAN on domestic oil drilling. That's all Democrats baby.

I mean, are you serious? Every Environmentally based agenda that stops us from using our own resources is totally rooted in the Democratic party. Every heard of the Green Party ? Look who they give campaign contributions too. Global Warming ? Again, Democrats backed it all the way.

Every time a Republican tries to open up our oil reserves, here comes the Democrats with their stupid partisan arguments. " NO drill baby drill ". " NO war for oil !! " " Republicans hate polar bears !!! "

Oh and the most famous argument by Democrats " Well, it will take 10 years to get the drilling started, so by then it will be too late ". Yeah except they said THAT 10 years ago, so if we had shut them up THEN, we would have cheap oil NOW.

Even a few years ago, when Americans were suffering through the highest gas prices since the 70's, the Democrats attacked Bush when he lifted the Presidential ban on drilling and asked them to lift the Congressional ban. To hell with the American people, partisan politics must go on right 'Dems ?

But all that pales in comparison to what Cap and Trade, a 100% Democratic venture, will do to the energy cost and production of this country.

Ladies in gentlemen, in short, we are fucked.


RE: Surprised?
By twhittet on 12/15/09, Rating: -1
RE: Surprised?
By kufeifie on 12/15/09, Rating: -1
RE: Surprised?
By Hiawa23 on 12/16/2009 9:38:13 AM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure Republicans didn't sign a Presidential AND Congressional BAN on domestic oil drilling. That's all Democrats baby.

Dems haven't been in power for all these decades so blame goes on both sides. I do agree with you, we are pretty much "F" cause there aint no fix coming, & the middle/lower class certainly is screwed, but whatelse is new, it's how the system is setup & it aint changing, so you better pull yourself up & get what you can as no one is going to give it to you or help you if it's not in their interests.


RE: Surprised?
By Sungpooz on 12/15/09, Rating: 0
RE: Surprised?
By Ringold on 12/15/2009 2:21:13 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I for one applaud the push to get off of oil NOW while we still have some time. It might be a little painful now as far as cost but it will payoff down the road.


Why force something by government decree and support it with higher taxes or higher debt, both of which impede the economy, that isn't ready to stand on its own two feet?

The free market is in control of oil prices. Oil prices, generally, over the past decade has been rising. I think everyone agrees this has been well explained by rising global prosperity, the expense of bringing new fields online, the volatility in oil-producing regions and the aging of current fields. Research by large corporations and small firms backed by venture capital has responded to this price signal already. As the pain hippies refer to comes to bear, solutions will be more refined and ready to compete without nearly as much government money.

It's fairly logical.. battery technology improves steadily even without large dollops of government money every year. Oil, and thus gas, prices will continue to rise, on the average. At some point, EV's become not just competitive, but crush ICE-powered cars.

Just because government CAN get involved doesn't mean it's the most efficient path forward, even if it does let hippies sleep better at night knowing big daddy is watching over them or satisfy their modern technology fueled addiction for instant gratification.


RE: Surprised?
By MadMan007 on 12/16/2009 12:22:08 AM , Rating: 2
What language do you speak natively? Because I wonder how the acronym for 'free market oil prices' works out to OPEC.


RE: Surprised?
By Ringold on 12/16/2009 2:16:58 AM , Rating: 2
First of all, OPEC's actual control of member countries output has long been shown to be fairly weak. They cheat all the time -- its a classic prisoners dilemma, and it works out the way most people would suspect. There's times OPEC announces a production cut, and then actual hard output numbers barely move.

Secondly, OPEC doesn't set output for a decent chunk of the world.

Last, OPEC didn't want prices as high as they were because they knew demand destruction was far too high up at their peak. They also didn't want it crashing as low as it did during the heart of the recession. OPEC failed to display absolutely any control over the price of oil over the past few years, so I'm not sure why people still give it such credibility.

Not to say OPEC might not potentially have teeth, but as Osama describes the US.. paper tiger. At least, thats how I see it.


RE: Surprised?
By AEvangel on 12/15/2009 2:50:17 PM , Rating: 5
I applaud it as well I just don't want to have to subsidize companies for it.

If you truly let the free market reign we will have alternatives as prices rise, but there is no need to steal money at the point of a gun to promote the alternatives now.


RE: Surprised?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/15/2009 2:55:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I for one applaud the push to get off of oil NOW while we still have some time.


That just isn't possible. And if anyone is telling you it is, and you believe them, then you are both idiots.

I, for one, would like to get off food NOW while I still have time. Unfortunately hot air doesn't have many calories...


RE: Surprised?
By Jalek on 12/15/2009 3:50:47 PM , Rating: 4
Not far from the environmentalist opposition to CO2 scrubbers and other ready technologies to solve another problem without advancing their political agenda.

The Copenhagen 95% cuts are not only unreachable, but destroying industry and eliminating natural resource recovery in the attempt would make the country unable to make the guilt payments to developing countries, putting it into a situation reminiscent of Weimar Germany.

Why do you hate America?


RE: Surprised?
By kufeifie on 12/15/09, Rating: -1
"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg














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