backtop


Print 108 comment(s) - last by TheGreek.. on Jun 19 at 9:38 AM


Toyota Prius

Toyota Camry Hybrid

Honda Civic Hybrid
Hybrid sales reach 140,000+ units for the first five months of 2007

Hybrid vehicles have come a long way in the ten years since the first Toyota Prius was sold in Japan. The United States slowly embraced the vehicles when Honda brought us the Insight in 1999 and when Toyota first brought the Prius to our shores in 2000.

Today, hybrids are becoming commonplace in America and sales continue to grow at a steady pace. Hybrid car sales increased 53 percent from the previous year for the first five months of 2007. A total of 143,700 hybrids were sold during the period compared to 93,945 in 2006.

Not surprisingly, Toyota's Prius dominated the hybrid sales charts. Prius sales jumped 99.6 percent to 76,745 units -- this represented over half of all hybrids sold in the United States. Toyota's Camry Hybrid was a distant second at 20,540 units sold.

Of the ten hybrids listed on the sales chart, half were made by Toyota, representing total sales of 117,154 vehicles.

Although hybrid sales are on the rise, they still represent a relatively small portion of the entire U.S. auto market. For the first five months of 2007, hybrids represented just 2.1 percent of all new vehicles sold.

That being said, there are a number of new hybrids on the way which are sure to boost sales even further including the $100,000 Lexus LS 600h L, Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon Hybrids, Chrysler Aspen and Dodge Durango Hybrids, Saturn Vue Green Line, Saturn Aura Green Line and the second generation Toyota Highlander Hybrid.

Toyota alone expects to further increase its lead in the production of hybrids and has stated that all of its vehicles will be hybrids by 2020.





Comments     Threshold


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

Progress
By mdogs444 on 6/15/2007 9:31:59 AM , Rating: 2
Its nice to see progress with today's consumers - especially that our country as a whole is feeling a bit more comfortable with the new hybrid technology.

I, for one, would not yet be willing to shell out new car money for hybrid technology that still needs further work. Then again, looks grab my attention, therefore i would not be buying any of the hybrids from standpoint. Perhaps a BMW 3 series, a Volvo S40 series, etc in a hybrid would grab my attention.

However, I still fail to see the point behind the $100,000 Lexus Hybrid. If you can afford a $100,000 car, im sure you are not worried about the increasing price of gasoline to $3.00+/gallon.




RE: Progress
By jpcesar on 6/15/2007 9:41:53 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
However, I still fail to see the point behind the $100,000 Lexus Hybrid. If you can afford a $100,000 car, im sure you are not worried about the increasing price of gasoline to $3.00+/gallon.


The point is not the price of gasoline. The point is pollution.


RE: Progress
By mdogs444 on 6/15/2007 9:44:15 AM , Rating: 2
I doubt many people will pay a 40k premium on a car to lower emissions.

Besides, from what i read in yesterday's Hybrid/Battery post, the additional pollution created from the manufacturing process over standard vehicle production is something we should be more concerned with.


RE: Progress
By RjBass on 6/15/2007 10:05:09 AM , Rating: 2
While the bulk of society would not care to spend so much to lower the output of pollution, some upper class hippies who have nothing better to spend their money on would have no problem with it.

The new Lexus Hybrid is like a high end gaming computer. It is being built and sold to a niche market. Lexus knows that only a limited number of these things will actually sell, so the actual number of them being built will most likely be far less then other models in the Lexus line. Just like how Intel only produces so many Core 2 Extremes as opposed to Core 2 E4300's.


RE: Progress
By mushi799 on 6/15/2007 10:20:33 AM , Rating: 3
You're not the target audience, live with it. I doubt any of us here are in line to buy 100k+ cars


RE: Progress
By NoSoftwarePatents on 6/15/2007 10:23:31 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with your first comment, but the second comment is based on a marketing study, which goal is to slam the hybrid concept by using hard-to-verify statements, and a ton of other bullshit.

I'm not buying a hybrid anytime soon, but there is only one "study" which cites that manufacturing costs are an issue-a marketing study, not based on layers and layers of facts, but opinions.

My next car is going to be a Toyota Tacoma or Tundra, but I'm leaning towards the Tacoma at the moment...


RE: Progress
By 9nails on 6/16/2007 2:39:22 AM , Rating: 3
I'm more concerned with the cost of those batteries when they need to be replaced. I feel that you simply defer the energy savings (MPG) into the batteries and that hybrid cars don't actually save you anything. If the batteries cannot be recycled, then the waste is likely worse than what the equal gasoline engine counterpart is producing in emissions. I'm at the opinion that they're a nice car to lease, but not the right car to own.

You can guess that I'm not sold on any of this and will be sticking to my polluting cars for several more years... perhaps waiting to see if Hydrogen (extracted via corn or water, not oil) or fuel cell engines become the true environment saving method of transportation.


RE: Progress
By ATC on 6/16/2007 3:40:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm more concerned with the cost of those batteries when they need to be replaced.

I was too, but after talking with friends who work for Toyota in Canada they clarified for me that while the Camry Hybrid for example carries a 3-yr warranty bumper to bumper, all Hybrid and Hybrid-related systems (including the batteries) carry an eight year warranty. And, if/when the batteries need replacing the cost is about $3500 (CAD).

Here's the thing, In BC (Canada), you get a total of $3500 in rebates from provincial and federal government for buying the Camry Hybrid, which puts it at the same cost as the lower end Camry while being just about equally equipped as the much more expensive XLE.

It's in such a demand because of that, that there is months waiting list at three local area Toyota dealers.


RE: Progress
By Dulanic on 6/17/2007 9:03:07 PM , Rating: 2
That must be in canada, in the US the battery warranty is 10 years 150k miles.


RE: Progress
By mino on 6/18/2007 4:34:59 AM , Rating: 2
Batteries do not like the cold weather (they do not like the hot one too, but not so much).
Therefore 8y vs. 20y seems reasonable.


RE: Progress
By kmmatney on 6/16/2007 8:43:52 PM , Rating: 3
My In-laws have 2 toyota Priu's. The first was purchased in 2001 and the second in 2005. The first model needed to go back for warranty repair twice for things unrelated to the batteries, but otherwise has been running fine, as has the second Prius. So I know that batteries can potentially last 6 years. The computer system in the Prius specifially regulates how the batteries are charged and drained to extend their working life. I've driven both of their cars and the newer one is nicer to drive and gets better MPG. The old car has about 120K miles on it.

While I will probably not be buying one soon, I don't think there is need for concern regarding the batteries. My in-laws also received quite a few rebates on the cars, making them not much more expensive that a standard car.


RE: Progress
By Samus on 6/16/2007 11:50:10 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, people wont pay that, unless they have too. Hence, Toyota is not going to make non-hybrid cars, and people will have no choice but to buy a greener car for more money if they want Toyota reliability and so on. Eventually I see most auto manufacturers making nothing but Hybrids in the next few years.

It makes sense from all perspectives, because Hybrid technology can be used for performance or fuel economy.


RE: Progress
By euclidean on 6/15/2007 11:39:47 AM , Rating: 2
Also, you can buy a Civic Hybrid brand new base price for 24K....I really don't think that's expensive at all for a car, especially for a hybrid.


RE: Progress
By Souka on 6/15/2007 11:59:42 AM , Rating: 3
$3-5k premium to get a few more MPG...

$3-5k up front, for many means a larger loan and higher intrest costs.

$3-5k that could be invested elsewhere....

Gambling $3-5k on that you're gonna keep the car for more than 5-7 years to recoup the cost in gas savings...

Really you're paying $3-5k for "status"... Reducing emissions? Well, at the tailpipe maybe, but the carbon-footprint of a hybrid from "cradle-to-grave" is higher than a non-hybrid.

My $.02...


RE: Progress
By michael2k on 6/15/2007 12:13:07 PM , Rating: 2
I already get 28mpg in my car and spend roughly $900 a year on gas. If I had a hybrid and boosted my mileage to 40mpg, I would be spending $600 a year on gas. If I keep my car for ten years, that $3k difference is erased.

However, that is just my situation. People more commonly pay extra for:
1) Leather
2) CD players
3) Moonroof/Sunroof
4) Body trim
5) 60HP
6) Alloy wheels

In light of that, what is $3k for a 40% boost in mileage? There's no "recoup" in spending when you purchase luxuries; think of extra MPG as a luxury okay?

Then there is emissions: The batteries in a hybrid are recycled. Are you saying that the carbon footprint is higher because the engine is smaller and the alternator is larger? Or because you THINK it's higher?


RE: Progress
By Ringold on 6/15/2007 4:02:16 PM , Rating: 2
Of course, that extra $3k also compounds interest over the life of the car loan, offsetting some fuel savings, or about $450 in extra interest with a 48 month loan @ a generous 7%.

Assuming, that is, you get a loan. If not, then if you keep that 10-year pay-back period, the same $3k stuck away in a 10-year bond would be worth $4980, or let loose on the stock market could reasonably end up making that 3k worth 6500 to 9300 depending on the market over the same time period.

Really going to save 10k over 10 years? Really going to keep said vehicle 10 years? Neh. It's a fashion statement still, not much more. If fuel efficiency is the goal, a used Civic or the likes makes not only more sense in terms of consuming resources (buying a used car is sort of like recycling 100% of a product, no?) but financial sense as well.


RE: Progress
By fxnick on 6/15/07, Rating: 0
RE: Progress
By HVAC on 6/15/2007 12:31:01 PM , Rating: 2
Carbon Footprint.....my ass.

It doesn't matter if the carbon footprint of a hybrid is larger. The bigger issue is control of the emissions. It is more technically (not politically) efficient to control power plant (smokestack) emissions than to try to control tailpipe emissions.


RE: Progress
By blaster5k on 6/15/2007 2:24:43 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but then you're relying on batteries and there are efficiency loses associated with them. Not to mention the weight, which makes it difficult to get good range without compromising the efficiency there -- and charging time.

I suppose fuel cells indirectly allow for power plant level control over emissions if you're producing hydrogen via electricity though. The technology needs to evolve a bit more to really shift the burden to power plants. And we'd need to build more nuclear plants to actually reduce emissions there.


RE: Progress
By BMFPitt on 6/15/2007 1:27:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Gambling $3-5k on that you're gonna keep the car for more than 5-7 years to recoup the cost in gas savings...
These cars also have a very strong resale value.

If I was buying a car today, I would strongly consider a hybrid, because I fully expect gas to be over $7 within 10 years.


RE: Progress
By Ringold on 6/15/2007 4:10:21 PM , Rating: 2
Even the most strict carbon prices proposed to stabilize CO2 in the atmosphere would add something like $.48 to a gallon, so you're making a play on two things:

1) Technology doesn't advance to the point were current hybrids no longer have a price-premium luster
2) The oil complex defies all expectations and somehow fails to come up with profitable additional production at current price levels, thus keeping prices relatively stuck right here for the 10 year period you state

Of course, taxes could be heaped upon gasoline to artificially make it $7 (in todays dollars). For a leading-indicator on that one we'll have to wait until November 2008...


RE: Progress
By bob661 on 6/15/2007 10:32:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even the most strict carbon prices proposed to stabilize CO2 in the atmosphere would add something like $.48 to a gallon, so you're making a play on two things:
Reposting this because of the rate down. Facts are facts guys, even if you don't like them. And if you rate me down, I'll just keep reposting it until you give up and I got ALL day long to play.


RE: Progress
By BMFPitt on 6/16/2007 7:57:28 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you for teaching us the facts, oh wise one. It's good to know that because this one thing that can cause gas prices to rise is only $0.48, that prices will definitely not go more than $.0.48 higher that in the next 10 years.

I'm glad that China and India have decided to stop industrializing, that the Middle East is a stable bastion of peace, taxes are staying exactly where they are, and that oil companies have decided that they don't really want maximum profit.


RE: Progress
By Ringold on 6/17/2007 4:35:22 AM , Rating: 2
I cited a $.48 rise from carbon pricing methods to respond the idea that hybrids are somehow the key to saving the environment. No, they'd be irrelevent or merely work in to the overall framework that would natural evolve from the free automotive market with a $.48 rise in price purely from a carbon tax.

Obviously, other facts can impact price. I didnt suggest otherwise. All those other factors you cite, except Mid East violence, are in fact rather good things anyway.


RE: Progress
By kilkennycat on 6/16/2007 1:03:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Of course, taxes could be heaped upon gasoline to artificially make it $7 (in todays dollars). For a leading-indicator on that one we'll have to wait until November 2008...


As they are in Europe today. The average wholesale price of gasoline in Europe is about the same as the US - before tax. Price at the pump is typically $5-$6 per US gallon equivalent vs ~ $3.20 in the US --- the difference is tax. Plus annual licensing taxes on cars based on engine capacity. Car with engine capacities greater than 2 litres have steeply-progressive licensing rates, as in hundreds of euros... Historically, both of these tax mechanisms have been used FOR GREATER THAN 50 YEARS to promote fuel conservation in all European countries (Europe had ZERO oil reserves before North Sea oil was discovered), bring money into each country's general fund to be spent on education, health, roads (of course) etc.... and reduce tailpipe emissions - no need for DEQ testing in Europe, as the car population is very steeply tilted towards cars with less than 2 litre engine capacity (for the obvious cost-of-ownership reasons listed above) and all are now fitted with catalytic converters.


RE: Progress
By encia on 6/15/2007 7:37:23 PM , Rating: 2
CNW Marketing Research, Inc.’s 2007 “Dust to Dust: The Energy Cost of New Vehicles From Concept to Disposal”(Hummer vs. Prius: "Dust to Dust" ) was debunked.

Refer to
http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science...

CNW Marketing Research can't even get watts and joule/sec right.

quote:
For example, the report(refering CNW's report) states: “A
Joule is one watt per second of energy consumption,” and “A 60 watt light bulb uses 60 Joules of
energy.” These conversions are incorrect: a Joule is one watt-second of energy; and a 60-watt
bulb uses 60 Joules per second.


RE: Progress
By Schadenfroh on 6/15/2007 2:27:08 PM , Rating: 3
The majority of car buyers probably care more about cost efficiency than pollution when they look at the hybrid versus nonhybrid debate. When (if) the premium one pays for a hybrid vehicle versus it's nonhybrid counterpart is paid for in less than 3 years via fuel savings is the time when we are probably going to see a more widespread adoption of hybrid vehicles.

That and as some of the others have mentioned here, many will chose to spend the "premium" on other "accessories" rather than paying it towards the hybrid model of the vehicle.


RE: Progress
By Gul Westfale on 6/16/2007 5:58:45 PM , Rating: 2
the point may be pollution, but what about the batteries that a hybrid uses? are they not toxic waste once they reach the end of their lifespan?

and are the real polluters not the companies that make these cars, rather than the cars themselves? why is there no law that forces them to clean up their act?


RE: Progress
By blaster5k on 6/15/2007 10:03:54 AM , Rating: 4
I'm still curious how well the carbon lifecycle of the Prius has been studied and if buying one really does produce gains over a small, efficient vehicle without a hybrid system -- like say a Honda Civic. In theory, if you run an internal combustion engine at constant RPM at the peak efficiency point, you'll produce less pollution, but I wonder how much of that is offset by the added weight and complexity of the hybrid system. I suppose it also depends on how the vehicle is used, since city driving surely leans more toward hybrid.

The other the to consider is how frequently people are buying replacement vehicles. The longer a vehicle lasts, the less pollution you're putting out overall (since manufacturing it creates quite a bit). Improvements in technology will likely mean your car is less efficient than newer ones, but I'm not sure at what point you should replace to get the biggest pollution reduction. Repairs and replacement parts will introduce pollution too, so reliability counts for something too.

My point is, determining the environmental impact of a vehicle is nowhere near as simple as looking at the MPG number. And if you really want to save the environment, ride a bike and minimize traveling.


RE: Progress
By Surak on 6/16/2007 4:34:23 PM , Rating: 2
No cares about the carbon / emission impact of building a non-hybrid, why is it suddenly so important for a hybrid?

- remember that means that it is just the difference in impact that matters in the manufacturing process.

- Running an ICE at constant RPM makes a HUGE difference in efficiency. You can see a weak example of this just in the difference in mileage an ICE car gets on the highway compared to city. Hybrid's take this much much further because the battery acts as the buffer that fuels hard acceleration, and get's recharged by regenerative breaking.

All cars are being replaced less frequently today than they were 10 - 20 years ago. They simply last longer now.

If you REALLLY want to make an impact on CO2 and emissions from transportation ... only buy food that is grown near where you live. In Canada, most vegetables have travelled 1500+ miles to get to our stores ... the calories burnt to move them is far greater than the calories they contain! Some seafoods are caught off of the west coast of north america, are taken to China for processing, then are brought back to north america for sale ... how many gallons of fuel has your dinner consumed?


RE: Progress
By techfuzz on 6/15/2007 10:07:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
However, I still fail to see the point behind the $100,000 Lexus Hybrid. If you can afford a $100,000 car, im sure you are not worried about the increasing price of gasoline to $3.00+/gallon.

I read recently the reason why people buy these $100k hybrids are for the "feeling" they get by driving a hybrid car. They feel like they are doing something good for the environment and that is how they feel like they can contribute to a better world. The status of owning one of these hybrids came in second with those polled. It has absolutely nothing to do with getting better gas mileage or paying less at the pump.


RE: Progress
By IcY18 on 6/15/2007 10:13:12 AM , Rating: 2
The point is for performance not pollution. Lexus certainly isn't aiming for fuel consumption but rather faster 0-60mph times in this car.


RE: Progress
By teldar on 6/15/2007 11:42:40 AM , Rating: 2
The have already advertised the car and it is being marketed for it's higher fuel economy, not its faster acceleration.

T


RE: Progress
By AlexWade on 6/15/2007 10:29:43 AM , Rating: 2
Hybrids are a step in the right direction. But if we really want to make progress, we need hybrid diesels. The pollution problems of diesel are being fixed, diesel has more power than gasoline and thus better fuel economy. Really, diesel by itself has about the same MPG as a hybrid gasoline out of the box (modified hybrids are different).

Honda has a diesel Accord next year, replacing the Accord Hybrid. I thought about the Accord Hybrid, but was turned off because it was automatic transmission only (I love Honda's manual shifter).


Car buyer idiocy increases 53 percent!
By iFX on 6/15/07, Rating: 0
RE: Car buyer idiocy increases 53 percent!
By michael2k on 6/15/2007 1:52:02 PM , Rating: 2
I imagine that a hybrid diesel Audi sedan would get 60mpg; and that even smaller hybrid diesels would get 90mpg.

That is hardly a point against hybrids. If you must vilify them, then don't bring up diesels because they can benefit just as much from hybrid technologies.

You should also mention where you get the information about manufacturing pollution outweighing pollution savings when batteries are recycled, engines are smaller, and gas use is lower.


RE: Car buyer idiocy increases 53 percent!
By Melkath on 6/15/2007 5:01:44 PM , Rating: 2
You ask, I deliver. http://www.thewatt.com/modules.php?name=News&file=...

I did a quick check of the Kelly Blue Book value of a prius in my area. A 2003 Prius which sold originally for an MSRP of $19,995 is now worth (in excellent condition with average miles) $14,895 or 75% of it's original price. At the same time, a 2003 Honda Civic DX 4door which originally sold for $12,815 is worth $9,755 or 76% of it's original price. It doesn't look to my like there is any major savings from the resale of a hybrid over a fuel efficient conventionally powered car.


By michael2k on 6/16/2007 2:59:26 PM , Rating: 3
RE: Car buyer idiocy increases 53 percent!
By darkangelism on 6/15/2007 5:23:05 PM , Rating: 1
your getting more then 40 mpg in a prius, i average about 48mpg driving 70mph and i average 40 driving 85 mph. please find me another car that gets above 35 at 85 mph.

if everybody had a hybrid we would cut our dependancy on middle east oil by 30% or more, which has a lot of political benefits.


RE: Car buyer idiocy increases 53 percent!
By Lord 666 on 6/15/2007 5:32:39 PM , Rating: 2
There are many cars that get more than 35mpg over 85mph, almost all of them are diesel. My 2006 Jetta TDI can easily match or better those mileage numbers.

Plus, if the Jetta ever gets hit from the side, we will more than likely walk away from the accident. Can't say the same for a Prius.

Hybrids are a step in the right direction, but diesels have equal performance in greeness and mileage. When successfully paired together, it will be the solution until hydrogen or even a Mr. Fusion unit.


RE: Car buyer idiocy increases 53 percent!
By encia on 6/15/2007 8:26:25 PM , Rating: 2
Not with a Prius 2 with side airbags....


RE: Car buyer idiocy increases 53 percent!
By Lord 666 on 6/16/2007 9:27:25 AM , Rating: 2
Current generation of Prius does not offer rear torso side airbags. The airbags offered are full front seat (frontal/side/curtain) but only curtain for rear passengers. The Jetta is actually one of the few cars in its price range that does offer rear torso side airbags, in the VIN number, the 6th digit will be an 8.

Here are the side impact results posted on IIHS (http://www.iihs.org) from the Jetta listing all good marks:

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=276
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/controls/image.ashx?rh...

Here are the side impact results from the Prius listing an the Structure/Safety cage "acceptable" or in my words "questionable."

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=644
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/controls/image.ashx?rh...

The most important passenger in my family is in the rear. Unfortunately a close friend of mine had a similar accident as the side impact tests while driving a 2002 Tarus. The child who was in the rear car seat is now paralyzed on one side of their body.


RE: Car buyer idiocy increases 53 percent!
By encia on 6/16/2007 7:33:45 PM , Rating: 2
One shouldn't overlay the results from 2002 Tarus against 2007 Prius. The airbag factor is only a part of the total safety system.

Using the same source.
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?i...
For Prius 2007, side impact is rated "G" overall.

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?i...
Volkswagen Jetta 2005-2007 side impact is rated "G" overall.

quote:
or in my words "questionable."

You are adding to something that doesn’t exist in the report. Secondly, one should focus on test dummy’s impact results not on the car itself i.e. refer to the front offset test.

On front offset test;
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=641
For Prius, all rated "G"

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=231
For Volkswagen Jetta,
"Leg/foot, right" rated "M" and the rest are rated "G".

Try again...


RE: Car buyer idiocy increases 53 percent!
By Lord 666 on 6/16/2007 10:30:54 PM , Rating: 2
Your right, you can't compare the 2002 Taurus vs. the 2007 Prius, as the side impact test was not published for the Taurus. Plus in 2002, the Taurus didn't have curtain airbags or rear side impact bars. But when an accident like that happens to a friend and your child's playmate, it makes you examine priorities and scruntinize minor differences. Trust me, I would prefer the reliability of a Toyota or Honda (previous car was 2002 Accord 4dr), but for fuel economy, rear passenger safety, and entry price the Jetta TDI has no competitors.

If the airbag's were only a small part of the picture, then why does the 2004-2006 Prius without side airbags score miserably vs. the 2004-2007 Prius with curtain and front side airbags?

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?i...

Crumple zones are designed to absorb impact, if one vehicle's structure/safety cage is rated "acceptable" vs another vehicle's "good," statistically the "good" vehicle occupants will be less harmed in any type of crash. That statistical advantage is priceless. Judging from the comparison of the pictures, the Prius rear car seat was elevated compared to the Jetta's.

The NHTSA also rates the Jetta higher than the Prius in side impact results; www.safercar.gov

Jetta - Five star rating http://www.safercar.gov/Index2.cfm?myClass=&myYear...

Prius - Four star rating http://www.safercar.gov/Index2.cfm?myClass=&myYear...

Your mention of driver right tibia damge is noted, but again the most important passenger in my car is in the rear seat. I'll make the educated and calculated risk between the "acceptable" vs "good" structure rating; even if it means some time on cruches for me so someone else has a fighting chance.


By encia on 6/17/2007 4:52:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:

If the airbag's were only a small part of the picture, then why does the 2004-2006 Prius without side airbags score miserably vs. the 2004-2007 Prius with curtain and front side airbags?

I haven't stated "airbag being only a small part of the picture". Again, you are adding to something which doesn't exist. Airbags are part of the total safety system.

quote:
Crumple zones are designed to absorb impact, if one vehicle's structure/safety cage is rated "acceptable" vs another vehicle's "good," statistically the "good" vehicle occupants will be less harmed in any type of crash. That statistical advantage is priceless. Judging from the comparison of the pictures, the Prius rear car seat was elevated compared to the Jetta's.


For overall side impacts, IIHS rated G for both offerings.

quote:

The NHTSA also rates the Jetta higher than the Prius in side impact results; www.safercar.gov

It a balance between IIHS and NHTSA. Jetta 2005-2007's has it's own risk issues in lower frontal area (for offset impacts).

Note that lowering MPG is only part of environmental issues.


RE: Car buyer idiocy increases 53 percent!
By encia on 6/17/2007 5:36:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:

Your right, you can't compare the 2002 Taurus vs. the 2007 Prius, as the side impact test was not published for the Taurus. (SNIP)

Using SAB Crash Rating(5 star scale), 2002 Taurus's side impact test can be found in
http://www.internetautoguide.com/crash-tests/09-in...

"Crash tests and results from the NHTSA ". 2002 Taurus's side impact is rated 3.


By Lord 666 on 6/17/2007 7:59:29 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting find, thanks. Unfortunately the damage is already done and it will not regain the child's ability to walk. Sharing this knowledge might prevent a similar loss.

This same source, lists the Prius with a four star side impact vs. a Jetta with a five star side impact rating.


RE: Car buyer idiocy increases 53 percent!
By encia on 6/17/2007 7:19:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your right, you can't compare the 2002 Taurus vs. the 2007 Prius, as the side impact test was not published for the Taurus. Plus in 2002, the Taurus didn't have curtain airbags or rear side impact bars. But when an accident like that happens to a friend and your child's playmate, it makes you examine priorities and scruntinize minor differences

Why not look at the detailed numbers i.e. m/s, kN, Nn, mm units.

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/datatables.aspx?class=...
For Prius 2006 ("Toyota Prius with side airbags")

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/datatables.aspx?class=...
For Jetta 2006 ("Volkswagen Jetta with side airbags")

Factor in statistical numbers for the total vehicle crashes (in the past years) between offset frontal impacts vs side impacts.

quote:
Crumple zones are designed to absorb impact, if one vehicle's structure/safety cage is rated "acceptable" vs another vehicle's "good," statistically the "good" vehicle occupants will be less harmed in any type of crash.

The said vehicle's structure/safety cage with rated "good" didn't avoid the M grade.


RE: Car buyer idiocy increases 53 percent!
By Lord 666 on 6/17/2007 8:07:36 PM , Rating: 2
Just comparing the distances from centerline; the Jetta comes in at -15.5 vs. the Prius -7.0. Those negative numbers are distances from centerline, the -15.5 being better and again proving better side impact protection than a Prius.

Even better than the Jetta was the 2007 Camry with a full 16 inches from the centerline of the seat. Now only if Toyota adds the option of rear torso side airbags. Honda will more than likely for the new Accord.


By encia on 6/18/2007 5:22:21 AM , Rating: 2
This factor alone doesn’t tell the whole picture. Refer to the impact on the test dummies i.e. the objects that is receiving the impact. Note the forces being applied on the test dummies.


By Lord 666 on 6/18/2007 8:18:33 PM , Rating: 2
The link you show for the Jetta only has "2005" listed; but there were two models using "2005" as years. The distinction is mfg'd before Nov 2004.

Both the Jetta 4 and the Jetta 5 could be purchased with side front torso airbags, but only the Jetta 5 was optionable with rear side torso airbags.


By encia on 6/17/2007 5:04:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hybrids are a step in the right direction, but diesels have equal performance in greeness and mileage.

Why Diesels is not benchmarked against the same Euro4 standard as normal petrol engines?


By encia on 6/15/2007 8:28:35 PM , Rating: 2
CNW Marketing Research, Inc.’s 2007 “Dust to Dust: The Energy Cost of New Vehicles From Concept to Disposal”(Hummer vs. Prius: "Dust to Dust" ) was debunked.

Refer to
http://www.pacinst.org/topics/integrity_of_science...

CNW Marketing Research can't even get watts and joule/sec right.

quote:
For example, the report(refering CNW's report) states: “A
Joule is one watt per second of energy consumption,” and “A 60 watt light bulb uses 60 Joules of
energy.” These conversions are incorrect: a Joule is one watt-second of energy; and a 60-watt
bulb uses 60 Joules per second.


RE: Car buyer idiocy increases 53 percent!
By NoSoftwarePatents on 6/15/07, Rating: -1
RE: Car buyer idiocy increases 53 percent!
By Surak on 6/16/2007 4:25:19 PM , Rating: 1
dumbass.

Let the rich buy them and feel good.

It benefits you:
- less pollution for you to breath

- fewer idiots taking up two lanes and 3 parking spots for their 'I have a small-penis' Hummers

- they are paying for the technology to mature so that it will be better and cheaper when you finally open your eyes and realize how good they are.


By NoSoftwarePatents on 6/18/2007 3:22:19 PM , Rating: 2
When you have to call someone one a name as a way to try to have your discussion, you have already lost. Obviously, you've got nothing worthwhile to say...

I'm not anti-hybrid outright, but anti-Hummer, yes.


RE: Car buyer idiocy increases 53 percent!
By Hoser McMoose on 6/16/2007 8:09:21 PM , Rating: 3
By a 4000lb+ Audi I assume you're speaking of the A8? All other Audi's are smaller.

The most fuel-efficient diesel engine in the UK model of the 2007 Audi A8 is the 3.0L, ~230hp engine. It is rated for about 36 miles/US gallon for highways using the UK standards, which are roughly comparable to the 'old' EPA standards. Under those old standards the Prius was rated for 51mpg on highways.

Then factor in that 1 gallon of diesel fuel requires 25% more oil to produce than a gallon of gasoline, it produces 15% more greenhouse gases and about 50% more air pollution and you'll see that your Audi is roughly twice as big of a polluter and resource consumer vs. the Prius in terms of actual driving.

For manufacturing and disposal it might have an advantage of not having batteries, but it has a disadvantage of using more aluminium and steel, both of which are very energy-intensive to make and cause a lot of pollution in their own right.

Of course, you can't buy that Audi in North America because it won't pass the more stringent air pollution regulations that exist here vs. Europe.

As for the small European cars with tiny diesel engines, they just don't sell in North America. 100hp is roughly the baseline if you want to have any hope of selling into this market, otherwise your cars will just sit on the lot. Europeans (or at least those Europeans who are not rich), with their MUCH more expensive petrol and diesel are willing to put up with less powerful engines for the sake of better fuel economy.


RE: Car buyer idiocy increases 53 percent!
By Lord 666 on 6/17/2007 1:46:32 AM , Rating: 2
1. The Audi A6 weighs in at around 4100 pounds

2. Diesels produce less greenhouse gasses

3. The cleanest production car in the world is the MB E320 Bluetec diesel.

4. American drivers are trained to look for HP, but in reality torque is better suited for the mix of US driving. Diesels have a power curve that fits US driving better. Agreed about 100hp being the baseline, the modern diesels coming to the US all have at least 100hp. New VW 2.0 diesel will have 140hp, the MB 4-cyl will have 160hp, and the Accord/CR-V will have around 140hp if the 2.2 is imported.


By encia on 6/18/2007 5:32:13 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
2. Diesels produce less greenhouse gasses

Statement is false according to http://www.ecotravel.org.uk/fuels_5.html


By encia on 6/18/2007 9:03:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
3. The cleanest production car in the world is the MB E320 Bluetec diesel.

Please provide the stats for this claim.


By Hoser McMoose on 6/18/2007 3:38:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
1. The Audi A6 weighs in at around 4100 pounds

Not with a 2.0L engine it doesn't. If you drop in the same 3.0L diesel that I mentioned above it weighs in at around 3800lbs. Of course, this engine gets almost the exact same fuel economy in the A6 as it does in the A8.

quote:
2. Diesels produce less greenhouse gasses

Definitely not on a volume basis, 1 liter of diesel fuel produces approximately 15% more greenhouse gas emissions than 1 liter of petrol. If you're talking about a mile-to-mile basis though diesel *should* be better for similar levels of performance as a diesel should get about 30-35% more miles out of every gallon.

quote:
3. The cleanest production car in the world is the MB E320 Bluetec diesel.

Care to provide ANY evidence to back that up? The fact that this car can't be sold in California because it failed the emissions tests for that state tend to say otherwise!

quote:
4. American drivers are trained to look for HP, but in reality torque is better suited for the mix of US driving.

Torque and horsepower are just two different points on the same power graph. Remember that Horsepower = Torque x Engine Speed / 5252.

What you really need is to look at the actual horsepower (or torque, same dif.) graph and not just the single peak number quoted in the sales brochure.

As you state though, diesels do tend to have a better power curve than gasoline engines for many conditions, particularly with larger vehicles (more inertia and therefore more power needed lower in the rev range).


Behold...
By killerroach on 6/15/2007 10:00:51 AM , Rating: 4
...the power of the tax credit. These hybrids are still more expensive than many vehicles (and significantly more so than high-mileage gas-only passenger vehicles), yet only they get a tax credit from the federal government (and many states as well) if you buy one. So I can get a few grand chopped off my tax bill if I buy a Ford Escape Hybrid, but not if I buy a diesel-powered Volkswagen Jetta (a far more fuel-efficient vehicle, to say nothing of the fact that diesel fuel costs $2.60 a gallon here, as opposed to $3.35 for regular unleaded).

Personally, I'd like to see the government either zero out the tax credits or apply them to other highly-efficient vehicles as well, and let the market sort out what the most efficient way to drive is, rather than use tax policy to pick a winner.




RE: Behold...
By blaster5k on 6/15/2007 10:12:11 AM , Rating: 2
I completely agree.


RE: Behold...
By inthell on 6/15/2007 10:42:29 AM , Rating: 2
you're missing some parts Hybrids do more than just cut down your gas bill..

1) yes, they lower you gas bill
2) Move the US and other countries off of oil dependence
3 Better for the environment (i know battery manufctring requires energy but it's less of an impact and is improving afaik)


RE: Behold...
By killerroach on 6/15/2007 10:55:21 AM , Rating: 2
But so do smaller and/or diesel engine vehicles, and they do so without the added mass, difficulty to recycle, or the hazardous chemicals inherent with the batteries in a hybrid vehicle. Going point by point:

1) No argument there
2) By lowering your gas bill, you're consuming less gas, therefore less use of foreign oil
3) By using less gas, you also have lower emissions (not to mention diesel engines burn cleaner than standard unleaded gasoline engines), also making them better for the environment.

And some things a combustion-only vehicle has as an advantage:

1) No need for as many of the complex electrical and computer systems needed to coordinate two engines
2) More flexibility in engineering design due to not having to worry about placing (and protecting) the batteries of the vehicle
3) Better acceleration because you only have one engine and no batteries, reducing the weight of the vehicle significantly (for goodness' sakes, a Prius is about as heavy as some Buicks)
4) Improved vehicle reliability, as you only have one engine, one drivetrain, and no batteries, all of those being additional chokepoints to potentially reduce vehicle life and increase the cost of future repairs
5) Fewer environmental concerns at the end of the vehicle's life (I can have a Jetta or a Mini scrapped for parts and recycled without incident; some parts of the country lack the infrastructure needed to recycle the toxic batteries in a hybrid)

That being said, I tend to prefer even more environmentally-friendly modes of transportation... I walk or ride a bike almost anywhere I have to go, partly out of cost, partly out of a desire to remain physically fit, and partly because the State of Michigan considers my eyesight less than sufficient to award me a driver's license. :)


RE: Behold...
By encia on 6/15/2007 8:45:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
1) No need for as many of the complex electrical and computer systems needed to coordinate two engines
2) More flexibility in engineering design due to not having to worry about placing (and protecting) the batteries of the vehicle

Prius 2's drive batteries are placed at back of the rear seat. Boot space is about 450 litres.

quote:

3) Better acceleration because you only have one engine and no batteries, reducing the weight of the vehicle significantly (for goodness' sakes, a Prius is about as heavy as some Buicks)

The electric motor delivers max Newton force at 0 RPM. Prius II 2003's drive batteries weight is 45Kg.

quote:

4) Improved vehicle reliability, as you only have one engine, one drivetrain, and no batteries, all of those being additional chokepoints to potentially reduce vehicle life and increase the cost of future repairs

Depends on the make.


RE: Behold...
By blaster5k on 6/15/2007 11:00:03 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think he's missing anything. A small, thrifty car is more efficient than an Escape hybrid, just there's no credit for it.

As far as technologies go, if a diesel engine also improves fuel economy and the engine lasts twice as long, we wouldn't need to buy as many cars and maybe we prevent even more oil usage -- just in manufacturing instead of on the road.

It is more complicated than just the gas bill, but it's even more complicated than most of us can hope to figure out on our own since you have to look at the entire lifecycle of a vehicle. Oil will indirectly be used in the manufacture, maintenance, disposal, etc. Pollutants will be generated along the way as well. I think it's far from clear that hybrids are the superior tech -- unless someone can show me the numbers.


RE: Behold...
By Haltech on 6/15/2007 5:39:30 PM , Rating: 2
My friend has a Mercedes diesel and currently has 800000 miles ont it with no rebuild on engine. Althoug I dont know his gas mileage(ill bet its darn high) I have never seen him go to the gas station.


RE: Behold...
By Hoser McMoose on 6/15/2007 2:07:57 PM , Rating: 2
The downside to diesels is that they generate more air pollution per gallon. They have improved tremendously over the years, and the next generation of 'clean' diesel engines might be on-par with gasoline on a mile-to-mile basis, but older generations certainly were not.

I do agree that any taxing should be applied (or not applied) on the basis of gas use rather then the technology to get that fuel consumption, but not all fuel is created equal. Regardless of what metric you use 1 gallon of diesel does not equal 1 gallon of gasoline. All else being equal a diesel engine will get you about 30% more miles to your gallons. However it generates about 15% more CO2 emissions and 30%+ more air pollution. Producing diesel also uses about 25% more oil per gallon, so it's almost no help at all when it comes to reducing crude oil requirements.


RE: Behold...
By blaster5k on 6/15/2007 2:30:25 PM , Rating: 2
I think the newest clean diesel engines like the one Honda might be putting in the 2009 Accord are finally on par with gasoline. I don't think the ones on the market now are. If diesel engines really last twice as long as gasoline engines, you might still save on emissions (cost from manufacturing one car versus two). Always hard to say what's more efficient...


RE: Behold...
By killerroach on 6/15/2007 3:10:29 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, diesel engines have, for a long time, been cleaner than conventional gasoline engines. The difference is that diesel fuel in the US wasn't at the same quality standards as it is in other parts of the world (in particular, it had a high sulfur content). That being said, that hasn't been an issue for a couple of years now. Diesel exhaust may smell worse, but it's still lower in emissions than most.


RE: Behold...
By encia on 6/15/2007 8:32:09 PM , Rating: 2
Not with NOx.


RE: Behold...
By Hoser McMoose on 6/16/2007 7:50:04 PM , Rating: 2
Much as I would like what you say to be true, it's just not. Diesel engines most definitely do cause more air pollution than gasoline engines, particularly in regards to NOx compounds and particulate matter. The proof is quite simply in the pudding, there is a grand total of ONE 2007 model year diesel car sold in North America (Mercedes E320) because none of the others were capable of passing the new emissions standards that came along with the new diesel fuel.

The regulations you're referring to for sulfur content of diesel fuel (S15 diesel) only came into effect in 2006. This IS a big help and will go a long way to bringing diesel to parity with gasoline, but they aren't there yet.

This can also be demonstrated in Europe by comparing the emissions regulations for Euro4 gasoline vs. Euro4 diesel. The diesel restrictions allow for ~2.5 times as much NOx emissions. North American restrictions for both gasoline and diesel are the same and are slightly more stringent than the Euro4 gasoline standards.

The upcoming Euro5 emissions (proposed for 2009) will more or less match the current North American Tier 2 standards. This tightened emissions are the main reason why I stated that the next generation of diesels should finally match, mile to mile (the way that emissions standards measure things) gasoline engines.


*roll eyes*
By exdeath on 6/15/07, Rating: 0
RE: *roll eyes*
By exdeath on 6/15/07, Rating: -1
RE: *roll eyes*
By THEiNTERNETS on 6/15/2007 2:41:07 PM , Rating: 1
Maybe you'll feel differently when your kid has asthma.


RE: *roll eyes*
By exdeath on 6/15/2007 3:17:15 PM , Rating: 1
Amazing, I don't have asthma, despite people like you in the 60's and 70's predicting I would thanks to all the pollution, etc.

It's always the end of the world somewhere isn't it?

*rolls eyes*

I just thought I'd point out the double standards here, how many people have SLI, quad core over-clocked CPUs, etc. just to brag about high 3D Mark scores when 95% of the time they use their PC to browse the web.

But god forbid someone else have a car that gets 5 more HP than their car, that is so wasteful and irresponsible!!!!!!!

But hypocrisy is the life blood of the environmentalist crowd isn't it...


RE: *roll eyes*
By encia on 6/16/2007 7:17:26 AM , Rating: 2
Refer to Intel's SpeedStep and AMD's Cool-n-Quiet/PowerNow concepts.

Have you considered laptop's unit sale growth and market share?


RE: *roll eyes*
By Ringold on 6/17/2007 4:39:49 AM , Rating: 1
Heh, yes, two features which many geeks immediately disable in BIOS while pumping up the vcore and FSB. :P

Laptop market excluded, of course. My laptop I undervolt, but that has everything to do with running time, not saving bunny rabbits. And I'd also wager it's market growth has next to nothing to do with power consumption.


RE: *roll eyes*
By encia on 6/19/2007 3:47:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:

And I'd also wager it's market growth has next to nothing to do with power consumption.

Didn't state laptop's power consumption was the main reason for it's rapid growth. But, lower power consumption leads to better portability characteristics.


RE: *roll eyes*
By Spivonious on 6/15/2007 3:35:23 PM , Rating: 2
Kids have asthma today because they aren't exposed to germs. Therefore their immune systems never fully develop. Such is the curse of all these anti-bacterial cleaners these days. I predict that in 20 years a large chunk of the population will die from the common cold.

Don't blame asthma on car emissions, which are a very minor producer of air pollution. Why don't you go tell it to the real polluters - factories and power plants.


RE: *roll eyes*
By bubbacub616 on 6/15/2007 7:40:02 PM , Rating: 2
hybrid cars will stop asthma!

that's almost as good as the piracy = supporting terrorists crap the riaa come up with


RE: *roll eyes*
By Hoser McMoose on 6/18/2007 4:06:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Don't blame asthma on car emissions, which are a very minor producer of air pollution. Why don't you go tell it to the real polluters - factories and power plants.

At a rough approximation, air pollution is split between these three pretty evenly. About 1/3rd of our air pollution comes from transportation (cars, trucks, planes and trains), one third from fossil fuel power plants and one third from other industrial sources.

An individual car might not be a very big producer of air pollution, but the hundreds of millions of cars on the road put together are. There's no reason to ignore emissions from vehicles any more than there is to ignore emissions from power plants and industrial sites.


RE: *roll eyes*
By encia on 6/16/2007 7:26:57 AM , Rating: 3
DEC's Alpha 21264 (EV6) @500Mhz (~91 watts) consumes more power than AMD's Turion X2 TL-64 @2.2Ghz (~35watts).


RE: *roll eyes*
By TheGreek on 6/19/2007 9:38:33 AM , Rating: 1
How about Intel's Pentium 4/Ds that surpassed 100 watts?


RE: *roll eyes*
By TheGreek on 6/18/2007 9:47:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How about we tax CPUs that are more than 500 MHz so consumers will make 'progress' on computers that consume less power?

It would be far more reasonable to require power supplies to have Active PFC.
quote:
One person doesn't need a dual or quad core 3 GHz CPU, it's wasteful.

Some people are folding, not all multiprocessor are playing games.

People here sure love generalizations.


By Domicinator on 6/15/2007 5:01:24 PM , Rating: 2
We just got a Honda Civic Hybrid, and it is an AMAZING car for many different reasons.

1) For in town driving, you just can't beat it. The battery assist kicks in during acceleration, and then the battery charges during deceleration. Since those are the two things you're doing most driving around in town, you're almost always either using the battery or charging it with engine/brake friction.

2) My wife is AVERAGING 45 mpg in this car and only filling up the tank about once every week and a half. She does a lot of highway driving for her job, and when you compare this car to the Malibu she used to drive, our savings are through the roof even when you consider that we're making a little bigger of a car payment per month than we were on the old car.

3) It IS good for the environment to drive a hybrid car. Even if you're personally not saving any money by driving one, you're helping out by reducing your emissions. The argument about the pollution from shipping the batteries has been floating around a lot, and a lot of the things people say about that are complete BS. Just because you read it on the interwebs does not make it true. Do some research before you start making false claims.

4) It sure feels good when I pull up to a stop light and my engine shuts off and stops burning gas while all the a-holes all around me at the light driving their stupid Hummers are sitting there guzzling the $3.60 per gallon gasoline.

5) Even if you don't get the hybrid model, the newer Honda Civics are absolutely awesome cars as far as gas efficiency and design. The interior is awesome, as well as the body design. We also opted for the built in GPS. When you pair that up with all the other high tech stuff in that car, it's a computer geek's dream. With all the features, gauges, and gadgets, it feels like you're driving a space ship. Too bad I rarely get to drive the stupid thing.




By Hoser McMoose on 6/18/2007 4:11:18 PM , Rating: 2
The new Civics have 140hp engines in a car that weighs about 2500lbs. If anyone is having problems getting that thing up to speed in even a short on-ramp then the problem is NOT with the car, it's with the driver!


Cost effectiveness of the Prius to reduce polution?
By Emma on 6/15/2007 9:16:04 PM , Rating: 1
Buying a Prius is a great idea and all, but if you were to buy a standard small car (that uses only ~20% more fuel than a Prius) and use the money saved to install a solar hot water system and photo-voltaic panels on your home, you would reduce your carbon emissions far more.




By encia on 6/16/2007 7:12:34 AM , Rating: 2
Prius 2's wheelbase is 2700mm while a Camry's wheelbase is 2775mm.


By SiliconAddict on 6/15/2007 4:58:53 PM , Rating: 2
60-120 miles a day in stop and go traffic on the way home makes it a worth while investment. Hell I put on 300 miles Monday and Tuesday.
I picked up my Prius in October. I'm pretty sure I've already recouped half of the "premium" I'm paying for a Prius. there is also the benefit of feeling like less of an asshole for driving 20 miles out of my way to replacing a system board in a Dimension that takes all of 15 minutes.
So whatever. I’m happy with my purchase and it doesn’t hurt that with my trade in from my old car I was able to pay off half of the car as I rolled out of the dealership.




yay
By Setsunayaki on 6/16/2007 2:32:32 AM , Rating: 2
I like this because inthe future the technology will be more affordable since it wont be first generation technology. Fuel prices are increasing every year and are factored into budgeting and since im into electronics and computer technology I like the chance to modify the hybrid system for myself as well.

I know the cars are expensive but in order for a Hybrid car right now to actually save you money, you would have to actually buy a cheap car and own it for 6 years....(This was when I was comparing the cost of a ford focus new and the cheapest hybrid car out there) when factored for living expenses..

I will be happy when the day comes that hybrid cars will be in good quality and also run toe to toe with conventional cars because I think we use too much fuel..

Imagine Hybrid SUVs.....that alone would kill a lot of gas guzzling. ^_^

Cheers, Im happy there is some hope out there.




Point missed ... as usual
By Surak on 6/16/2007 4:14:16 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone is missing the point again.

Let the rich people buy the $100,000 hybrid! It benefits the rest of us.

... Someone has to buy the expensive early versions for the market to develop, for the technology to advance, and for manufacturing methods to improve.

Then, later on WE get to buy hybrids with technology that is just as good for a greatly reduced price. Who cares if in the mean time some rich hippie gets to feel good about their lesser pollution ... let them! It's less pollution for us to breath too.

There's a million examples of this, LCD monitors are probably one of the best examples ... a crappy LCD from 4 or 5 years ago cost $1000, compared to a better quality and bigger one today for $300. That new monitor wouldn't exist if people didnt spend their money on the early model.

What other points have been missed here?

- The US and Canada are increasing emission standards for cars (at least once that bastard Dubya is gone).

- Lithium batteries ARE recyclable, and it's not unreasonable on a non-hybrid to have to pay $3500 in repairs to the drive train after 7 years.

- Some dumbass here thinks that people are only willing to pay for luxury upgrades that can't be recouped, but not for better mileage which is recouped? Do we really need to give him the time of day? Didnt this guy say he's going to buy a Toyota Tacoma ... which he refers to as a 'car' when it is a truck? His credibility is zero.

- Many places have government grants or tax breaks to encourage the use of Hybrids, so the cost to you is less than the sticker price

- The price of gas will go much higher, from taxes, from the cost of crude oil as it becomes more scarce, from political instability, from idiots like Dubya screwing over the world. As the price goes higher, hybrids become much more attractive and pay for themselves much sooner.

- Anyone who thinks the carbon footprint is higher in a hybrid failed grade 3 math. Burning 1 gallon of gas produces a specific amount of C02 ... if it takes you 40% more miles to burn that one gallon of gas in a hybrid, then you are producing 40% less CO2 per mile driven. = SMALLER CARBON FOOTPRINT.

- Some cities are considering mandating that all new taxi-cabs be hybrids to reduce both smog and noise, for example Vancouver BC, Canada. This also gives more people the chance to ride in a hybrid and see how quiet they are and how well they run. I know I was impressed.

- Once plug-in hybrids are more common, the arguement will be moot. The benefit will be so huge that only a fool would deny it. C02 will be efficiently collected and sequestered in centralized locations (the coal burning power plants) and people in places like BC Canada where much of our electricity is from hydro dams will have cars that are essentially zero emission.

But there will always be idiots who think we should do nothing simply because other countries are doing nothing. Try not to laugh to hard at their ignorance, a few of them will open their eyes eventually.




Discouraging
By tballx on 6/17/2007 3:18:52 PM , Rating: 2
To see so many comments posted as if fact when none are backed up with any data. Start reading all the published peer reviewed studies you can get your hands on then come back and post you "thoughts." Likely most of you will be on this planet long after I'm gone. Best of luck geniuses.




Good for you!
By Mudvillager on 6/17/2007 7:51:47 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks ^^




Let's do the math
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 6/18/2007 11:04:16 AM , Rating: 2
I bought a 2007 Toyota Camy Hybrid for about $30.5K.

The price differential over a Camry XLE base is $1300 more for the hybrid. I use the XLE because I got the XLE trim hybrid (there are two levels, LE and XLE for the hybrid, but not called that with that model. There is no equivalent SE model.)

I got a $2600 tax credit (all of it, not a $2600 reduction in taxable income, $2600 in pocket.)

I used to spend $80 per week on my commute, now I spend about $40 (actually less, so we'll go with that.)

So so far, I have saved about $2080 in gas over one year, and made $1300 on the purchase of the car, so about $3400 savings over one year. Remove the tax credit, and it is still $2000 per year in gas savings.

I don't see how that does NOT work for half the posters here.

Anywho, that should more than pay for the batteries in 6+ years or so, at which time they will cost even less.

BUT I didn't buy the car to make money, I bought it because it is a partial zero emissions vehicle, which the GM hybrids *wink* DEFINITELY are not - the gas engines always runs in them.




quick, we're running out of gas! zomg!
By Fenixgoon on 6/15/07, Rating: -1
RE: quick, we're running out of gas! zomg!
By TheGreek on 6/15/2007 11:28:56 AM , Rating: 1
It also becomes more viable and acceptable to Exxon/Mobil to get $5+ a gallon.


RE: quick, we're running out of gas! zomg!
By Ringold on 6/15/2007 4:27:35 PM , Rating: 2
And current price levels are out of balance with global production and demand how, precisely? Care to come up with some credible analysis that doesn't show a global supply crunch, and care to explain how a lower price would do anything other that lead to massive shortages and a black market with exorbitantly high prices to the privileged criminal few? If anything, I think prices should be somewhat higher, mostly because I see more risk to supply interruptions than the typical oil futures trader I suppose.

It shouldn't escape notice that despite several years now of Congress and especially specific states, like here in Florida, desperately trying to find price collusion or other forms of ill-gotten gains, not a single instance has indeed been identified. Most of the "price gouging" cases here in Florida have been against enterprising individuals loading up a truck with bottled water, waiting for the hurricane to roll through, then selling them at $10 a pop to idiots that didn't stock up themselves, who then gets reported in a case of sour grapes by some idiot who both didnt stock up and didn't understand the value of savings and thus couldn't afford this $10 bottle of water.


RE: quick, we're running out of gas! zomg!
By andrinoaa on 6/15/2007 10:41:58 PM , Rating: 2
Guess what? Gas/petrol(for the civilized) is getting scarce.
If you want to continue to use it be prepared to pay for it.
But consider this, the more/faster you use it up, the more it will cost. This is without paying the true cost. The cleanup cost hasn't been factored in -- YET!! I applaud Hybrids and I applaud new Deisels, they are NOT mutually exclusive.
The problem has not been defined in this forum.
Thats why we get such dumb comments from both sides. The above facts are the problem. Hybrids are part of the solution, sorry, but V8 power is not a solution to THIS problem. If you define the problem as faster is better, sure these vehicles are not in the ball park yet.
I have driven 3.8V6 engined cars from GM in the past
( 14ltr/100) but now drive a Honda Jazz 1.3ltr CVT. I am NOT infear of my life and it returns 7ltr/100km ( you do the conversion)in the city. I save $50 a week just in fuel compared to a larger car AND it cost approax half of a full size car to buy. DOH !
Given a choice, VW golf size with deisel hybrid PHEL is what I would buy. Its not on the market yet but its on the way!
If you want to drive fast and have oodls of money, don't worry be happy! Future generations will love you.!LOL


RE: quick, we're running out of gas! zomg!
By Ringold on 6/17/2007 4:52:40 AM , Rating: 2
First off, that hardly addressed any points I raised at all. Prices are not out of equilibrium, and as I said in an earlier one, the most strict CO2 pricing levels suggested by the IPCC in a worst-case scenario would raise pump prices by $.48 per US gallon. That's not exactly earth shattering.

The other issues you raised were ones of personal choice. I don't care what you drive so long as you didn't steal the money to afford to drive it, and you shouldn't care what I drive. And future generations? Oh yeah. I'm totally pissed off at everybody born in the 1800s, they've already burned up tons of coal! Bloody bastards. </sarcasm> As can be seen working in the market, with billions of private capital around the world (but mostly in the United States) being poured annually in to alternative energy research and product development, future generations won't likely care in the least as energy won't be much more costly for them than it will be for our generation. It'll merely come from a slightly different mix of sources.

Nice shot at an argument though, but just didnt work.


By TheGreek on 6/19/2007 9:35:05 AM , Rating: 1
Still waiting for your attempted one-upmanship.


RE: quick, we're running out of gas! zomg!
By ChristopherO on 6/16/2007 3:45:34 PM , Rating: 2
I honestly don't understand this mentality. The oil companies are not evil empires owned entirely by a single family...

They are owned by tens of millions of Americans who invest in their stock (and/or hold mutual funds containing oil firms).

The price of gas goes up, the return to shareholders appreciates dramatically... I'm not nearing retirement, rather I'm around 30 and I understand the concept of living within my means (buying cars that don't ruin my debt/income ratio). With my 401k holdings I don't think I've paid for fuel in the last 4 years. I'm pretty certain the yearly gains/dividends by the oil companies have offset any fluctuation in the price of fuel as it relates to my pocketbook.

Mind you there is something to be said about avoiding needless pollution, but I can't stand how environmentalists and progressive politicians pretend that the big-bad-evil oil company is out to get everyone...

The only people who are going to get bitten are people who spend entirely too much on goods without saving (high debt/income ratios), or working poor. The former I have no respect for their lack of foresight (they need to learn to be responsible), the later are dramtically more likely to use public transit.

And like I said, conservation is good, but lets keep this in perspective...


RE: quick, we're running out of gas! zomg!
By TheGreek on 6/18/07, Rating: 0
RE: quick, we're running out of gas! zomg!
By ChristopherO on 6/18/2007 5:12:38 PM , Rating: 2
My point has nothing to do with their being model corporate citizens. The oil companies are owned by *us*, not some evil back-room people. They are accountable to their shareholders, and their shareholders (i.e. anyone with a large-cap mutual fund, or individual stocks) don't seem to raise issues about their business practices.

If the environmentalists want them to change, Greenpeace would be well advised to buy millions of shares of BP, Exxon, etc, and discuss their behavior at shareholder meetings. There is nothing to stop a bunch of greens (under our capitalist system) from buying significant percentages of any publicly traded firm and forcing a behavioral change through the democratic process of corporate ownership.


"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates













botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki