NationStates Jolt Archive

http://credit.consumerguide.com/auto/editorial/imho/index.cfm/act/opinion40

"Simply put, today’s hybrids aren’t the fuel economy panacea auto manufacturers claimed they would be, hybrids have milquetoast performance, get marginally better fuel economy than existing diesel-powered vehicles, and cost a bundle to build, buy, and maintain. Yet for some reason, Americans are flocking in droves to buy them."

LOL! Schmucks!

http://credit.consumerguide.com/auto/editorial/imho/index.cfm/act/opinion40

"Simply put, today’s hybrids aren’t the fuel economy panacea auto manufacturers claimed they would be, hybrids have milquetoast performance, get marginally better fuel economy than existing diesel-powered vehicles, and cost a bundle to build, buy, and maintain. Yet for some reason, Americans are flocking in droves to buy them."

LOL! Schmucks!

Not all, I'm still driving the SUV.

they could be extremely efficient machines (hydrogen fuel cells are not a work in progress they work) but the manufacturers choose to help the oil companies instead of the environment.

Not all, I'm still driving the SUV.
arse

The article is an opinion piece, though the authour does include stats. Cars that have better fuel efficiency and produce fewer emissions are a good thing. When more people buy hybrids, there will be more cars produced that will be even more efficient and enviro friendly. Progress is gradual.

they could be extremely efficient machines (hydrogen fuel cells are not a work in progress they work) but the manufacturers choose to help the oil companies instead of the environment.

erhm, at no point did the first post make any mention to hydrogen...

You're right though. I did a school report on them last year. Hydrogen goes in, gets split, electron runs on a circuit to generate electricity, whole H atom recombines with O and more H's to make water, plus heat. Useful. involves a membrane that only the proton can go through. Invented in the 1800's, if you'll believe that. Which you should.

The article is an opinion piece, though the authour does include stats. Cars that have better fuel efficiency and produce fewer emissions are a good thing. When more people buy hybrids, there will be more cars produced that will be even more efficient and enviro friendly. Progress is gradual.
Pretty much. It really seems that this is a person that wants the umph off the line and used the rest to excuse it. My old Chevy would do the 0-60 dance in 11 seconds, so I can live with that. I'm in a '67 VW Bus, so 11 seconds is gonna feel like a slingshot.

The best he comes up with is the cars are 'only' 35% more efficient then thier counterparts and slightly more efficient than diesels-the silliest claim is here:
But wait a second; all of this technology and still a standard diesel engine is more efficient at moving people and stuff from place to place than a hybrid. That can’t make sense, can it? It does make sense to 2.6 million (1) over-the-road truckers who use diesel engines to move freight from coast-to-coast.
My god, it's good enough for truckers moving tons of goods, by god its good enough to move just little ol' me, right? I don't look to truckers for guidance because they have to do a whole lot of crap I don't. I don't even know what the comparason was supposed to prove...

And then it falls apart:
But hybrids are “air-friendly” right? That fact is correct, the Civic Hybrid and Prius are two of the most environmentally friendly cars out there. The Civic emits 4.1 tons of greenhouse gasses in a typical year’s driving, Prius even better at 3.5 tons. By comparison, gasoline-only powered cars are smog hogs. The Mercedes E320 emits 8.6 tons and the Volkswagen Jetta 1.9T 7.7 tons.

However, the Jetta diesel emits just 5.1 tons. That’s not much more than the hybrids and considerably less the gas powered Jetta. Add in the fact that both the Prius and Civic Hybrid have Nickel-Metal Hydride (Ni-MH) battery packs that must be carefully recycled and the “environmentally-friendly” tag on the hybrid’s window sticker becomes slightly more dubious.
Damn, they are cleaner. What's the argument? You can't do it all so you shouldn't do a little? Weak-sauce.

His conclusion misses a key point:
It seems Americans want to do the right thing; they are flocking to buy hybrids aren’t they? The motives are pure: Help the environment by getting better fuel economy and driving a cleaner-burning car. The problem is, at this point, that just doesn’t make financial sense, and the last time I checked, the United States was still a capitalist country.
Sometimes in capatalism people are willing to pay more for something that does what they want-run cleaner on less. That it doesn't add up with huge pluses financially is sometimes okay, as the system is driven on demand-and demand, the article points out, is goin' just fine.

If I thought for a second that the author was buying diesel, or Bozzy for that matter, it'd be one thing. But when it comes down to it: SUV vs. Insight, Insight wins in all the catagories that the author attempts to discredit.

It seems that the author is upset that flowers don't spring up behind the Prius as it goes down the road...he should remember that's just an ad.

http://credit.consumerguide.com/auto/editorial/imho/index.cfm/act/opinion40

"Simply put, today’s hybrids aren’t the fuel economy panacea auto manufacturers claimed they would be, hybrids have milquetoast performance, get marginally better fuel economy than existing diesel-powered vehicles, and cost a bundle to build, buy, and maintain. Yet for some reason, Americans are flocking in droves to buy them."

LOL! Schmucks!

Yet when you consider most people in the US don't drive diesel-powered vehicles and stick to cars with 4-litre engines that get 15mpg, it's an improvement.

I think it's silly to condemn the technology just because it has not yet evolved to the point where the environment is virtually uneffected. The fact remains that hybrid cars emit less harmful substances than any other vehicle on the road. I dont think the consumers are being fooled at all.

I don't know if any of you noticed, but fooling the average consumer isn't exactly difficult.

In fact, It can be pretty fun. :)

*big snip*

That's why I thought when I read the article. I was so confused by the stats given and the tone the author was using I had to read it again. All of the evidence this guy presents says that hybrid engines are better than deisel engines, which I do believe emit less greenhouse gases than the gasoline ones we use in north america.

Bad author! Bad!

I think it's silly to condemn the technology just because it has not yet evolved to the point where the environment is virtually uneffected.Ding.

I mean, corn-ethanol (currently) takes more energy to convert to a useable fuel than said fuel puts out. But it's getting billions in federal funding. It's getting better. Put the same amount behind hybrids (and make them pay you for the privledge of braking, of course), and we'll see lovely things within a decade.

If he's so bent out of shape about performance, give it a year or two... (http://www.insightcentral.net/archives/news01022601.html) and he can have a hybrid sports car.

the thing is....no auto manufacturer will release antythign that is good enough until they get a substanital amount of coaxing to out the product on the market. i;'m thourouly convinced that most auto manufacturers have very efficient engine designs that they don;t release becasue it isn;t economically viable.

they could be extremely efficient machines (hydrogen fuel cells are not a work in progress they work) but the manufacturers choose to help the oil companies instead of the environment.

The only problem with hydrogen fuel cells is that the hydrogen has to come from somewhere. There isn't exactly an abundance of pure hydrogen on the Earth, if there were the planet would have exploded long ago.
The hydrogen has to be extracted from water and that is, unfortunatly, an endothermic process. The energy required to extract the hydrogen is produced by burning fossil fuels.
In the end, it just means that hydrocarbons are being burned someplace remotely instead of in the car. The end result is the same, however.

http://credit.consumerguide.com/auto/editorial/imho/index.cfm/act/opinion40

"Simply put, today’s hybrids aren’t the fuel economy panacea auto manufacturers claimed they would be, hybrids have milquetoast performance, get marginally better fuel economy than existing diesel-powered vehicles, and cost a bundle to build, buy, and maintain. Yet for some reason, Americans are flocking in droves to buy them."

LOL! Schmucks!
I believe adam corola went off on this as well

he was like "why are we only geting 55 mpg when in 1980's we had the honda crx that could make 60 + mpg" so true lol

they could be extremely efficient machines (hydrogen fuel cells are not a work in progress they work) but the manufacturers choose to help the oil companies instead of the environment.

What do you think are the cheapest source for hydrogen? Natural Gas and Oil. And what happens when you get hydrogen from Oil? You release CO2.

Oh and who runs the Natural Gas Companies? The Oil Companies.

Hmmm. Look like the Oil Companeis would do just fine if we switched to Hydrogen.

Invented in the 1800's, if you'll believe that. Which you should.
Lies, all lies! Back foul demon of technology :p

Obviously making hydrogen and alternative fuels takes more energy in than you get out, its because we make it. The only reason it takes less energy to get gasoline is because nature has done the whole creation step for us, all we need to do is purify and distribute it. We'll never get more energy out of hydrogen than we put in, but that isn't the point of using hydrogen, the point is protecting the environment. If we used nuclear power to create hydrogen from water, we'd really be getting somewhere(although I don't see hydrogen ever really getting anywhere with its inherent problems).

Also, wow lame article!

Obviously making hydrogen and alternative fuels takes more energy in than you get out, its because we make it. The only reason it takes less energy to get gasoline is because nature has done the whole creation step for us, all we need to do is purify and distribute it. We'll never get more energy out of hydrogen than we put in, but that isn't the point of using hydrogen, the point is protecting the environment. If we used nuclear power to create hydrogen from water, we'd really be getting somewhere(although I don't see hydrogen ever really getting anywhere with its inherent problems).

Also, wow lame article!

And we'd get around the whole problem of global warming. If water levels are rising, no problem, disintegrate the water :D

arse

Lol ride on
here have a:fluffle:

What is the point of hybrid vehicles? To use fewer fossil fuels. When will fossil fuels run out? Within 30 years at the latest, more likely in the next decade. When will hydrogen cars become economically feasible? 30 years from now at the earliest.

Do the math. The time to switch to a less consumptive lifestyle is now. We need people to choose to walk or take the bus, we need government regulation, we need to use oil for heat more than we need to use it to get to the store a little faster.

The only problem with hydrogen fuel cells is that the hydrogen has to come from somewhere. There isn't exactly an abundance of pure hydrogen on the Earth, if there were the planet would have exploded long ago.
The hydrogen has to be extracted from water and that is, unfortunatly, an endothermic process. The energy required to extract the hydrogen is produced by burning fossil fuels.
In the end, it just means that hydrocarbons are being burned someplace remotely instead of in the car. The end result is the same, however.

Hm, well I'm not sure about this, but I could have sworn I saw a caption on a photo about a hydrogen fuel station that breaks down the water with solar power, thus truely creating a green energy source. Neat!

Hm, well I'm not sure about this, but I could have sworn I saw a caption on a photo about a hydrogen fuel station that breaks down the water with solar power, thus truely creating a green energy source. Neat!

Yes, one plant somewhere in the world did that. We can't get behind the ball enough to transfer our normal energy usage to solar power. Do you think we'll be able to get behind the ball enough to use solar power to provide for the additional energy needs of our cars and transportation? Not a damned chance.

Well it's correct that hybridpetrol cars are not that much better than diesel cars or even worse. But there are pretty good then you just drive around in big cities with alot of stops. Also they are alot better then for example the car park the USA have or even normal petrol car we have in Sweden. But in southereurope they already have alot of effecient diesel so they are not that good there. But diesel have a big problem more dangerues and cancerogen particles. But that problem is getting fix with new filters, also the thing of the near future will be hybriddiesel cars I think because they will be more effecient then diesel and alot better then petrol cars then it comes to CO2 emission. Then you of course have to replace it with a better system then the tecnology exist.

Obviously making hydrogen and alternative fuels takes more energy in than you get out, its because we make it. The only reason it takes less energy to get gasoline is because nature has done the whole creation step for us, all we need to do is purify and distribute it. We'll never get more energy out of hydrogen than we put in, but that isn't the point of using hydrogen, the point is protecting the environment. If we used nuclear power to create hydrogen from water, we'd really be getting somewhere(although I don't see hydrogen ever really getting anywhere with its inherent problems).

Also, wow lame article!

Yeah, we can never hope to get more energy than we put in out of hydrogen. Nevermind that the Hydrogen bomb is the most powerful nuclear weapon known to man, and generates more energy than any other bomb on the planet ever has. Obviously hydrogen is not the way to go.

Yeah, we can never hope to get more energy than we put in out of hydrogen. Nevermind that the Hydrogen bomb is the most powerful nuclear weapon known to man, and generates more energy than any other bomb on the planet ever has. Obviously hydrogen is not the way to go.

The use that we would put hydrogen to in cars has nothing to do with the H-bomb and your post is nothing but a red herring. In a hydrogen bomb we take Hydrogen and turn it into Helium. In a hydrogen car we take Hydrogen and combine it with Oxygen and generate electricity and forms H20 and heat as a by product.

One of these processes involves fusing two atoms and requires a nice amount of energy to pull of. The other I can do, and have done, in a kitchen or a 1st year chemistry class.

The use that we would put hydrogen to in cars has nothing to do with the H-bomb and your post is nothing but a red herring. In a hydrogen bomb we take Hydrogen and turn it into Helium. In a hydrogen car we take Hydrogen and combine it with Oxygen and generate electricity and forms H20 and heat as a by product.

One of these processes involves fusing two atoms and requires a nice amount of energy to pull of. The other I can do, and have done, in a kitchen or a 1st year chemistry class.

Not at all. Hydrogen bombs work by combining hydrogen and helium not by turning hydrogen into helium.

Note the part "today's hybrids". The tech is far from being ready for everyday use. The leading scientist on the technology in Iceland (where they're already testing hydrogen powered busses in everyday use) said it'll take a few decades to get ready for it.

Take the first cars or aircraft some 100 years ago (Wright Flyer and Daimler's first vehicle with a motor weren't particularly suited for long travels, or many passengers). Same problem. But today? *points at a 747, or an Airbus 380, or the ISS, or any modern car* It takes time. Or compare the engine in the Wright Flyer with the engine in an Antonov 225 or a C-5 Galaxy. It takes time.

Expecting a fully working hydrogen car and hydrogen tank stations across the world within the next 5 years is pretty much unrealistic. It'll take time.

Besides, oil will be used up one day. What then? (And the first American to whine about the gas prices in his country will get smacked. People over there have no idea about expensive gasoline (like... some 4 Euro per gallon, super plus goes for even more at gas stations). I love having a Renault Kangoo. *giggles*)

The only problem with hydrogen fuel cells is that the hydrogen has to come from somewhere. There isn't exactly an abundance of pure hydrogen on the Earth, if there were the planet would have exploded long ago.
The hydrogen has to be extracted from water and that is, unfortunatly, an endothermic process. The energy required to extract the hydrogen is produced by burning fossil fuels.
In the end, it just means that hydrocarbons are being burned someplace remotely instead of in the car. The end result is the same, however.

And, in fact, it can be worse for the environment, since in the US most power is produced by coal-fired power plants, which are much more dirty and much less efficient than the average car engine burning unleaded fuel.

Not at all. Hydrogen bombs work by combining hydrogen and helium not by turning hydrogen into helium.

No, Hydrogen bombs work by converting a form of hydrogen known as deuterium (a hydrogen atom with a neutron in the nucleus along with a proton, rather than a lone proton) into helium. You compress two deuterium atoms into a single atom of helium (with two protons and two electrons).

By the way, most nukes don't use this method, they use fission, the act of splitting a very heavy atom into lighter components (usually uranium).

http://credit.consumerguide.com/auto/editorial/imho/index.cfm/act/opinion40

"Simply put, today’s hybrids aren’t the fuel economy panacea auto manufacturers claimed they would be, hybrids have milquetoast performance, get marginally better fuel economy than existing diesel-powered vehicles, and cost a bundle to build, buy, and maintain. Yet for some reason, Americans are flocking in droves to buy them."

LOL! Schmucks!

Schmucks...maybe. But I want one. Reasons?
- Lower taxes
- Higher mileage
- Lower *mandatory* insurance costs

Considering the taxes are such for hybrid cars, that the engine weight isn't calculated in the tax, that saves about 10%. Also, with the extra mileage the electric engine gives, it saves about 20%. And with a gas price of 1.30 euro/litre ($7,79/gallon), it's worth driving 23km/litre (65 miles/gallon). (gah, i hate those imperial conversions....why can't the US and britain use metric, like the rest of the world does???). Currently, my car drives 18-20 km/litre (you do math if you want to know how much it saves me, as i drive about 25.000 km/year)

all in all, it would save me a LOT of money every year, and in a few years, the extra i payed for the car would be nullified by the amount i save on the rest.

The only problem with hydrogen fuel cells is that the hydrogen has to come from somewhere. There isn't exactly an abundance of pure hydrogen on the Earth, if there were the planet would have exploded long ago.
The hydrogen has to be extracted from water and that is, unfortunatly, an endothermic process. The energy required to extract the hydrogen is produced by burning fossil fuels.
In the end, it just means that hydrocarbons are being burned someplace remotely instead of in the car. The end result is the same, however.

You can get Hydrogen from water or Hydrocarbons, and you don't have to burn fossil fuels, you just need electricity for distilling the hydrogen.
Electricty can be generated by wind, solar, nuclear, coal, gas or oil. the first 3 have no environmental impact from generating electricity and the end result is the same.

The problem is hydrogen is probably generated from the oil companies too, so they got their fingers in everything. It would be nice to make "make your own hydrogen" kits for these cars, then the concept will work.

The article is an opinion piece, though the authour does include stats. Cars that have better fuel efficiency and produce fewer emissions are a good thing. When more people buy hybrids, there will be more cars produced that will be even more efficient and enviro friendly. Progress is gradual.

Agreed, the price will go down as more people by them and the profits can be used for R&D and to design and build better hybrid vehicals at any rate. Besides, diesal fuel stinks to high hell! I'm more in favor of hydrogen cars, myself. Hybrids are merely a "fill gap" technologicaly speaking. Remember, the first VCR's, walkmens, computers and so forth were extremely expensive, but the price went down as they became more widespread and in use.

However, all this is a bit of a moot issue for myself since I do not possess a drivers licence and it's not very likely that I ever will. For myself, the only benfit will be reduced emmisions and cleaner air which is imporatant in it's own right.

My father has Prius. I have Ka. My Ka needs less fuel than his Prius.

Ka is way too small for almost everyone. Prius is big enough for almost everyone (and way too expensive...).

edit: hybrids are the way to go though. I agree with the person above me.

You can get Hydrogen from water or Hydrocarbons, and you don't have to burn fossil fuels, you just need electricity for distilling the hydrogen.
Electricty can be generated by wind, solar, nuclear, coal, gas or oil. the first 3 have no environmental impact from generating electricity and the end result is the same.

Wind energy isn't free. It takes energy from the wind, which can cause major changes in weather patterns. Solar energy requires realitivly large arrays of photovoltaic panels. To provide an effective replacement for fossil fuels in teh US your need a photovoltaic array the size of Nevada.
Nuclear power is clean, but it still produces radioactive waste that must be disposed of.

Unfortunatly, ther eis no such thing as free energy. All forms of power generation have their consequences.

I've heard that the Europeans developed a prototype nuclear fusion reactor. If this can be perfected within the next couple of decades or so, our energy problems would be solved.

I've heard that the Europeans developed a prototype nuclear fusion reactor. If this can be perfected within the next couple of decades or so, our energy problems would be solved.

ITER is an international, not European project. I'm sure the Japanese would be upset at being called "European". The US is part of ITER as well.

Other labs are working on alternative methods. The US has several alternatives: The National Ignition Facility, Sandia's Z-Pinch, and Magnetized Target Fusion.

Apparently, the one with the greatest chance for reaching and passing the breakeven point is the last one - magnetized target fusion. But people in Europe are against it, since it's also extremely useful for testing thermonuclear weapon designs without building an actual nuke. Rumor has it that you could also use it to make a subkiloton "clean" nuke.

Agreed, the price will go down as more people by them and the profits can be used for R&D and to design and build better hybrid vehicals at any rate. Besides, diesal fuel stinks to high hell! I'm more in favor of hydrogen cars, myself. Hybrids are merely a "fill gap" technologicaly speaking. Remember, the first VCR's, walkmens, computers and so forth were extremely expensive, but the price went down as they became more widespread and in use.

However, all this is a bit of a moot issue for myself since I do not possess a drivers licence and it's not very likely that I ever will. For myself, the only benfit will be reduced emmisions and cleaner air which is imporatant in it's own right.
The problem is there are NON hybred cars that get even BETTER gas milage then hybred ... they are not so much filling the gap as making things more complicated for no current gain

Not at all. Hydrogen bombs work by combining hydrogen and helium not by turning hydrogen into helium.

Wrong again I'm afraid. http://people.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-bomb1.htm

And we never "combine" Hydrogen with Helium in the same manner we would combine Hydrogen and Oxygen to create Water.

The problem is there are NON hybred cars that get even BETTER gas milage then hybred ... they are not so much filling the gap as making things more complicated for no current gain
A hybrid diesel would be nice actually...

A hybrid diesel would be nice actually...
Still not quite up to par ... a lot of the problem lies in conversion from rotory powr to electrical and back ... there is about a 40 percent loss in power (compared to roughly 20 percent lost due to friction in a conventional drive) the only reason they are even close is because hybreads can be operated at peek rpm efficency

we need more efficent generators/motors to make the idea work in practice

IMO hybrids aren't perfect.

But I think their good enough for the everyday household user that lives in urban area's. Why do you need the pickup? Would you be really driving up the mountain slopes that often? You'd just need it for work/college/shopping and driving around the neighhbourhood. And it's effecient at that.

IMO hybrids aren't perfect.

But I think their good enough for the everyday household user that lives in urban area's. Why do you need the pickup? Would you be really driving up the mountain slopes that often? You'd just need it for work/college/shopping and driving around the neighhbourhood. And it's effecient at that.
No they are not perfect ... they are an overly complicated step DOWN in fuel milage from some cars such as the crx from the 1980's!


And I own a pickup because I have to ... there is NO way in the winter to make it to my place without 4 wheel drive and I like to go home (in fact it was warm enough yesterday that I had a standing puddle to mid doors in my driveway) I am a 22 year old collage student ... I have about 200 dollars to my name after paying tuition this simester I can not afford another vehicle and even if I did I could not get it to my house
I could also not afford to insure another vehicle

In fact I did a cost matrix and I save a LOT by driving only one vehicle even if it is a truck

I DO need a truck to get to school because I need one to EVEN GET OUT OF MY DRIVEWAY

Ok calculated it out by buying a 8000 dollar car on a 4 year loan that gets 25 mpg

In fuel at 3.00 dollars a gallon ... average driving during about 50 percent of the year (the rough amount of time I could make it with a car due to driving conditions) minus the time I need to haul


Fuel savings : 20 gallons per month average through the year so 60 dollars per month USD (that is assuming WAY more driving then I normaly do but for the sake of arguement rounded up)

Cost of car: 180 dollars for car payment and another 110 for insurance (moving my truck to liability only)

Overall for my driving habbits and location switching a car would save 20 gallons for a net cost to me of about 290 USD

So I would loose 130 bucks a month geting the car for the first 4 years
And a continuing loss after that point of 50 dollars per month after that
Hardly cost efficent ... nor a smart solution I work 48 hr shifs in the winter the weather is un predictable enough that I may not make it home at all :p

All in all I will take my truck

I believe adam corola went off on this as well

he was like "why are we only geting 55 mpg when in 1980's we had the honda crx that could make 60 + mpg" so true lolBecause the CRX had about 80-100 horsepower, and it was moving something I could push without breaking a sweat. Ford's model T got 25 MPG highway, but had about 5 HP. Current Fords have 15-20 MPG highway, but usually 200-350 HP. This is a more efficient use of the power, even though it gets fewer MPG.

Some motorcycles get about 70, but they weigh about 1/5th as much as a car- if a motorcycle engine were pushing my truck, I'd be surprised if it got 10.

So, no, hybrids are not steps down. They're more efficient than the CRX- your comedian isn't an engineer/mechanic. He was using the same "why don't we make the whole plane out of that black box?" type of not thinking things the whole way through.

Ok calculated it out by buying a 8000 dollar car on a 4 year loan that gets 25 mpg

In fuel at 3.00 dollars a gallon ... average driving during about 50 percent of the year (the rough amount of time I could make it with a car due to driving conditions) minus the time I need to haul


Fuel savings : 20 gallons per month average through the year so 60 dollars per month USD (that is assuming WAY more driving then I normaly do but for the sake of arguement rounded up)

Cost of car: 180 dollars for car payment and another 110 for insurance (moving my truck to liability only)

Overall for my driving habbits and location switching a car would save 20 gallons for a net cost to me of about 290 USD

So I would loose 130 bucks a month geting the car for the first 4 years
And a continuing loss after that point of 50 dollars per month after that
Hardly cost efficent ... nor a smart solution I work 48 hr shifs in the winter the weather is un predictable enough that I may not make it home at all :p

All in all I will take my truck
Great-then get a Ford Escape Hybrid (http://www.fordvehicles.com/escapehybrid/home/), problem solved.

You can get Hydrogen from water or Hydrocarbons, and you don't have to burn fossil fuels, you just need electricity for distilling the hydrogen.

Actually, the energy required for electrolysis (obtaining hydrogen from water) is greater than the energy recouped from current hydrogen powered devices. There is a net loss of energy if one were to "get hydrogen from water" and it is actually more efficient to simply use the electrical energy to power the engine.

Wind energy isn't free. It takes energy from the wind, which can cause major changes in weather patterns.


Don't forget the major environmental damages included in erecting wind turbines. Not only weather patterns, but fowl migration routes that pass through wind turbine fields suddenly cause major damages to the fowl population. You might want to visit a "wind farm" sometime and ask what the mortality rate is on migrating fowl.

Great-then get a Ford Escape Hybrid (http://www.fordvehicles.com/escapehybrid/home/), problem solved.
Pssst I said I lived on a farm ... that includes being able to pull trailers that weigh well over the rated tow capacity of a ford excape on a REGULAR basis ... and 2 of them are gooseneck so suv's in general are out it has to have a pickup bed

The closes I am going to get for a bit is the hybred 1500 from chev but no way in hell I can afford that

Pssst I said I lived on a farm ... that includes being able to pull trailers that weigh well over the rated tow capacity of a ford excape on a REGULAR basis ... and 2 of them are gooseneck so suv's in general are out it has to have a pickup bed

The closes I am going to get for a bit is the hybred 1500 from chev but no way in hell I can afford that
AAAAaaaahhhh, farm...then a desiel powered by biodiesel (http://www.wnbiodiesel.com/) available from your fellow farmers might be in order.

Or...the people who don't need to carry all that crap can buy hybrids and those who obviously need trucks drive trucks. I always see this and I think-"Man, we're talking about the cats in California suburbs driving H2s, I thought that was patently obvious. Why do people on ranches suddenly feel the need to defend their work truck...unless they doth protest too much...."

Ok ... I think we are geting my situation confused

I live on a farm ...
Vehicle requirements (in one vehicle)
Towing 8000 + MINIMUM (my grain trailers are usualy 9000+ which is above my personal rated towing but I cant afford a bigger truck so I have to make due)
Must accomidate 5th wheel or goosenecks
4 wheel drive

Ground clearance more then 6 inches due to dirt road issues with flooding

And has to be cost effective for a broke 22 year old collage student who managed to scrounge the truck I did for 4 k 4 years ago (no payments)

I cant afford to insure two vehicles ... and even if I could it leads to a net loss (as stated above) for the amount of time I could actualy USE this second vehicle

All in all I got about as much reason to drive a truck as anyone CAN I push that truck to the max 80 + percent of the time not to mention working a security job that REQUIRES 4wd even if I did not have it already (medical institution requres us to be able to pick up emergency staff in a snow emergency situation)

Hell for what I normaly do I wish I could aford a 2500 ... the stuff I regularly haul really should have a 3/4 ton truck at least

Now I have done my best ... I have done cold air intakes ... high airflow ehaust ... new headers ... and manafold to improve my gas milage ... I pushed it up to 19 highway (not great but WAY better then a truck my size should) all in all if I dont have a reason for a truck no one does

AAAAaaaahhhh, farm...then a desiel powered by biodiesel (http://www.wnbiodiesel.com/) available from your fellow farmers might be in order.

Or...the people who don't need to carry all that crap can buy hybrids and those who obviously need trucks drive trucks. I always see this and I think-"Man, we're talking about the cats in California suburbs driving H2s, I thought that was patently obvious. Why do people on ranches suddenly feel the need to defend their work truck...unless they doth protest too much...."
Man if I could afford it I would in a HEARTBEAT personaly a 3/4 ton diesel would be LOVLY ... and I could find a smaller 4 wheel drive like the excape or some of the other smaller ones I have been keping an eye on but I am dirt poor after tuition :) there is a reason I drive an 1988 chev silverauto LOL

Man if I could afford it I would in a HEARTBEAT personaly a 3/4 ton diesel would be LOVLY ... and I could find a smaller 4 wheel drive like the excape or some of the other smaller ones I have been keping an eye on but I am dirt poor after tuition :) there is a reason I drive an 1988 chev silverauto LOL
Hell, I drive a '67 VW Bus because thats what I got last time I had $1900 that I fenagled.

Thing is, I don't remember anyone suggesting that everyone, regardless of conditions, must drive a hybrid or suggesting that a hybrid would work for every single driver. Quite the opposite, it seems that it has been suggested that a hybrid is good for no one because it doesn't sprout flowers from it's exhaust pipe, it's merrily better.

So why make a big case out of an exception that no one challenged didn't exist? Why make a point that seems tacitly acknowledged, some people need trucks. The only challenge is that not everyone with a truck needs a truck.

Further-it's all hypothetical. Even if we all had the money we couldn't all run out and get a hybrid, they don't make enough. Very few people on here are in any position to buy a new car. I don't think anyone is demanding that we all run out and buy a new hybrid. It's just the overall.

So you need a truck. I'll take your word for it. Even if you didn't I wouldn't insist you go out and buy a new car now. I will, however, wonder at why you would need to clarify that you need a truck, what it brings to the discussion.

Admitably, I went about that in the most round about fashion...

Well then, who can blame the auto industry for great marketing?
In any case, they certainly have better emissions than deisel fuel. Deisel is far dirtier than gasoline, afterall, and this uses far less gasoline. Still, what'd be truely revolutionary is a deisel-electric hybrid car.

Hell, I drive a '67 VW Bus because thats what I got last time I had $1900 that I fenagled.

Thing is, I don't remember anyone suggesting that everyone, regardless of conditions, must drive a hybrid or suggesting that a hybrid would work for every single driver. Quite the opposite, it seems that it has been suggested that a hybrid is good for no one because it doesn't sprout flowers from it's exhaust pipe, it's merrily better.

So why make a big case out of an exception that no one challenged didn't exist? Why make a point that seems tacitly acknowledged, some people need trucks. The only challenge is that not everyone with a truck needs a truck.

Further-it's all hypothetical. Even if we all had the money we couldn't all run out and get a hybrid, they don't make enough. Very few people on here are in any position to buy a new car. I don't think anyone is demanding that we all run out and buy a new hybrid. It's just the overall.

So you need a truck. I'll take your word for it. Even if you didn't I wouldn't insist you go out and buy a new car now. I will, however, wonder at why you would need to clarify that you need a truck, what it brings to the discussion.

Admitably, I went about that in the most round about fashion...

You increase fleet mileage per gallon requirements or level taxes on "gas guzzlers" or even simply raise the pollution requirements or any of those combined and you affect Trucks. Unless you decide to exempt them... which hey we kind of sort of did, not entirely but we did, and what happened? "Truck" based SUVs.

Also, when you start talking about what other people "need" you get into very deep and savage waters. Hey no one needs a 3000 sq ft house so lets make them illegal, conserve wood and space. No one needs fast food so lets outlaw it. No one needs sports cars so lets restrict them like all hell. Its a slippery slope argument and I don't personally buy it myself, except for the sports cars. If you can start targeting "low mpg, non needed trucks" sports cars become a prime target as well. And I'll be damned to hell before I let anyone take those away from me without a very drawn out conflict.

Hell, I drive a '67 VW Bus because thats what I got last time I had $1900 that I fenagled.

Thing is, I don't remember anyone suggesting that everyone, regardless of conditions, must drive a hybrid or suggesting that a hybrid would work for every single driver. Quite the opposite, it seems that it has been suggested that a hybrid is good for no one because it doesn't sprout flowers from it's exhaust pipe, it's merrily better.

So why make a big case out of an exception that no one challenged didn't exist? Why make a point that seems tacitly acknowledged, some people need trucks. The only challenge is that not everyone with a truck needs a truck.

Further-it's all hypothetical. Even if we all had the money we couldn't all run out and get a hybrid, they don't make enough. Very few people on here are in any position to buy a new car. I don't think anyone is demanding that we all run out and buy a new hybrid. It's just the overall.

So you need a truck. I'll take your word for it. Even if you didn't I wouldn't insist you go out and buy a new car now. I will, however, wonder at why you would need to clarify that you need a truck, what it brings to the discussion.

Admitably, I went about that in the most round about fashion...


Sorry got a bit defensive everyone is "well why dont you own a better vehicle!!!!!1!!!!!" I got defensive bout 60 miles a week that I could possibly use a car ... assuming it is not very wet ... or winter lol

but they dont seem to see that its not economicaly viable in my situation and I got defensive ... I apologize

Well then, who can blame the auto industry for great marketing?
In any case, they certainly have better emissions than deisel fuel. Deisel is far dirtier than gasoline, afterall, and this uses far less gasoline. Still, what'd be truely revolutionary is a deisel-electric hybrid car.
Naw not that revolitionary ... just the next step

Revolutionary is geting away from rotory engine to electricity back to rotory power (ie fuel cell)

You increase fleet mileage per gallon requirements or level taxes on "gas guzzlers" or even simply raise the pollution requirements or any of those combined and you affect Trucks. Unless you decide to exempt them... which hey we kind of sort of did, not entirely but we did, and what happened? "Truck" based SUVs.

Also, when you start talking about what other people "need" you get into very deep and savage waters. Hey no one needs a 3000 sq ft house so lets make them illegal, conserve wood and space. No one needs fast food so lets outlaw it. No one needs sports cars so lets restrict them like all hell. Its a slippery slope argument and I don't personally buy it myself, except for the sports cars. If you can start targeting "low mpg, non needed trucks" sports cars become a prime target as well. And I'll be damned to hell before I let anyone take those away from me without a very drawn out conflict.
Gosh you're right. I guess no one should buy hybrids then...

Gosh you're right. I guess no one should buy hybrids then...

Has nothing to do with whether or not people should or should not buy hybrids. It has to do with the concept of "he doesn't need X, Y and Z." Especially since those statements very often get turned in laws that restrict and enforce extravagent taxes on said X, Y and Z.

Has nothing to do with whether or not people should or should not buy hybrids. It has to do with the concept of "he doesn't need X, Y and Z." Especially since those statements very often get turned in laws that restrict and enforce extravagent taxes on said X, Y and Z.
Except that this thread is about whether or not people should buy hybrids. The discussion was whether or not they where worth it.

You're right, I don't need a Playstation or x...but when my Playstation starts affecting the air everyone breaths, or the resources that are limited, or creates a need that becomes the catalyst of wars, then the sociatal cost has to be weighed. And again, you are absolutely right, when you make it a switch it is also a bad thing-but the only people characterizing it like that are people trying to dismiss the debate....

Except that this thread is about whether or not people should buy hybrids. The discussion was whether or not they where worth it.

And it was in resposne to your statements.



So why make a big case out of an exception that no one challenged didn't exist? Why make a point that seems tacitly acknowledged, some people need trucks. The only challenge is that not everyone with a truck needs a truck.

----

It doesn't matter if it is "tactily" acknowledge because when legalsation comes around it gets ignored or it creates problem.

You're right, I don't need a Playstation or x...but when my Playstation starts affecting the air everyone breaths, or the resources that are limited, or creates a need that becomes the catalyst of wars, then the sociatal cost has to be weighed. And again, you are absolutely right, when you make it a switch it is also a bad thing-but the only people characterizing it like that are people trying to dismiss the debate....

Your playstation does every single one of those things. Unless of course you've got your own local solar power that provides all of your needs or you've got a wind turbine in your backyard powering your house.

And it was in resposne to your statements.
Swell, find where I legislated or said that people couldn't own trucks without the slippery slope and we'll discuss it. Otherwise, there is a thread already where you can argue logical fallacies.



----

It doesn't matter if it is "tactily" acknowledge because when legalsation comes around it gets ignored or it creates problem.
again...



Your playstation does every single one of those things. Unless of course you've got your own local solar power that provides all of your needs or you've got a wind turbine in your backyard powering your house.
And that, too is a concern. And one I gratefully acknowledge. We should be doing something about energy related polution. Thanks for your awareness.

Swell, find where I legislated or said that people couldn't own trucks without the slippery slope and we'll discuss it. Otherwise, there is a thread already where you can argue logical fallacies.



----


again...




And that, too is a concern. And one I gratefully acknowledge. We should be doing something about energy related polution. Thanks for your awareness.


We use a lot of solar out here for energy supplement ... my dad knew a few people and got some pannels for a good price ... about 30 % of our electricity comes from it. Intresting stuff

Swell, find where I legislated or said that people couldn't own trucks without the slippery slope and we'll discuss it. Otherwise, there is a thread already where you can argue logical fallacies.
----
again...


Its in response to why many people bring up why they own a truck and make a big deal about it. Many many times it is an issue that is ignored when any discussion about fuel economy/what kind of car you "Should" drive. You also brought up the "doesn't need" portion, which is a crock of shit. The person needs whatever they feel they need.

Its in response to why many people bring up why they own a truck and make a big deal about it. Many many times it is an issue that is ignored when any discussion about fuel economy/what kind of car you "Should" drive. You also brought up the "doesn't need" portion, which is a crock of shit. The person needs whatever they feel they need.
Okay, so it is a slippery slope.

Statement: "Hybrid cars are a good thing."

Response: "Oh my god, you fascist, you can't take away my truck, I needs it!!!"

Alright champ, you need your truck. Still remains, hybrid cars are a good thing.

For the rest, you've managed to confuse "need" and "want." But since you still haven't managed to find where I advocated banning people from buying trucks, it's really moot so you can call it pickles for all I care.

Sorry got a bit defensive everyone is "well why dont you own a better vehicle!!!!!1!!!!!" I got defensive bout 60 miles a week that I could possibly use a car ... assuming it is not very wet ... or winter lol

but they dont seem to see that its not economicaly viable in my situation and I got defensive ... I apologize
I should point out, since someone else has picked up the ball, that you really don't have anything to appologize for. I should apologize for dragging that point out.

Not all, I'm still driving the SUV.
Me too...2 of them, in fact.

they could be extremely efficient machines (hydrogen fuel cells are not a work in progress they work) but the manufacturers choose to help the oil companies instead of the environment.
Getting hydrogen from natural sources requires use of massive amounts of reliable energy...electrical energy...since we can't build many coal-fired electric plants, wind and solar are unreliable, and enviro-whackos are against cheap, reliable nuclear plants, that leaves us with...oil-fired plants.

Actually, the energy required for electrolysis (obtaining hydrogen from water) is greater than the energy recouped from current hydrogen powered devices. There is a net loss of energy if one were to "get hydrogen from water" and it is actually more efficient to simply use the electrical energy to power the engine.Of course, but if you can think of a way to generate enough electricity to power a car on-the-fly, I'm sure everyone would love to hear it. So far, solar powered cars haven't been produced cheaply enough, and are too weak to meet the demands of consumers.

The point of using hydrogen is that sufficient energy can be stored on board much like with gasoline. If you can produce hydrogen cheaper than you can produce gasoline, the problem is solved. Fuel cell cars are not necessary, because hydgrogen can be used by internal combustion engines, although they may be more efficient.

I DO need a truck to get to school because I need one to EVEN GET OUT OF MY DRIVEWAY

I did say urban area's didn't I? :?

Like where I live, in a city. And there's neverending traffic jams. I wish they sold them here. Because there's really no roads to speed at all. Most of the times I'm driving at 60kph. (40mph). It would help cut my petrol costs and eventually would be cheaper in the long run.

Okay, so it is a slippery slope.

Statement: "Not everyone with a truck needs a truck."

Response: "Who the hell are you to tell someone else what they "need""

Alright champ, you need your truck. Still remains, hybrid cars are a good thing.

quote fixed.

They're not particularly efficient, in day to day driving they don't actually get the mileage they claim and any decent turbo-diesel can do as well and provide more power. And they are most definitely not cost effective.

For the rest, you've managed to confuse "need" and "want." But since you still haven't managed to find where I advocated banning people from buying trucks, it's really moot so you can call it pickles for all I care.

I've managed to confuse nothing. I've questioned your ability and place to tell anyone else what they need. Or for that matter what people want. You obviously don't need a PS, so why exactly should you have one but you feel free to question someone who owns a truck when you don't think they "need" one.

quote fixed.

They're not particularly efficient, in day to day driving they don't actually get the mileage they claim and any decent turbo-diesel can do as well and provide more power. And they are most definitely not cost effective.



I've managed to confuse nothing. I've questioned your ability and place to tell anyone else what they need. Or for that matter what people want. You obviously don't need a PS, so why exactly should you have one but you feel free to question someone who owns a truck when you don't think they "need" one.
Call it whatever you want, I'm not your english teacher.

Even the article, which is an attempt to critisize the cars, shows that they are in fact more efficient. So for some people they are in fact a good idea. You can throw yourself on the floor and cry "But I want my truck!" all you want. Doesn't change anything.

EDIT: I should add that the fixed quote only reflects the impression of the argument. Not everyone needs a truck. I don't. My friends don't. The fact stands. If for some reason, real or imagined, you think you need one-fine, I will once again for you restate that I have not advocating a ban on trucks. So, what the hell is your arguement? Everyone does need a truck? Now who's being the fascist?

http://credit.consumerguide.com/auto/editorial/imho/index.cfm/act/opinion40

"Simply put, today’s hybrids aren’t the fuel economy panacea auto manufacturers claimed they would be, hybrids have milquetoast performance, get marginally better fuel economy than existing diesel-powered vehicles, and cost a bundle to build, buy, and maintain. Yet for some reason, Americans are flocking in droves to buy them."

LOL! Schmucks!forgot cleaner emmissions...

and while it costs a bundle to maintain... building a totally new type of vehicle on a new type of fuel would cost even more.

and remember that first post all you people wondering why America isn't doing it's share to cut back on pollution.

at least it's a step in the right direction.

Call it whatever you want, I'm not your english teacher.

That doesn't seem to actually be addressed at anything so I'll have to assume you're just running your mouth because you can't actually defend why you should have the power to determine what people need.

Even the article, which is an attempt to critisize the cars, shows that they are in fact more efficient. So for some people they are in fact a good idea. You can throw yourself on the floor and cry "But I want my truck!" all you want. Doesn't change anything.

I don't want, nor own, a truck but hey.. you can throw yourself on the floor, cover your ears and sing "lalalalala" all you want.

The article notes a 42 some mpg. A far cry from the 80mpg you can pull out of a small car diesel. Their performance is lacking and they are not cost-effective. Hybrids basically suck.

Indeed they are not a good idea for anyone who doesn't plan on keeping their car for a very long time. A Civic Hybrid comes out at 21k, a similar Civic comes out around 18k. 3k differences. Figure you drive 500 miles a week, 26,000 miles a year. Far above the average.

If you've got the Hybrid you'll need 619 gallons of gas/year.
If you've got the normal you'll need 787 gallons of gas/year

Difference of 168 gallons, at an outrageous $3/gallon the price saved is a whopping 504 dollars. It will take you Six years to make back the extra cash you spent. At which point you have to question how much the possible repairs to the more expensive electronic parts may cost you.

And of course all that time you've been driving a slower car that can barely pass all to save money.

IE, they're not cost efficient.

The only problem with hydrogen fuel cells is that the hydrogen has to come from somewhere. There isn't exactly an abundance of pure hydrogen on the Earth, if there were the planet would have exploded long ago.
The hydrogen has to be extracted from water and that is, unfortunatly, an endothermic process. The energy required to extract the hydrogen is produced by burning fossil fuels.
In the end, it just means that hydrocarbons are being burned someplace remotely instead of in the car. The end result is the same, however.

Dont plants ( ie vegetation ) manage this process without burning their dead relatives ?

That doesn't seem to actually be addressed at anything so I'll have to assume you're just running your mouth because you can't actually defend why you should have the power to determine what people need.



I don't want, nor own, a truck but hey.. you can throw yourself on the floor, cover your ears and sing "lalalalala" all you want.

The article notes a 42 some mpg. A far cry from the 80mpg you can pull out of a small car diesel. Their performance is lacking and they are not cost-effective. Hybrids basically suck.

Indeed they are not a good idea for anyone who doesn't plan on keeping their car for a very long time. A Civic Hybrid comes out at 21k, a similar Civic comes out around 18k. 3k differences. Figure you drive 500 miles a week, 26,000 miles a year. Far above the average.

If you've got the Hybrid you'll need 619 gallons of gas/year.
If you've got the normal you'll need 787 gallons of gas/year

Difference of 168 gallons, at an outrageous $3/gallon the price saved is a whopping 504 dollars. It will take you Six years to make back the extra cash you spent. At which point you have to question how much the possible repairs to the more expensive electronic parts may cost you.

And of course all that time you've been driving a slower car that can barely pass all to save money.

IE, they're not cost efficient.
Still thinking I'm insisting everyone has to buy a hybrid...you really need to shake that off. Again (you may have missed the edit) not everyone needs a truck. I don't, my friends don't. For us, if we where in the market for a new car, a hybrid works just fine. And it will be cleaner. Are you now insisting that we do need trucks? Or that I'm insisting everyone buy hybrids, because you still haven't shown me where thats true? Or are you just ranting about?

You also poorly redraw a chart in the article that puts people getting thier money back in eight years, but doesn't take into account that the premium for those cars can often be made up in insentives or that the hybrids also cut back on pollution, and also assumes gas prices will remain constant in the next three to eight years... So some people are willing to put up with a slight premium that eventually comes back to them anyway if it means a cleaner vehicle. Nothing wrong with that.

The only problem with hydrogen fuel cells is that the hydrogen has to come from somewhere. There isn't exactly an abundance of pure hydrogen on the Earth, if there were the planet would have exploded long ago.
The hydrogen has to be extracted from water and that is, unfortunatly, an endothermic process. The energy required to extract the hydrogen is produced by burning fossil fuels.
In the end, it just means that hydrocarbons are being burned someplace remotely instead of in the car. The end result is the same, however.


Well, in this case, yes.

But a hydrogen economy includes the use of fusion energy, which theoretically will produce a greater gain from H2 -> He than the loss from H2O -> H2 once the technology arrives. Then there will be extra power to provide for feul cell cars. Still strikes me as wasteful compared to fossil feuls and biodiesel.

EDIT: I should add that the fixed quote only reflects the impression of the argument. Not everyone needs a truck. I don't. My friends don't. The fact stands. If for some reason, real or imagined, you think you need one-fine, I will once again for you restate that I have not advocating a ban on trucks. So, what the hell is your arguement? Everyone does need a truck? Now who's being the fascist?

You, for putting words in other peoples mouths and then attacking the straw-man.

Still thinking I'm insisting everyone has to buy a hybrid...you really need to shake that off.

I've said nothing that could in the least be interpreted to mean that I am thinking in that manner. Let me know when you can be rational.

Again (you may have missed the edit) not everyone needs a truck. I don't, my friends don't. For us, if we where in the market for a new car, a hybrid works just fine. And it will be cleaner.

If being "cleaner" justifies the extra worthless expense in their mind they can feel free to do so.

Are you now insisting that we do need trucks? Or that I'm insisting everyone buy hybrids, because you still haven't shown me where thats true? Or are you just ranting about?

Or are you just obtuse?

You also poorly redraw a chart in the article that puts people getting thier money back in eight years,

Perhaps you merely needed it repeated to you seeing as when someone says that they're not cost-effective you run around with your head cut off.

but doesn't take into account that the premium for those cars can often be made up in insentives

Hybrids don't have any dealer incentives going on. And any dealer incentive they do have the normal civic has as well. Now what Hybrids do have is a $2000 dollar tax incentive for 2005, which will only be $500 dollars in 2006. It’s a one-time deduction. Which would reduce the time to recoup at 24k miles a 6 years to 2 years. Or to 4 years at a more reasonable 12k miles a year. But heaven help you if you buy one in 2006.

or that the hybrids also cut back on pollution, and also assumes gas prices will remain constant in the next three to eight years...

Which is perhaps why mine uses very high gas prices... hmmm.

So some people are willing to put up with a slight premium that eventually comes back to them anyway if it means a cleaner vehicle. Nothing wrong with that.

A large premium that comes back over a very long period of time using a vehicle that is inferior in virtually all other areas. If being "clean" is that important to someone they can feel free to buy a hybrid and I will feel free laugh at them.

You, for putting words in other peoples mouths and then attacking the straw-man.
Really? I'm the one doing that...huh...quote it, will you?



I've said nothing that could in the least be interpreted to mean that I am thinking in that manner. Let me know when you can be rational.
Then really, tell me what your arguement is.



If being "cleaner" justifies the extra worthless expense in their mind they can feel free to do so.
Then I really don't know what you're arguing about. The expense isn't that extreme, especially considering the premium people are willing to pay for metalic paint...



Or are you just obtuse?
Irony.



Perhaps you merely needed it repeated to you seeing as when someone says that they're not cost-effective you run around with your head cut off.
Really? Care to quote that? Or, even where I insist that they are cost effective?



Hybrids don't have any dealer incentives going on. And any dealer incentive they do have the normal civic has as well. Now what Hybrids do have is a $2000 dollar tax incentive for 2005, which will only be $500 dollars in 2006. It’s a one-time deduction. Which would reduce the time to recoup at 24k miles a 6 years to 2 years. Or to 4 years at a more reasonable 12k miles a year. But heaven help you if you buy one in 2006.
Ummm...I didn't say dealer incentive....you did...



Which is perhaps why mine uses very high gas prices... hmmm.
And the math comes out to a slight premium. Like metalic paint. At least one has a positive effect.



A large premium that comes back over a very long period of time using a vehicle that is inferior in virtually all other areas. If being "clean" is that important to someone they can feel free to buy a hybrid and I will feel free laugh at them.
Alright, as long as you stop 'clenching' over people laughing at H2s in suburban areas, then really we're all settled.

The article is an opinion piece, though the authour does include stats. Cars that have better fuel efficiency and produce fewer emissions are a good thing. When more people buy hybrids, there will be more cars produced that will be even more efficient and enviro friendly. Progress is gradual.

That's pretty much my opinion as well.

I did some looking into hybrid vehicles not too long ago/
Im a pizza delivery guy, and I spend a lot of money each year on gasoline.
According to the my research findings, and yes, I did do quite a bit of it, I would save approximately 1,600 dollars a year on fuel by buying a Toyota Priux, wich seems to have the better mileage, and reliabilty rate than most of the others.

Performance tests dont factor in wear and tear on vehicles generally.
Most tests involve how fast the car can go, and its acceleration.
What these tests show, is that most hybrids, arent race cars.
If you like a Porsche, you wont like a hybrid.

My question is this:

What the hell do I care about going 0-60 in 4 seconds?
I want a car that doesnt need 20 dollars of gas every other day.
A Priux gets about 51-60 MPG.

Most suv's get about 20.

The problem with them is, that most of these cars are so new, that there arent many used ones available, so its hard to guage thier reliability after a few years.

Seeing as how no financial institution with any sanity will lend me 20,000 dollars to buy a new Priux, im gonna have to wait a while.

So far, diesel cars are cheaper to run, but keep in mind that not every gas station sells diesel fuel, so the conveiniece of stopping at any station you see to fill up, is gone.

So, ultimately, the jury is still out on hybrids.

But look at it this way:

The technology of the computer has changed so drastically in the last 30 years, that a 30 year old computer bears little resemblance to one your reading this on, right now.

The internal combustion engine, is relatively unchanged in the last 100 years.

Why do you suppose that is?

Often, engineering students are required to design and build an engine that gets over 100 miles to the gallon, as a thesis, or final exam.
Yet, the average SUV still gets less than 30 MPG even on the highway?

Do you suppose that someone doesnt want to sell you a vehicle that will let you purchase less and less fuel to run it?

I smell a rat.

I smell a rat.

As do I. It's been stinking up the place for some time.

I did some looking into hybrid vehicles not too long ago/
Im a pizza delivery guy, and I spend a lot of money each year on gasoline.
According to the my research findings, and yes, I did do quite a bit of it, I would save approximately 1,600 dollars a year on fuel by buying a Toyota Priux, wich seems to have the better mileage, and reliabilty rate than most of the others.

Performance tests dont factor in wear and tear on vehicles generally.
Most tests involve how fast the car can go, and its acceleration.
What these tests show, is that most hybrids, arent race cars.
If you like a Porsche, you wont like a hybrid.

My question is this:

What the hell do I care about going 0-60 in 4 seconds?
I want a car that doesnt need 20 dollars of gas every other day.
A Priux gets about 51-60 MPG.

Most suv's get about 20.

The problem with them is, that most of these cars are so new, that there arent many used ones available, so its hard to guage thier reliability after a few years.

Seeing as how no financial institution with any sanity will lend me 20,000 dollars to buy a new Priux, im gonna have to wait a while.

So far, diesel cars are cheaper to run, but keep in mind that not every gas station sells diesel fuel, so the conveiniece of stopping at any station you see to fill up, is gone.

So, ultimately, the jury is still out on hybrids.

But look at it this way:

The technology of the computer has changed so drastically in the last 30 years, that a 30 year old computer bears little resemblance to one your reading this on, right now.

The internal combustion engine, is relatively unchanged in the last 100 years.

Why do you suppose that is?

Often, engineering students are required to design and build an engine that gets over 100 miles to the gallon, as a thesis, or final exam.
Yet, the average SUV still gets less than 30 MPG even on the highway?

Do you suppose that someone doesnt want to sell you a vehicle that will let you purchase less and less fuel to run it?

I smell a rat.
You can get used Insights with 50,000 miles for @$10,000 (http://www.autoextra.com/search/vehicle), but I don't know what kind of service costs you might be looking at. The Prius (http://www.autoextra.com/search/vehicle), which is probably a better bet but I like the Insight because it looks like a pod that shoots out of a giant robot...not the best reason to buy a car..., goes for the same with @85,000 to 100,000 miles-in which case service costs really need to be looked into. Although I couldn't even get that much loaned to me, I don't know where you're at for that. Also, if you're in Cali nothin' doin'. A friend was almost in the market for a new car (didn't happen) and we started looking for one (which is why I knew this at all) and couldn't find many up here in Northern California. Lot of hippies up here boosts demand, I guess...

Wasn't there something about engineers going to Cuba to see what mechanics where doing to the old ass cars there for effeciency? I guess I could google that myself....sometimes I'm just a lazy bastard....

I did some looking into hybrid vehicles not too long ago/
Im a pizza delivery guy, and I spend a lot of money each year on gasoline.
According to the my research findings, and yes, I did do quite a bit of it, I would save approximately 1,600 dollars a year on fuel by buying a Toyota Priux, wich seems to have the better mileage, and reliabilty rate than most of the others.

Performance tests dont factor in wear and tear on vehicles generally.
Most tests involve how fast the car can go, and its acceleration.
What these tests show, is that most hybrids, arent race cars.
If you like a Porsche, you wont like a hybrid.

My question is this:

What the hell do I care about going 0-60 in 4 seconds?
Because 30 minutes or it's free!! :)



I want a car that doesnt need 20 dollars of gas every other day.
A Priux gets about 51-60 MPG.

Most suv's get about 20.



Most all MPGs are overstated on ALL types of vehicles. Particularly with stop n go driving. I think there are websites out there where you can get a more accurate read on what your mileage will be. 51 MPG is not likely except from a motorcycle. In the end you can get 30mpg from a compact or 36 mpg from a much more expensive (to buy and maintain) hybrid.



The problem with them is, that most of these cars are so new, that there arent many used ones available, so its hard to guage thier reliability after a few years.

Seeing as how no financial institution with any sanity will lend me 20,000 dollars to buy a new Priux, im gonna have to wait a while.


In a few years the few remaining running hybrids will be very cheap.


So far, diesel cars are cheaper to run, but keep in mind that not every gas station sells diesel fuel, so the conveiniece of stopping at any station you see to fill up, is gone.
too true



So, ultimately, the jury is still out on hybrids.

But look at it this way:

The technology of the computer has changed so drastically in the last 30 years, that a 30 year old computer bears little resemblance to one you're reading this on, right now.

The internal combustion engine, is relatively unchanged in the last 100 years.

Why do you suppose that is?


Actually, Your PC has changed about as much as your internal combustion motor has in that same time. Your PC is still running on a X86 8 bit architecture. The mechanics of what makes it go are mostly unchanged. It still has a hard drive, memory, processor, etc. It also uses much more fuel (power) and releases much more exhaust (heat).


Often, engineering students are required to design and build an engine that gets over 100 miles to the gallon, as a thesis, or final exam.
Yet, the average SUV still gets less than 30 MPG even on the highway?

Do you suppose that someone doesnt want to sell you a vehicle that will let you purchase less and less fuel to run it?

I smell a rat.
You ever ride any of those 100 mpg 'vehicles'? Go ahead and try loading your family into one - even if you can - imagine what it'll do to your mileage. Get real.

Actually, Your PC has changed about as much as your internal combustion motor has in that same time. Your PC is still running on a X86 8 bit architecture. The mechanics of what makes it go are mostly unchanged. It still has a hard drive, memory, processor, etc. It also uses much more fuel (power) and releases much more exhaust (heat).

HA sorry but x86 8 bit thats good (they moved off the 8 bit after the 8088)... (not to mention the fact that mac does not use anything neer though at least with the power pc line from moterola ) now if we are comparing components of a computer it is processor that we need to compare not the computer as a whole

Lets just for sake of arguement say it is running x86 16 or 32 (the much more common versions) the whole time. even as such the computers flop raiting has more then doubled every year! (notice I did not say mhz ... that is a different mesurement)
if you are going to use a computer analogy your cars hp (power) would have to double every single year to have kept up with processor increases

Of course, but if you can think of a way to generate enough electricity to power a car on-the-fly, I'm sure everyone would love to hear it. So far, solar powered cars haven't been produced cheaply enough, and are too weak to meet the demands of consumers.

Some attempt has been made at battery-only powered cars. In this design, the car is charged overnight in a regular outlet in your garage and driven the next day on the electricity stored in the batteries (similar to a golf cart). Unfortunately, current technology (1) cannot store enough energy to power a car for a full day (2) cannot provide enough power to give consumers the *oomph* they want from a car. My point is that while hydrogen is one medium for transferring energy from potential to kinetic, it is not the most efficient or the most economical (at this time).

I feel like this thread is running off topic. I might check back later to see if any positive, intellectual progress has been made.

Some attempt has been made at battery-only powered cars. In this design, the car is charged overnight in a regular outlet in your garage and driven the next day on the electricity stored in the batteries (similar to a golf cart). Unfortunately, current technology (1) cannot store enough energy to power a car for a full day (2) cannot provide enough power to give consumers the *oomph* they want from a car. My point is that while hydrogen is one medium for transferring energy from potential to kinetic, it is not the most efficient or the most economical (at this time).

I feel like this thread is running off topic. I might check back later to see if any positive, intellectual progress has been made.
Not to mention the load transfered to the power grid ... and the electricity has to be generated somehow and as of now that probably would mean more fossile fule power plants

Not to mention the load transfered to the power grid ... and the electricity has to be generated somehow and as of now that probably would mean more fossile fule power plants

In high school in 1983 I resolved this problem by introducing solar energy cells to the garage roof attached to a battery in the basement. The cells charged the battery by day, the battery transferred its load to the car at night. Voila! Zero emissions.

I got a B-

Goddam public school.

HA sorry but x86 8 bit thats good (they moved off the 8 bit after the 8088)... (not to mention the fact that mac does not use anything neer though at least with the power pc line from moterola ) now if we are comparing components of a computer it is processor that we need to compare not the computer as a whole

Lets just for sake of arguement say it is running x86 16 or 32 (the much more common versions) the whole time. even as such the computers flop raiting has more then doubled every year! (notice I did not say mhz ... that is a different mesurement)
if you are going to use a computer analogy your cars hp (power) would have to double every single year to have kept up with processor increases
Yeah, my bad on the 8 bit. Though 16 and 32 are in a very similar hexa-vein. (And why by eights anyway? I once knew and now forgot)

You really probably don't want to go much further, I'd really hate to repost GMs response to Billy G when he went there.

Yeah, my bad on the 8 bit. Though 16 and 32 are in a very similar hexa-vein. (And why by eights anyway? I once knew and now forgot)

You really probably don't want to go much further, I'd really hate to repost GMs response to Billy G when he went there.
:) before bill gates went there balmer did ;) 8bit = byte
We go by 8's becase they are powers of two

Everything on a computer opperates in binary (base 2) so almost all sizes are at or close to a power of two

ie 8 = 2^3
16= 2^4
32= 2^5

Easily scaleable in the world of On and off :)

In high school in 1983 I resolved this problem by introducing solar energy cells to the garage roof attached to a battery in the basement. The cells charged the battery by day, the battery transferred its load to the car at night. Voila! Zero emissions.

I got a B-

Goddam public school.
Photo voltaics at that lvl ...

Some of the advances in hydrogen extraction has been amazing latly ... I have a feeling this may be the way to go (hell if we can make seperation efficent the fuel cell and electric drivetrain has been more then proven)

http://credit.consumerguide.com/auto/editorial/imho/index.cfm/act/opinion40

"Simply put, today’s hybrids aren’t the fuel economy panacea auto manufacturers claimed they would be, hybrids have milquetoast performance, get marginally better fuel economy than existing diesel-powered vehicles, and cost a bundle to build, buy, and maintain. Yet for some reason, Americans are flocking in droves to buy them."

LOL! Schmucks!

Sorry for my aparent extreme ignorance.. but were hybrid cars meant to replace deisel engines or gasoline engines ? Is this oppinion supporting the wide spread conversion to deisel engines as oppose to hybrid or gasoline engines ?

Also.. where are the stats on the cost of diesel fuel as opposed to the savings hybrid engines allow for (might I add one of those bonus's of using Hybrids)... and what about the faults of diesel (which is the reason it isn't more wide spread) namely its suseptiblity to temperature change especially in cold weather.

Also he speaks of costs to manufactures.. obviously he hasn't taken a buisness class in the last decade and knowns nothing of economies of scale.. Hybrid cars are realitivly new development only recently picking up sales.. as demand increases so production increases, and if anyone knows anything about buisness and manufacturing you'll know economies of scale will bring down those high production costs as production increases over time :rolleyes:

whose the schmuck for reading this article and beliving its opinionated dribble

Sorry for my aparent extreme ignorance.. but were hybrid cars meant to replace deisel engines or gasoline engines ? Is this oppinion supporting the wide spread conversion to deisel engines as oppose to hybrid or gasoline engines ?

Also.. where are the stats on the cost of diesel fuel as opposed to the savings hybrid engines allow for (might I add one of those bonus's of using Hybrids)... and what about the faults of diesel (which is the reason it isn't more wide spread) namely its suseptiblity to temperature change especially in cold weather.

Also he speaks of costs to manufactures.. obviously he hasn't taken a buisness class in the last decade and knowns nothing of economies of scale.. Hybrid cars are realitivly new development only recently picking up sales.. as demand increases so production increases, and if anyone knows anything about buisness and manufacturing you'll know economies of scale will bring down those high production costs as production increases over time :rolleyes:

whose the schmuck for reading this article and beliving its opinionated dribble


I am confused ... hybred has nothing to do with the fuel rather drive train of the cars

So they can be diesel or gas (or for that matter propane /natural gas ... any rotary engine style) hybread just referes to the conversion to electricity then motive force provided by electic moters

So it is not really an engine type as much as a drive train (but the drive train can help reduce engine size if applied right)

I am confused ... hybred has nothing to do with the fuel rather drive train of the cars

So they can be diesel or gas (or for that matter propane /natural gas ... any rotary engine style) hybread just referes to the conversion to electricity then motive force provided by electic moters

So it is not really an engine type as much as a drive train (but the drive train can help reduce engine size if applied right)

yes.. its speaking in the way of which the fuel is used... However, as far as I know, there are no hybrid desiel engins in production ... WHen i spoke of gasoline, diesel or hybrid i wasn't talking of the fuel persay.. but the engine type... an traditional diesel engine, a traditional gasonline engine, or the new hybrid engine. The new hybrid engine was meant to replace the gasoline engine not the diesel... the diesel engine does not have a practical application to everday cars.. thats why they are not manufactured in mass production for this purpose. Yes they are more efficent but have specific draw backs which make it an impractical choice not to mention the fact diesel fuel is tremendously more expensive the traditional gasoline at the pump.

yes.. its speaking in the way of which the fuel is used... However, as far as I know, there are no hybrid desiel engins in production ... WHen i spoke of gasoline, diesel or hybrid i wasn't talking of the fuel persay.. but the engine type... an traditional diesel engine, a traditional gasonline engine, or the new hybrid engine. The new hybrid engine was meant to replace the gasoline engine not the diesel... the diesel engine does not have a practical application to everday cars.. thats why they are not manufactured in mass production for this purpose. Yes they are more efficent but have specific draw backs which make it an impractical choice not to mention the fact diesel fuel is tremendously more expensive the traditional gasoline at the pump.
Alright again confused
What is a hybred engine?

Alright again confused
What is a hybred engine?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas-electric_hybrid_engine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas-electric_hybrid_engine
Different deffinition then I am used to ... traditionaly an engine is a single (sometimes complicated device) while the drive train (electro conversion and motors) are reserved for the term "drive train"

But you are lumping it togeather (so is wikpedia ...) sorry thats why I was confused maybe it is just a minnesota wording or something

Different deffinition then I am used to ... traditionaly an engine is a single (sometimes complicated device) while the drive train (electro conversion and motors) are reserved for the term "drive train"

But you are lumping it togeather (so is wikpedia ...) sorry thats why I was confused maybe it is just a minnesota wording or something

welp.. this is the manner in which the terminology is used within the industry, so its only proper i cite it in my argument... I have no other knowledge of other definitions

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2542/oper.htm

http://www.answers.com/topic/gas-electric-hybrid-engine

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/G/Ga/Gas-electric_hybrid_engine.htm

http://futurecars.blogspot.com/2004/06/dummy-guide-to-how-hybrid-engine-works.html

Alright again confused
What is a hybred engine?A Hy bred Engine is an engine sired by a graduate of Hiram college.

I bought a new vehicle last year. I did research for about 4 months before making my selection. I travel long distances for work and so a vehicle that fit my size is important. (Being fatigued by driving can be dangerous.)

I looked at what was available by all major manufacturers and looked into Hybrids. I would not be comfortable in one. They are small inside and the seats are a bit small.

I am larger than average, think rugby player size. In the U.S., there are few vehicles that are actually comfortable for a larger sized person. Most SUV's actually have a seat designed so thay are comfortable for smaller people and women. The horizontal portion is shorter, making the thighs fatigue and ache faster.

I could not select a hybrid because none fit my larger frame. Another drawback is that the batteries last about two years, costing about $2000 US to replace. Most repair shops do not work on them and they must be taken back to the dealer for repair. Everything in them is controlled by computer so that the smallest repair requires an additional cost to reset the new details into the computer.

Cost of ownership is currently very high for a hybrid. However, I do know a guy that owns the Toyota. He is small, does not have to travel on freeways and has a medium sized commmute (40 miles each way) He likes it but, told me that it is downright dangerous if he needs to keep up on a metropolitan freeway like route 95 near D.C. The car looses stability at high speed.

The number of people saying fisison will solve all our problems here alarms me.
once you consider the whole fuel chain, of a nuclear powerplant, they are NEVER economical. they can only be vaugly economical when the government is buying plutonuim from the reactor operators for use in a nuclear weapons program.

first off, mining and refining uranium fuel is hideosly intensive and expensive. transport is dangerous. the reactor itself is pretty good. but transport of waste is dangerous, reclamation is dangerous and expensive, and disposal of waste is Incredibly dangerous.
All of which adds up to massive expense.

Aside from that,
the Civic hybrid's drivechain is a hideous hack.
and photovoltaic panels only recently reached the point where lifetime energy output is greater than the production energy input.
and the US plan for 'the hydrogen economy' involves cracking coal for hydrogen, and dumping the leftover carbon back into the mine the coal came from.