Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
The price, USED, of this car NO MATTER HOW NICE with only 35% of its battery life left and an estimated cost of $6,000 to replace them would be (you choose) "higher" or "lower?" Hmm. I'd bet the price will drop like a stone on a planet with high gravity and no atmosphere, so to speak.
On another issue, there are those "would you" games we played in school -- you may remember them, they were meant to be oh so telling and philosophical and thought provoking.
"Would you do the wrong thing but for the right reason?" kind of Deep Thoughts.
It is my perhaps Homer Simpson Bold Opinion that this hybrid brouhaha is a perfect example of "doing the wrong thing (in so many ways) for the right reason."
Diesels, forced induction and all clean and pretty smelling, are able to do the right thing for the right reason.
Prediction: Hybrids "seemed like a good idea at the time" but are/were for all practical purposes based on what we know now and where we are today a "blunder" up there with Piech's Folly, the Phaeton. We just can't own up to it yet, 'cause we have so much invested in it, hopefully it will "catch on."
"Wax on, wax off." :surprise:
Prediciton: The batteries will last longer than the fearful will predict. The replacements, which will be MANY years down the road will be MUCH cheaper than current estimates. The replacements will be a NEWER technology than the ones they replace. Hybrids will be mainstream.
Diesel: It will get MUCH better, cleaner, and more popular.
It is important that fuel-efficient vehicles are the ones that get purchased, because if they do, then the manufacturers will build more of them. If the gas hogs are the ones that get purchased because of resistance to progress, then there will be less progress made.
The marketplace will determine what happens, and I sincerely hope that it rewards progress. Remember, progress is never the perfect solution . . . but at least it points in the right direction, as opposed to the naysayers that would have us stay the same destructive course because the progress isn't good enough for them, but somehow doing nothing is.
TagMan
Maybe in a few years we will be able to drop a little nuclear capsule into our water tank and drive for years and years by just adding water when needed. Of course we will probably be running out of water by then and it will cost $10. a gallon.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I'm looking forward to your nuclear capsule.
TagMan
BMW estimates this technology will be introduced in about ten years. I will hold my enthusiasm for this technology before the year 2016.
As I see it, upon cold start, the engine could drive a serpentine belt that in turn drives all of the various accessories. Then when enough of a head of steam was built up, have a clutch for the engine/belt pully interface decouple and then engage the steam driven belt. Gee, thinking about this further, just keep the engine engaged and let the steam driven pully help the engine along as well. This doesn't seem to me to be too much of a technological leap that it would take ten years to perfect. Obviously I'm missing something. :confuse:
Best Regards,
Shipo
As many of your posts have indicated, you have a good engineering sense, and the answer to your question is the common and unfortunate one. MONEY. There has been little financial incentive to be energy efficient when those that have the energy sell the energy and have all the power. They will be the same ones that take control of WHATEVER the new forms of energy are and the methods of distribution. That's why we will be in a state of transition for years to come. So, it is up to us to embrace the fuel-efficient vehicles, and reward progress in the marketplace.
TagMan
Are those the same guys in the black helicopters?
Sometimes these ideas aren't so new -- there are reasons beyond the disincentive to be energy efficient behind much of this.
If you read the WSJ or Business Week once in a while, or any other business rag, you KNOW who they are.
BTW, the guys in the choppers are merely employees.
:P
TagMan
So far the batteries are as reliable as "Lexus".
My experience with batteries leads me to stay away.
Think about it . . . the complexity of an auto engine itself is certainly more sophisticated, intimidating, and often troublesome . . . and our experience with engines doesn't "lead us to stay away" and travel via horseback.
:P
TagMan
Random House Dictionary, 2d ed., unabridged:
"Sarcasm: . . . ironical taunt."
"humor: . . . the faculty of perceiving what is amusing or comical."
Lighten up, man.
Maybe someone like Shipo, or anyone else for that matter,knows why? Or maybe I just dreamed this.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Best Regards,
Shipo
I certainly got it and thought it was funny: that there are powers beyond even the powers-that-be). Warthog obviously read something else into it, but I don't know what.
Warthog, Tagman has proven himself to be one who does not insult or put down others, so whatever you thought he meant, I can safely say he didn't.
Yes and no!
BMW's priorities are to serve their customers priorities which as far as I know is not fuel efficiency. Their R & D Euros will be spent on hp increasing endeavors as bi-turbo engines versus major fuel efficiency technologies. I mean how many decades has it been since I read about BMW's fuel saving hydrogen technologies and how many decades in the future will we keep on reading about BMW's hyrbdogen technologies before they actually become widely available?
When I first read about BMW's steam endeavors the first thought that came to my mind was what a wonderful way to generate more hp( the fuel efficiency aspect of that technoloy is IMO of secondary importance for BMW customers).
And as we know there are far simpler ways to increase hp than steam power. So BMW will focus on the path of least resistance versus most resistance in their attempts to increase hp.
When those that have the energy sell the energy and have all the power. They will be the same ones that take control of WHATEVER the new forms of energy are and the methods of distribution.
Did you write the script for that Syriana movie?
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Tagman’s post #6895 struck me as left-wing paranoid (“those that have the energy sell the energy and have all the power. They will be the same ones that take control of WHATEVER the new forms of energy are and the methods of distribution”). Apparently, Dewey thought so too (“Did you write the script for that Syriana movie?”) That was the point of my remark about the black helicopters. It was a wisecrack, but intended to suggest that Tag was a tad conspiratorial on the subject.
Then Tagman replied with post #6898 (“If you read the WSJ or Business Week once in a while, or any other business rag, you KNOW who they are. BTW, the guys in the choppers are merely employees.”) I took this, and still take it, as an intended put-down, implying that if I would simply read a newspaper I would certainly agree with his original post.
If I misread you, Tagman, I apologize.
Just FYI, you and I both know it would be a huge mistake to open up the squirrel's nest and talk politics, but I'll reveal that there's nothing left-wing about me, and I'm no ultra right wing extremist either. On most things, I'm right of center, and that's as far as I'll go with it here.
Take care, my friend,
TagMan
How do you people find enough time in the day for all this writing, and still make enough $$ to buy these LPS's? I get by on 4 hours sleep, and still can't find enough time.
Me too except I've been gone longer - I came back to 1008 posts
CR's Annual Auto Issue (April '06) has a great analysis of hybrid TCO - ALL cost more over 5 years than non-hybrids. The best was about $3000+ more while the worst was $13,000+ more.
I call BS :sick: I have subcribed to CR for over 20 years. During that time I have owned Fords, Chryslers, Acuras and Infinitis. CR sends me a survey and I fill it out. There is no bias involved at all.
How can they assume this with a completely new model?
The M was on sale in Japan for a year BEFORE it debuted elsewhere - the new M may be technically an '06 but pragmaticaaly it it is not.
Not exactly true. Look at the ratings; many times CR skips a year stating not enough replies.
WRONG!!!! CR FINALLY admitted their mistake and apologized for their mathematical errors. In fact, the Prius and Honda Civic Hybrid actually come out AHEAD, and others are not near as far behind as they had originally miscalculated.
Just another in a string of CR goof-ups over the years.
The problem is that most folks read their mistakes and all the secondary reporting that comes right after . . . and by the time they say they are sorry for their error, no one is paying attention . . . but then it's too late . . . because CR has already done the major damage! It's a shame.
Let's get the facts right, for goodness sakes!
TagMan
I detect from your "screaming" and your "ranting" that you hate CR. Your bias comes thru loud and clear. I could not find an official apology from CR at all (although they should!). Could you provide a link? That a mistake was made is clear however because CR has an update on their website.
From the CR website: So, for people who believe that hybrids will also save them money, the picture hasn't been so clear. That's why Consumer Reports investigated all of the major ownership costs and financial benefits of these models. The study reveals two notable findings:
In our analysis, only two of the six hybrids we have tested recovered their price premium in the first five years and 75,000 miles of ownership (see Hybrids vs. all gas). The Toyota Prius and Honda Civic Hybrid provide a savings of about $400 and $300, respectively, over that period. But that is only if buyers are able to take advantage of limited federal tax credits. Extra ownership costs over five years for the other four models ranged from about $1,900 to $5,500, compared with those of similar all-gas models.
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/high-cost-of-hybrid-vehicles-40- - - - 6/overview.htm
Regarding the mistake CR concluded: The revised figures do not change our message to car buyers that the costs and benefits of hybrids vary significantly, depending on the model, and that consumers should weigh them carefully before buying one.
I chimed into this discussion (rather late by the way ) because hybrids in general are not the money savers some people think they are; nor is the majority of LPS buyers interested in fuel savings anyway.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
This is definitely a miracle story. I think this could be used in an Audi safety ad?
Take a look at the video footage at the site below, Incredible!!!
link title
I think it is understandably short-sighted of some folks to think that hybrid technology is only about saving money on fuel. For the most part, that's how it has been represented. But that is starting to change, as it should. Case in point . . . the new Lexus hybrids . . . they will not only deliver better fuel economy, but will deliver MORE power, not less, and do so more efficiently. Some folks like the idea of more efficient power. Later on, even the new Lexus LS will achieve MORE power, and do so more efficiently, but that discussion will be on the HELMs forum.
Regarding your remark that LPS buyers aren't interested in fuel savings anyway . . . I disagree. IMO, most people in the performance category are interested, but they do not want to give up horsepower and performance. Once it is realized that hybrid technology can deliver an increase in fuel efficiency AND horsepower, it then becomes more attractive to the performance buyer as well as others. This will be more obvious as more vehicles like this come to marketplace. Lexus will prove this as well as anyone.
TagMan
Interesting! And are you the spokesman for every single CR survey taker? Do you really believe and know that there is no bias whatsoever in CR surveys? If that is what you honestly believe then there is nothing more to discuss.
What does it mean to be unreliable according to CR?
My mother drives a 01 MB C240 which has a notorious CR reliability rating.
Does that mean her car breaks down a lot? No
Does it mean she spends a lot of time getting her car serviced? No
Does it mean that her car is expensive to maintain? As far as I know she is not spending big $$ for maintenance.
Ofcourse her individual car is not a statistically valid example. BUT what if she used CR to buy her car? Would she have bought her MB. Absolutely not since those black dots would be a fearful sight for almost anybody. And following CR as a guide for car purchases would have deprieved her from owning a car she loves.
Which brings me to one point that is raised by the CR findings:
None and I repeat none(not even the least reliable German cars) are on the List of the Least Satisfying Cars to Own. While quite a few of the Least Satisfying Cars to Own are Japanese cars.
WHat does this say? To me it says that having a black dot for reliablity is not at all as bad as most CR readers would interpret it to be. The difference between reliability and unrelibility does not carry the same weight as it did in the past. The CR stats in the 1960s/70s showed that MGs were unreliable and yes they were very unreliable. Today it can be argued that the differences between the ratings of CR reliability and unreliability is more subtle than what it was in the past
But today unfortunatley most readers view a CR unreliability rating as if if owning such a rated car will be horrific experience(a myth indeed)
Two Audi diesel powered sports racing cars qualified 1 and 2 for Saturdays 12 hour race. They both broke the track record in doing so.
Saturday, March 18, 2006-Sebring, FL.
One of the diesel powered Audi R10s went on to win the grueling 12 hour race. Taking over the lead from the other R10 when it was forced to retire due to overheating problems. These cars were so quiet you could hardly tell there was an engine back there one of the drivers said.
Further, there was no smell and no smoke. The fuel was a new type of diesel developed by Shell Oil.
If anyone else has any info on this race I would love to hear about it. For some reason info is very difficult to come by.
I guess I am thinking that history was made Saturday and hardly anyone noticed! Comments please!
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
What a great post! The interpretation of CR's ratings is part of the problem. People see those black dots and wham, they think those cars are a p.o.s. Yes, they are not as reliable as the red dots, but the red dots are more reliable than they used to be as well. From what I understand, there is almost a threshhold that has been reached with regards to reliability, and that it is practically impossible to reach higher reliability levels than what has been reached by the most reliable cars.
So, by comparison, the black dots of today could easily be better than the red dots of generations ago!
The real point is that CR is largely unsuccessful at having their data understood for what it truly indicates. If they are going to take the time to acquire and publish so much data, it stands to reason that they should take more responsibility to make sure that the data is interpreted a little better.
Man, I sure liked your post.
TagMan
My initial question remains, why such ire for CR.
But, to respond and I should be clear, I nor any of my family works for CR (whew!)
Of course your mom should drive what she wants. As I said in my post, CR is just one tool that can be used. But I interpret their comparisons to be relative. So while all cars may have better reliability than equivalent cars from decades ago, the red dots are still relatively better. If one feels that this is an insignificant difference, then interpret it as such. But, it doesn't take away from the results. I could point out my dad's horrendous experience with an A6. While he has had no out of pocket expense due to the warranty, he had to go back and forth to the dealer continuously.
Does that mean his car breaks down a lot? Yes
Does it mean he spends a lot of time getting his car serviced? Yes
As you said, one example is not statistically significant. But, to use your conclusion, if he had used the black dots, he may have avoided the hassles. He loved driving the car when he had it, but the hassles out weighed the driving experience. Again, for some, the CR ratings may be helpful and have value.
Again, why such ire?
(Should I use more bold in my posts?)
What would make me nervous looking at that chart is the S-type, with its 121% worse than average reliability score. Theres certainly a chance that you could buy an S-type and have the most wonderful, trouble free experience in the world with it. Obviously however, there's a FAR greater chance that something will go wrong with it than say the GS, M, or even the 5.
Also, for those that say CR loves everything Japanese, they should note that the Infiniti QX56 is CR's least reliable new car, with far worse scores than the Range Rover, Cayenne, and even the Toureg.
cdnpinhead has well underlined the issue of bulkiness. the other issue will be the water supply. creating steam will use a lot of (distilled) water and there is no way to stock it in a big tank as for steam locomotives. So BMW must design a condensor to re-transform the exhaust steam back into water. This condensor is (was) often built in steam ships as there was enough accomodation for it, but this would be a huge hardship in cars where space and weight are limited.
so I think 10 years is an understatement for "never".