I happen to know six folks who own the 2004 Prius and NOT one of them have had problems with their cars. What's your point? Just take a look at Consumer Reports and look at the frequency of repairs for the VW and the look at the Prius. It outshines it by a mile. Then look at the satisfaction index which is a whopping 94%!!!!! This is one of the reasons I got rid of my allroad after 10,000 miles. It scared the heck out of me when I started reading about the horror stories.
The station I regularly refuel at in Portland has regular at 2.359
I did not see gas that cheap in Oregon on Monday or Tuesday. The dealer picked us up at the airport and we drove directly to Gladstone. Gas there was $2.59 Premium $2.79 and diesel was $2.74. The dealer sort of filled the tank & I did not fuel up until I got to Roseburg. I filled up at the Safeway for $2.57. I did not fill up again until I was into CA and went to an ARCO that has ULSD. I got better mileage on the low sulfur diesel also. Hopefully it becomes more readily available around the country before it is mandated.
Back to hybrids. I don't know why it is so hard for those that have taken the plunge to accept that the hybrid technologies have some serious issues. I keep seeing this reference to Consumer Reports. That is fine for those that like that. How many Prius owners were surveyed, is a legitimate question? I am not saying that Prius owners are dissatisfied. I am saying many are being towed or hobbling back to the dealerships for software problems. More than non hybrid cars of all brands. I have not found a car that I researched on this forum that has had as many serious problems as the Prius over the last 6 months.
Repairs on out of warranty Prius are higher than their ICE only counterparts. That will become more of an issue and have a negative affect on resale. Check out all the complaints to the NHTSA for the 2004-2005 Prius.
It is not just the Prius. The new Accord Hybrid has some serious issues.
Make: HONDA Model: ACCORD Type: PASSENGER CAR Year: 2005 Complaint Number: 10114375 Summary: WHILE DRIVING HOME ON INTERSTATE 93 IN HEAVY TRAFFIC I NOTICED A SMALL OBJECT IN THE ROAD THAT I HAD THOUGHT I AVOIDED, BUT IN A INSTANT THE PASSENGER SIDE AND SEAT AIR BAG DEPLOYED. THE CAR FILLED WITH A SMOKY SUBSTANCE, CAUSING VISIBILITY TO BE LIMITED, MY WIFE AND I WERE STARTLED BUT OK, WE FIRST THOUGHT WE HAD BEEN IN AN ACCIDENT. WE PULLED OVER AND CHECKED THE CAR AND FOUND NO DAMAGE. THE CAR IS 2005 NEW HONDA ACCORD HYBRID BRAND NEW WITH ONLY 500 MILES ON IT. AFTER WE COMPOSED OURSELVES WE CALLED THE DEALER AND THEY INDICATED TO PARK THE CAR AND DO NOT DRIVE IT SO WE HAD IT TOWED. THE DEALER PUT THE CAR ON A LIFT AND CALLED US TO SAY THEY COULD SEE A SCRATCH UNDER THE CAR WHERE SOMETHING MUST HAVE HIT A SENSOR AND THEN TRIGGERED THE AIR BAGS. IF THIS HAD BEEN ON THE DRIVERS SIDE I CAN ASSURE YOUR THE RESULTS COULD HAVE BEEN MUCH WORST. I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT SUCH A SMALL OBJECT WOULD TRIGGER THIS TO GO OFF, RATHER THAN A SAFETY ITEM THESE ARE A HAZARD. I WILL FEAR SEEING AN OBJECT ON THE HIGHWAY IN THE FUTURE AND ALWAYS WONDER IF THE AIR BAGS WILL DEPLOY. DOES THIS SOUND NORMAL OR WAS THE DEALER TELLING ME THE TRUTH? I HAD TO FILE AN INSURANCE CLAIM BECAUSE THE DEALER STATED IT WAS MY FAULT. THE CAR IS NOW SITTING WAITING FOR THE INSURANCE ADJUSTER TO LOOK AT IT.
I see. Airbag sensors are now exclusive to Honda's Hybrid system? This is news to me. Are you saying this sensor is not located on the new non-hybrid Accord and wouldn't have the same results?
Interesting that you'd claim a whole car line has "some serious issues" then provide a link that shows only one 2005 car line from Honda has had problems, the non-hybrid CRV with a gasket that could stick to the block while changing the oil filter.
Now that gary has his TDI he still frequents the hybrid forums out of lust. I truly feel for the guy. Now he has to deal with the dreaded VW dealers!! LOL..... I'll say it again, hybrids are here to stay, so get used to it. Things are only going to get better. I'm looking forward to the new hybrid GS which I would seriously consider buying. Those Lexus autos are in a class by themselves. The germans only wish they could have service records like the Lexus!
Oh... do a google search on TDI problems. FRIGHTENING!!!!!!!!!!!!
Airbag sensors are now exclusive to Honda's Hybrid system?
The issue is complexity in the hybrids. And maybe this is an issue with all new Accords or maybe all new cars. It would be something I would be worried about. Our highways are littered with junk that could set off an airbag if it hit the bottom of a vehicle. In our 1400 mile trip I would say we had to swerve at least 6 times to avoid big chunks of truck tires where they had delaminated, also rocks. We did not hit any thankfully. Would that cause an airbag to deploy? I should not have used that example of the HAH as I did not do much research on them.
From what I see the Prius is the vehicle with complexity problems that are not getting resolved.
Just removed another post discussing specific vehicles to try and corral this topic and get it back to the Future of Hybrid Vehicles. If you want to discuss how vehicles compare, or problems with a vehicle, please use the search tools in the left sidebar to find topics about those vehicles. Thanks!
What do you think the future DOES hold? What's the next breakthrough in technology going to be? Are current hybrids simply an intermediate step to some radical new way of getting us to the grocery store??
I really like that vehicle !! Even though the solar would be of limited use here in NH, I don't plan on living here forever.
Now the only problem is that the vehicle may not be very safe relative to other vehicles, though carbon fiber is a tough material. Size disparity is the issue. The safest way to move towards smaller cars would have to be gradual. I think the fatality rate would be sky-high if you had 230M current size vehicles and now you started putting millions of these lightweights on the road. It probably would be not much better than the fatality rate of motorcyclists when in accidents with cars.
Anyway people with money can and will always drive large and powerful cars or SUV's. People have always aspired to Cadillacs, Mercedes, Rolls and Ferraris (as extremes).
"What do you think the future DOES hold? What's the next breakthrough in technology going to be?"
.
Hybrids with 20 or 40 mile pure-electric range, and >65mph capability, so americans can go to work without burning a drop of gasoline (instead, they'll use their homes' electricity).
That would be a true "full hybrid" (as opposed to today's mild hybrids w/o charging capability).
...would be cool. There's nothing wrong with plugging in at night as long as you don't necessarily have to depend on it for the vehicle to run. Plus, it would allow us to take advantage of coal-burning power plants to generate the electricity rather than gas.
I think we are beginning the "Hybrid Era" and will see many varieties of hybrids over the next 25 years. I think we will see at least 2-3 geerations of hybrids before we get to Hydrogen vehicles. Some possibilities include:
There are several initiatives to increase the development of Hydrogen power, but it seems as though there will need to be a 'spiritual awakening' of some sort for people to reset their priorities. If money is the to be the bottom line, then we will have to wait until we have no choice.
I believe the 'eplane' will be on display at the Tour de Sol Sustainable Energy and Transportation festival. Is it flying yet? I guess there is a $10,000 prize for the most fuel efficient vehicle. I was just checking out their website: Tour de Sol and it seems like it would be worthwhile to check out, if anyone's in the Saratoga area. I'll probably make the trip up from Virginia. I'm curious to see what type of car wins the prize and what mileage it gets.
What energy source is going to make the hydrogen for us? If we have energy to make hydrogen, the petrochemical industry could just as well make synthetic oil and gasoline from C, H, and O.
Our world's problem is that our only sizeable energy sources our technology can tap right now is fossil fuels. And our energy useage continues to grow as the population grows and our living standards increase.
If and when we get fusion power then we could make enough hydrogen for everyone. But why do that when we could put the energy into producing oil/gas. There is no reason why sea water and CO2 or any other source of oil couldn't be converted into gasoline.
If you're going to make your fuel via fusion, why make a dirty, GHG creating fuel if you can make hydrogen which burns cleanly with only water as it's byproduct?
Well, if you have fusion power or even if you had sufficient solar energy, the gasoline factory could extract the carbon it needs by scavenging it from the atmosphere CO2.
Chemistry and combustion of fossil fuels is not a 1-way street. CO2 could be scavenged from the atmosphere, energy added to rebuild chemical bonds, and oil/gasoline created. So there would basically be no net increase of CO2 released to the atmosphere. Sea water or fresh water could provide the hydrogen for the oil. We could basically control the CO2 level of the atmosphere if we decided to extract more CO2 than we release.
It's science fiction right now on a global scale as you need the energy, but it can be done in any lab. If you've ever seen the movie Aliens, you'll remember that the human settlement on the planet was using a giant reactor to condition the planet's atmosphere for human habitation 50 years or so down the road. That is very viable if you have the energy.
The reasons gasoline is preferable to H2 is of course the high pressure equipment and transport system you need for hydrogen; and then the fact that hydrogen (I believe) has a low energy density.
However, H2 doesn't produce all the other nasty byproducts that gasoline does. A hydrogen fuel cell should not emit any CO, NOx, or any of the other pollutants that we deal with in a fossil-fueled environment.
"New hybrid vehicle registrations totaled 83,153 in 2004, an 81 percent increase over the year before, according to data released Monday by R.L. Polk & Co., a Southfield-based firm that collects and interprets automotive data."
If you think the future is looking great because hybrids are reducing global fossil fuel consumption and their emissions (which are the goals right?), then tell us how much energy usage has gone down. Are we asking OPEC to produce less? ;-)
It just takes a little common sense to see that the more Hybrids we can get onto the roads, the less pollution we will create and the less fuel we will use. Not rocket science....
"A hydrogen fuel cell should not emit any CO, NOx, or any of the other pollutants that we deal with in a fossil-fueled environment."
.
No, but the factory which makes the hydrogen *will* emit CO, NOx, et cetera. We can't just pretend the factory's pollution doesn't exist.
And before you say, "We'll use nuclear or solar, which are clean": 1) nuclear's not clean... it creates deadly waste 2) if we're going to use solar, why just dump it directly to the car's battery?
Hybrids slowdown the growth of energy usage, I'll agree with you on that. But a small amount of conversation does not alter the fact that those same fossil fuels conserved will eventually be burned.
To put it plainly, if you save a gallon of gas in your hybrid, there's someone else "waiting in line" who will buy it and burn.
A Supercar Of A Supra From Toyota Via Italy: Volta concept car may be the next Supra--and a hybrid.
Since the Supra departed the market about 10 years ago, Toyota has been without a high-performance sports car. That's about to change. At the 2004 Geneva auto show, Toyota unveiled the Volta concept car. The Volta was created by famed Italian auto designer Giugiaro and it could serve as the Supra's replacement as early as 2007. The concept car features a carbon-fiber body and chassis, making it extremely light--under 2900 pounds. The sports car also uses a 6-cylinder version of Toyota's Hybrid Synergy Drive that makes more than 400 hp. And engineers were able to make the floor flat, so there's room for three seats. With its light weight and impressive power, the Volta should be able to give Porsche and Ferrari a run for their money. With the hybrid drivetrain, the Volta should have fuel economy numbers to rival an average 4-cylinder sedan and get about 400 miles on a tank of fuel--a rarity in this class.
Solid Future Seen for Hybrids The Daily Auto Insider-- Thursday, October 14, 2004 Vehicles equipped with hybrid engines could make up 20% of the overall car market by 2010 and 80% by 2015, the Dow Jones Newswires reported, citing a recent study by technology consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton .
I don't know alot about science or anything, but looking at post #1070 I was wondering what is the hold up of this product.
To me, mankind is working the entire hydrogen system wrong. If we think back in history, everything started in a much larger scale then worked to a more compact one. Hydrogen energy should be tested and built for Ships/ferrys before even trying it in a car, just my two cents...
Those who are buying hybrids to 'do their part' to reduce global greenhouse emissions need to understand that whatever gasoline THEY don't consume (or that we in the US don't consume) WILL be consumed somewhere else.
So the question raised becomes; is it better for the global environment for the gasoline to be consumed in relatively clean burning vehicles in the US, or perhaps in countries with less stingent emissions standards? Because the reality is that the gasoline WILL BE CONSUMED.
That being said, I look forward to hybrid technology advancing. As the technology advances, it gets cheaper and (hopefully) will deliver better economy. Then, as fuel costs continue to rise, it makes even more economic sense to go hybrid.
my contention is that yes, someone else might consume the gasoline I do not need, but how can that possibly be MY PROBLEM?
OK, let's assume it becomes my problem. How could I possibly go about solving that problem?
Well, one way, is to become a "Hybrid advocate" which is what I have chosen to become. I sing the praises of Hybrid cars and SUVs to everyone who will listen, and sometimes to those who dont want to listen (you know who you are out there !!)
And I agree that as time goes by and battery technology improves and MPG numbers improve and costs come down, Hybrids will become a more common choice for many people. Lets go for 150,000 in the USA this year !!!
I think they should be able to achieve that number. I've been reading wonderful feedback from the Lexus RX hybrid and everyone seems thrilled with it. Imagine getting an overall avg of 25 with V8 like power!!! If you compare that to the Grand Cherokee with their V8 you probably would get 7-10 mpg less. Hybrids... I love 'em!!!!
you: my contention is that yes, someone else might consume the gasoline I do not need, but how can that possibly be MY PROBLEM?
me: no one is saying don't buy a hybrid, or that buying a hybrid isn't good. What I'm saying is that by you or 100 million people buying a hybrid, really doesn't do much good, relative to the the 5,900 million (and growing), people who burn fossil fuels in any manner and any way they can get them.
I'm simply stating that buying a hybrid is good psychologically if it makes you feel good, and if you drive enough it may make financial sense, but it does not affect the global usage of fuels in any significant way. The increasing industrialization of China and India, and their increase in auto/scooter usage will continue to absorb more fossil fuels. And the average worker in these countries is not going to be buying high-tech hybrid vehicles - it'll mainly be the cheapest types of ICE technology available.
So there are several of us who aren't dissing hybrids or the people who buy them. We're just saying it makes no difference, unless you think the goal of conservation is that we run out of naturally occurring oil in the year 2051 instead of 2050.
Think of it this way. The US becomes awash in high mileage vehicles. That means less gas is sold. The infrastructure is there to produce X amount of fuel. Too much supply and the prices are erroded. That makes oil prices the world over lower. Which then encourages the third world to buy more because now they can afford cars and the gas to run them. Do you see where your hybrid plans for the future could have a negative impact on the world?
Extremely poor rationale!! Regardless if it is hybrids OR less fuel consumption, we need to conserve. We have a finite supply of fossil fuels. To suggest that hybrids will contribute negatively is just plain foolish. Bottom LINE... we need to cut consumption.
If you specify "we" as the whole world I would agree. The problem is just as Kernick has pointed out. Third world countries are not going to be able to buy the high tech hybrids that we are fortunate enough to afford. The more crap we buy from them the more affluent they will become. The downside is they are not going to get to our level of affluence before the fossil fuel becomes a real issue in 30 years or so. Hybrids may be cool and green. Hybrids are not practical for the world market. Even Europe is not interested to the extent we are. If you look at it realistically, the hybrids started out as small fuel efficient cars. They have gone down hill from there. Half the hybrids on the market are barely making the CAFE standard of 27.5 MPG combined. I don't consider that progress. After 6 years of hybrid technology in the USA the first hybrid is still the most fuel efficient. I thought it should keep getting better not fall off to where we were before they came along.
OK, unless you are a Saudi Prince, this message is for you:
There are ZERO (zilch nada) negative aspects of the United States reducing their fossil fuel consumption. ZERO. ( Did I mention Zero? )
No scientists, no economic experts, no one with any credible reputation has EVER said that reducing fossil fuel consumption and/or reducing world oil prices will hurt anyone beside the world's oil barons.
So don't try to pull that one on us: as my Pappy used to say, "that dog won't hunt.".
The hybrid market is just addressing America's lust for power. Now we have choices! If you want better FE you opt for the Civic Hybrid or the Prius. If you need utility you can get the FEH or Lexus RH. If you want a sedan with lots of power you opt for the HAH. CAFE standards are a joke because the trucks are not included in that, but people are buying them like they're cars. Toyota & Honda had the chutzpah to invest in this technology and Americans are smart to embrace it. It's definitely a smart in the right direction. I really don't care what the Europeans are doing. What's important is what goes on here. We need to cut our energy dependence and hybrids are a start in the right direction.
Hybrids are NOT MERELY for achieving 45+ MPG !!! :mad:
They can be put into ANY CAR and that will increase the fuel efficiency of that particular car versus a non-hybrid version of the car !! :surprise:
That's how Honda can "IMA" any car in their line, and that's why Toyota plans on hybridizing their ENTIRE line. They are not going to convert all those models into 45+ MPG cars, but they WILL CERTAINLY raise the MPG average of their car line.
Toyota had the chutzpah to invest in this technology and Americans are smart to embrace it.
I think you are wrong and I will tell you why. The only expansion plant to build the Prius so far, is the one Toyota plans to build in China. So we import a $25k car from Japan or China to save $2500 worth of gas over the life of the car. If we bought a $20k car built in the USA and paid an extra $2500 in fuel over the 150k mile life of the car. It would benefit the US more than your hybrid built in a foreigh country. You can make the argument on reliability, and that does not wash. As many on this board claim they get rid of the car before the warranty is up. As for the newest hybrid. If the RX averages as good as my wife's 15 year old LS400 I will be surprised. No gain there in luxury or mileage.
you: Extremely poor rationale!! Regardless if it is hybrids OR less fuel consumption, we need to conserve. We have a finite supply of fossil fuels.
me: we have the same rationale that we need to conserve. The point is that if a majority of people don't do so, it has no real effect. Agree with the philosophy, just whether it would be applied.
Energy conservation would have to begin by replacing most of the 230,000,000 vehicles on the road in the U.S. alone. When will there be enough hybrids to do so? Then you need to get the other areas of the world on board also. And then you mustn't be morally opposed to keeping others living in poverty. Because when people move up out of poverty they will use electric appliances and buy personal motorcycles and cars, which all counter our conservation.
Do the math. 6 Billion+ people want more energy, not less.
you: There are ZERO (zilch nada) negative aspects of the United States reducing their fossil fuel consumption. ZERO. ( Did I mention Zero?
me: again agree in principle. But why won't it happen, even if we conserve? Haven't we gone thru a conservation era since the 70's? CAFE standards put in place - mpg raised, energy-star appliances, better insulated houses, ...
The reason is GROWTH. Our economy, population, and number of vehicles continues to grow. We use MORE energy as a nation even after having put conservation measures in place. Go to the DOE website and look at future U.S. and global projections of energy usage.
And as the economy and population grows more oil is consumed to manufacture and ship all our goods.
The RX is FAR superior to your LS in safety, electronics, and mileage. Who are you kidding????? As demand increases Toyota will create more factory capacity to create more and more hybrids for hybrid hungry America. This is only the beginning. Other manufacturers are burying their heads in the sand because Toyota has such a lead on this technology. Almost every one of their models will have a hybrid option in the next few years. I can't wait... It's about time someone came up to the plate and hit a home run. Good job Toyota!!!!
Let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that the U.S. somehow reduced it's consumption of fossil fuels. Whether through conservation, extensive use of hybrids, draconian fuel taxes or something else, let's assume that we've reduced our consumption.
What happens?
With reduced U.S. demand, the GLOBAL price of oil falls. Correct? Well, thats wonderful, right? I mean, outside of a few "oil barrons" and "Saudi Princes", nobody is hurt and everything is hunky-dory. Right?
Consider this: those "oil barrons" and "Saudi Princes" still sell their oil. Only now, they are selling all that additional oil (oil that we would have been consuming in the U.S.) in emerging markets (China, India) which DON'T have the same stringent emmission controls on their cars. From a GLOBAL standpoint, is it better to burn 1 barrel of oil in a country with stringent emmission controls, or a country without? Please remember, the oil WILL be consumed. It won't just stay in the ground because the U.S. doesn't consume it.
I completely disagree that "other countries" would buy our "unused" oil. OPEC would be forced to cut production, which would extend the life of fossil fuels for all of us.
There is no "worldwide minimum oil usage" that the Saudis can force on the world, you silly willies !!!
OK Larsb. I invite you to put together some conservation scenario and let you choose the numbers.
Pick how much we can conserve in the U.S. - X % Pick how much the rest of the world can save Pick what the global economy should grow per year Pick what the population will grow per year Pick a number of how many years of oil are left
Then tell us how much longer conservation will extend the oil supply. Will 2 years, 5 years or even 20 more years of oil make a difference in the thousands of years to come? NO! The only solution for the thousands of years to come is an advanced nuclear technology, and maybe some renewable.
The only solution to keeping civilization going on any sort of technological parity to today is finding new energy sources. I can picture people like you fretting 200 years ago, because whales were becoming hunted to extinction, and fretted about what to do when the whale oil runs out. Well we became smart enough to use an energy source that people were sitting on for centuries and were unaware of; and I believe that's true again. I certainly don't think we know everything about nuclear physics and matter/energy. Let's put our resources and money into CERN and other labs and look forward to the future and a much greater and better energy supply.
Comments
I did not see gas that cheap in Oregon on Monday or Tuesday. The dealer picked us up at the airport and we drove directly to Gladstone. Gas there was $2.59 Premium $2.79 and diesel was $2.74. The dealer sort of filled the tank & I did not fuel up until I got to Roseburg. I filled up at the Safeway for $2.57. I did not fill up again until I was into CA and went to an ARCO that has ULSD. I got better mileage on the low sulfur diesel also. Hopefully it becomes more readily available around the country before it is mandated.
Back to hybrids. I don't know why it is so hard for those that have taken the plunge to accept that the hybrid technologies have some serious issues. I keep seeing this reference to Consumer Reports. That is fine for those that like that. How many Prius owners were surveyed, is a legitimate question? I am not saying that Prius owners are dissatisfied. I am saying many are being towed or hobbling back to the dealerships for software problems. More than non hybrid cars of all brands. I have not found a car that I researched on this forum that has had as many serious problems as the Prius over the last 6 months.
Repairs on out of warranty Prius are higher than their ICE only counterparts. That will become more of an issue and have a negative affect on resale. Check out all the complaints to the NHTSA for the 2004-2005 Prius.
http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/complain/results.cfm
It is not just the Prius. The new Accord Hybrid has some serious issues.
Make: HONDA
Model: ACCORD
Type: PASSENGER CAR
Year: 2005
Complaint Number: 10114375
Summary:
WHILE DRIVING HOME ON INTERSTATE 93 IN HEAVY TRAFFIC I NOTICED A SMALL OBJECT IN THE ROAD THAT I HAD THOUGHT I AVOIDED, BUT IN A INSTANT THE PASSENGER SIDE AND SEAT AIR BAG DEPLOYED. THE CAR FILLED WITH A SMOKY SUBSTANCE, CAUSING VISIBILITY TO BE LIMITED, MY WIFE AND I WERE STARTLED BUT OK, WE FIRST THOUGHT WE HAD BEEN IN AN ACCIDENT. WE PULLED OVER AND CHECKED THE CAR AND FOUND NO DAMAGE. THE CAR IS 2005 NEW HONDA ACCORD HYBRID BRAND NEW WITH ONLY 500 MILES ON IT. AFTER WE COMPOSED OURSELVES WE CALLED THE DEALER AND THEY INDICATED TO PARK THE CAR AND DO NOT DRIVE IT SO WE HAD IT TOWED. THE DEALER PUT THE CAR ON A LIFT AND CALLED US TO SAY THEY COULD SEE A SCRATCH UNDER THE CAR WHERE SOMETHING MUST HAVE HIT A SENSOR AND THEN TRIGGERED THE AIR BAGS. IF THIS HAD BEEN ON THE DRIVERS SIDE I CAN ASSURE YOUR THE RESULTS COULD HAVE BEEN MUCH WORST. I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT SUCH A SMALL OBJECT WOULD TRIGGER THIS TO GO OFF, RATHER THAN A SAFETY ITEM THESE ARE A HAZARD. I WILL FEAR SEEING AN OBJECT ON THE HIGHWAY IN THE FUTURE AND ALWAYS WONDER IF THE AIR BAGS WILL DEPLOY. DOES THIS SOUND NORMAL OR WAS THE DEALER TELLING ME THE TRUTH? I HAD TO FILE AN INSURANCE CLAIM BECAUSE THE DEALER STATED IT WAS MY FAULT. THE CAR IS NOW SITTING WAITING FOR THE INSURANCE ADJUSTER TO LOOK AT IT.
Airbag sensors are now exclusive to Honda's Hybrid system?
This is news to me.
Are you saying this sensor is not located on the new non-hybrid Accord and wouldn't have the same results?
Interesting that you'd claim a whole car line has "some serious issues" then provide a link that shows only one 2005 car line from Honda has had problems, the non-hybrid CRV with a gasket that could stick to the block while changing the oil filter.
Check it out yourself!
Oh... do a google search on TDI problems. FRIGHTENING!!!!!!!!!!!!
The issue is complexity in the hybrids. And maybe this is an issue with all new Accords or maybe all new cars. It would be something I would be worried about. Our highways are littered with junk that could set off an airbag if it hit the bottom of a vehicle. In our 1400 mile trip I would say we had to swerve at least 6 times to avoid big chunks of truck tires where they had delaminated, also rocks. We did not hit any thankfully. Would that cause an airbag to deploy? I should not have used that example of the HAH as I did not do much research on them.
From what I see the Prius is the vehicle with complexity problems that are not getting resolved.
What do you think the future DOES hold? What's the next breakthrough in technology going to be? Are current hybrids simply an intermediate step to some radical new way of getting us to the grocery store??
http://www.physorg.com/news3776.html
Now the only problem is that the vehicle may not be very safe relative to other vehicles, though carbon fiber is a tough material. Size disparity is the issue. The safest way to move towards smaller cars would have to be gradual. I think the fatality rate would be sky-high if you had 230M current size vehicles and now you started putting millions of these lightweights on the road. It probably would be not much better than the fatality rate of motorcyclists when in accidents with cars.
Anyway people with money can and will always drive large and powerful cars or SUV's. People have always aspired to Cadillacs, Mercedes, Rolls and Ferraris (as extremes).
.
Hybrids with 20 or 40 mile pure-electric range, and >65mph capability, so americans can go to work without burning a drop of gasoline (instead, they'll use their homes' electricity).
That would be a true "full hybrid" (as opposed to today's mild hybrids w/o charging capability).
troy
Technology Time Mpg
Hybrid Gas-Electric 2000-2015 50-65 +
Hybrid Diesel-Electric 2007-2015 75-100
Alt. Fuel Hybrids (BioFuel) 2010-2020 70-100
Plug-in Hybrids 2010-2025 100-165
Hybrid MicroTurbine-elect 2020-2030 90-150
Hydrogen ICE Hybrid 2010-?? 60-75
Hydrogen Fuel Cell 2025-? 75-90
troy
I guess there is a $10,000 prize for the most fuel efficient vehicle. I was just checking out their website: Tour de Sol and it seems like it would be worthwhile to check out, if anyone's in the Saratoga area. I'll probably make the trip up from Virginia.
I'm curious to see what type of car wins the prize and what mileage it gets.
Our world's problem is that our only sizeable energy sources our technology can tap right now is fossil fuels. And our energy useage continues to grow as the population grows and our living standards increase.
If and when we get fusion power then we could make enough hydrogen for everyone. But why do that when we could put the energy into producing oil/gas. There is no reason why sea water and CO2 or any other source of oil couldn't be converted into gasoline.
Chemistry and combustion of fossil fuels is not a 1-way street. CO2 could be scavenged from the atmosphere, energy added to rebuild chemical bonds, and oil/gasoline created. So there would basically be no net increase of CO2 released to the atmosphere. Sea water or fresh water could provide the hydrogen for the oil. We could basically control the CO2 level of the atmosphere if we decided to extract more CO2 than we release.
It's science fiction right now on a global scale as you need the energy, but it can be done in any lab. If you've ever seen the movie Aliens, you'll remember that the human settlement on the planet was using a giant reactor to condition the planet's atmosphere for human habitation 50 years or so down the road. That is very viable if you have the energy.
The reasons gasoline is preferable to H2 is of course the high pressure equipment and transport system you need for hydrogen; and then the fact that hydrogen (I believe) has a low energy density.
"New hybrid vehicle registrations totaled 83,153 in 2004, an 81 percent increase over the year before, according to data released Monday by R.L. Polk & Co., a Southfield-based firm that collects and interprets automotive data."
http://www.kare11.com/news/business/business_article.aspx?storyid=93001
.
No, but the factory which makes the hydrogen *will* emit CO, NOx, et cetera. We can't just pretend the factory's pollution doesn't exist.
And before you say, "We'll use nuclear or solar, which are clean":
1) nuclear's not clean... it creates deadly waste
2) if we're going to use solar, why just dump it directly to the car's battery?
troy
To put it plainly, if you save a gallon of gas in your hybrid, there's someone else "waiting in line" who will buy it and burn.
A Supercar Of A Supra From Toyota Via Italy: Volta concept car may be the next Supra--and a hybrid.
Since the Supra departed the market about 10 years ago, Toyota has been without a high-performance sports car. That's about to change. At the 2004 Geneva auto show, Toyota unveiled the Volta concept car. The Volta was created by famed Italian auto designer Giugiaro and it could serve as the Supra's replacement as early as 2007. The concept car features a carbon-fiber body and chassis, making it extremely light--under 2900 pounds. The sports car also uses a 6-cylinder version of Toyota's Hybrid Synergy Drive that makes more than 400 hp. And engineers were able to make the floor flat, so there's room for three seats. With its light weight and impressive power, the Volta should be able to give Porsche and Ferrari a run for their money. With the hybrid drivetrain, the Volta should have fuel economy numbers to rival an average 4-cylinder sedan and get about 400 miles on a tank of fuel--a rarity in this class.
see this page:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/spy_reports/1318641.html
We can only hope they are right !!!
We shouldn't be buying fuel efficient vehicles because the gas will be burned anyway?
Wow! This is a new twist against hybrid vehicles I haven't heard before.
I was wondering what is the hold up of this product.
To me, mankind is working the entire hydrogen system wrong. If we think back in history, everything started in a much larger scale then worked to a more compact one. Hydrogen energy should be tested and built for Ships/ferrys before even trying it in a car, just my two cents...
Those who are buying hybrids to 'do their part' to reduce global greenhouse emissions need to understand that whatever gasoline THEY don't consume (or that we in the US don't consume) WILL be consumed somewhere else.
So the question raised becomes; is it better for the global environment for the gasoline to be consumed in relatively clean burning vehicles in the US, or perhaps in countries with less stingent emissions standards? Because the reality is that the gasoline WILL BE CONSUMED.
That being said, I look forward to hybrid technology advancing. As the technology advances, it gets cheaper and (hopefully) will deliver better economy. Then, as fuel costs continue to rise, it makes even more economic sense to go hybrid.
OK, let's assume it becomes my problem. How could I possibly go about solving that problem?
Well, one way, is to become a "Hybrid advocate" which is what I have chosen to become. I sing the praises of Hybrid cars and SUVs to everyone who will listen, and sometimes to those who dont want to listen (you know who you are out there !!)
And I agree that as time goes by and battery technology improves and MPG numbers improve and costs come down, Hybrids will become a more common choice for many people. Lets go for 150,000 in the USA this year !!!
me: no one is saying don't buy a hybrid, or that buying a hybrid isn't good. What I'm saying is that by you or 100 million people buying a hybrid, really doesn't do much good, relative to the the 5,900 million (and growing), people who burn fossil fuels in any manner and any way they can get them.
I'm simply stating that buying a hybrid is good psychologically if it makes you feel good, and if you drive enough it may make financial sense, but it does not affect the global usage of fuels in any significant way. The increasing industrialization of China and India, and their increase in auto/scooter usage will continue to absorb more fossil fuels. And the average worker in these countries is not going to be buying high-tech hybrid vehicles - it'll mainly be the cheapest types of ICE technology available.
So there are several of us who aren't dissing hybrids or the people who buy them. We're just saying it makes no difference, unless you think the goal of conservation is that we run out of naturally occurring oil in the year 2051 instead of 2050.
Think of it this way. The US becomes awash in high mileage vehicles. That means less gas is sold. The infrastructure is there to produce X amount of fuel. Too much supply and the prices are erroded. That makes oil prices the world over lower. Which then encourages the third world to buy more because now they can afford cars and the gas to run them. Do you see where your hybrid plans for the future could have a negative impact on the world?
If you specify "we" as the whole world I would agree. The problem is just as Kernick has pointed out. Third world countries are not going to be able to buy the high tech hybrids that we are fortunate enough to afford. The more crap we buy from them the more affluent they will become. The downside is they are not going to get to our level of affluence before the fossil fuel becomes a real issue in 30 years or so. Hybrids may be cool and green. Hybrids are not practical for the world market. Even Europe is not interested to the extent we are. If you look at it realistically, the hybrids started out as small fuel efficient cars. They have gone down hill from there. Half the hybrids on the market are barely making the CAFE standard of 27.5 MPG combined. I don't consider that progress. After 6 years of hybrid technology in the USA the first hybrid is still the most fuel efficient. I thought it should keep getting better not fall off to where we were before they came along.
There are ZERO (zilch nada) negative aspects of the United States reducing their fossil fuel consumption. ZERO. ( Did I mention Zero? )
No scientists, no economic experts, no one with any credible reputation has EVER said that reducing fossil fuel consumption and/or reducing world oil prices will hurt anyone beside the world's oil barons.
So don't try to pull that one on us: as my Pappy used to say, "that dog won't hunt.".
They can be put into ANY CAR and that will increase the fuel efficiency of that particular car versus a non-hybrid version of the car !! :surprise:
That's how Honda can "IMA" any car in their line, and that's why Toyota plans on hybridizing their ENTIRE line. They are not going to convert all those models into 45+ MPG cars, but they WILL CERTAINLY raise the MPG average of their car line.
I think you are wrong and I will tell you why. The only expansion plant to build the Prius so far, is the one Toyota plans to build in China. So we import a $25k car from Japan or China to save $2500 worth of gas over the life of the car. If we bought a $20k car built in the USA and paid an extra $2500 in fuel over the 150k mile life of the car. It would benefit the US more than your hybrid built in a foreigh country. You can make the argument on reliability, and that does not wash. As many on this board claim they get rid of the car before the warranty is up. As for the newest hybrid. If the RX averages as good as my wife's 15 year old LS400 I will be surprised. No gain there in luxury or mileage.
me: we have the same rationale that we need to conserve. The point is that if a majority of people don't do so, it has no real effect. Agree with the philosophy, just whether it would be applied.
Energy conservation would have to begin by replacing most of the 230,000,000 vehicles on the road in the U.S. alone. When will there be enough hybrids to do so? Then you need to get the other areas of the world on board also. And then you mustn't be morally opposed to keeping others living in poverty. Because when people move up out of poverty they will use electric appliances and buy personal motorcycles and cars, which all counter our conservation.
Do the math. 6 Billion+ people want more energy, not less.
me: again agree in principle. But why won't it happen, even if we conserve? Haven't we gone thru a conservation era since the 70's? CAFE standards put in place - mpg raised, energy-star appliances, better insulated houses, ...
The reason is GROWTH. Our economy, population, and number of vehicles continues to grow. We use MORE energy as a nation even after having put conservation measures in place. Go to the DOE website and look at future U.S. and global projections of energy usage.
And as the economy and population grows more oil is consumed to manufacture and ship all our goods.
What happens?
With reduced U.S. demand, the GLOBAL price of oil falls. Correct? Well, thats wonderful, right? I mean, outside of a few "oil barrons" and "Saudi Princes", nobody is hurt and everything is hunky-dory. Right?
Consider this: those "oil barrons" and "Saudi Princes" still sell their oil. Only now, they are selling all that additional oil (oil that we would have been consuming in the U.S.) in emerging markets (China, India) which DON'T have the same stringent emmission controls on their cars. From a GLOBAL standpoint, is it better to burn 1 barrel of oil in a country with stringent emmission controls, or a country without? Please remember, the oil WILL be consumed. It won't just stay in the ground because the U.S. doesn't consume it.
There is no "worldwide minimum oil usage" that the Saudis can force on the world, you silly willies !!!
Pick how much we can conserve in the U.S. - X %
Pick how much the rest of the world can save
Pick what the global economy should grow per year
Pick what the population will grow per year
Pick a number of how many years of oil are left
Then tell us how much longer conservation will extend the oil supply. Will 2 years, 5 years or even 20 more years of oil make a difference in the thousands of years to come? NO! The only solution for the thousands of years to come is an advanced nuclear technology, and maybe some renewable.
The only solution to keeping civilization going on any sort of technological parity to today is finding new energy sources. I can picture people like you fretting 200 years ago, because whales were becoming hunted to extinction, and fretted about what to do when the whale oil runs out. Well we became smart enough to use an energy source that people were sitting on for centuries and were unaware of; and I believe that's true again. I certainly don't think we know everything about nuclear physics and matter/energy. Let's put our resources and money into CERN and other labs and look forward to the future and a much greater and better energy supply.
That's why I LOVE HYBRIDS so much !!!