Hybrids & Diesels - Deals or Duds?

14849515354100

Comments

  • kiagalkiagal Member Posts: 7
    Recalls don't mean squat. It means that they know a problem exists. Did they fix your truck yet? I see lots of people throwing their arms up with that POS truck. Can't blame 'em.
  • winter2winter2 Member Posts: 1,801
    Been fixed for a long time. A NHTSA recall is still one nasty slap to a company with a reputation like Toyota. And there are plenty of people in the Toyota forums how have had their noses full of their POS Toyotas and Hondas.

    We have good friends who have a Toyota Highlander they purchased new in 2003. They returned it for a new one because of a serious mechanically defect that Toyota initially denied existed. Fortunately, the State backed them up and had to threaten Toyota to give them a new Highlander. This one is better, but they have had it to several different dealers with re-current drive train problems.

    They have the V-6 version and have never gotten past 18 mpg on the road. At least my CRD gets 30+ on the road.
  • moparbadmoparbad Member Posts: 3,870
    I see lots of people throwing their arms up with that POS truck

    Doese Prius suffer from Toyota :lemon: Sludge? POS=Toyota Sludge Engine
  • kiagalkiagal Member Posts: 7
    Rather have a Yota/Hyundai or a Honda any day over the crap that is offered from DC. Their rep is in the crapper. Recalls mean that they know of a fix for an issue. Your CRD will keep giving you grief. 30+ on a CRD? Who the heck ya kidding? CR got 11 or 12 in the city. Loud smokey smelly POS the CRD is.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Hybrids are no different than a conventional vehicle in cold.

    That was not the discussion. How do you keep the car warm enough to start when it is 40 below zero and no place to plug in the block heater? Even places like MN have areas that are 20-30 below all day while you are at work. Most people in sub-zero cold areas will go out and let the car run for half an hour every 4 hours so the car does not get cold soaked. Can you do that with a Hybrid?
  • winter2winter2 Member Posts: 1,801
    I give little credence to CR's findings. Most everyone else who has done testing (C&D, Motor Trend) have done much better than they have.

    Will it continue to give me grief? Might and then might not. As to the 30+ mpg, believe it and I am not the only one who has obtained such economy.

    As for smokey, nope. No smoke, none, nada. As for smell, a tiny bit if you stick your head up the tailpipe. Noise, comes with the territory. It is a diesel and it is sweet music to my ears.

    Do you know of any Toyota four or six banger gas that can pull/haul and 800+ pound load up a long multi-mile 18% grade in top gear and accelerate from 60 - 75 without shifting into another gear? I have yet to see one. When you find one that can, I would like to see it.
  • kylecivicsikylecivicsi Member Posts: 4
    Actually didn't the Liberty have quite few recalls when it first came out? Lots of em from what I read.

    I know so many people that have had problems with them Libs that they're mighty pissed off.

    Every article I read about the CRD claims it is clattery, slow off the line, can't climb hills well etc etc. Would do better with a Toyota 4 runnner 4 sure!
  • kylecivicsikylecivicsi Member Posts: 4
    Hey- do you read your posts after you write them? Did not know the Prius had a transmission. Post some links about what you're claiming. I can point to all the posts about how horrible the CRD really is. Sucks don't it??? Meanwhile people are still paying full list for the Prius. Gotta love it!!
  • moparbadmoparbad Member Posts: 3,870
    Toyota Sued over Prius Transmission
    Did not know the Prius had a transmission. LOL!

    Per Toyota Motor Company the Prius has: Power Split Device Electronically Controlled Continuously Variable Transmission

    What did you think the T was in Planetary CVT? :P

    Prius problems

    Post some links about what you're claiming. I can point to all the posts about how horrible the CRD really is It's your turn.

    I'm well informed regarding the Prius and the CRD, you appear to be well informed on neither.
  • moparbadmoparbad Member Posts: 3,870
    can't climb hills well

    TORQUE! The Liberty has 295 lb/ft at 1800 RPM. Power galore! The Liberty excels at climbing grades, on road or off.

    Actually didn't the Liberty have quite few recalls when it first came out? Liberty CRD was introduced in 2005. There are ZERO recalls for 05 CRD.

    PMDuring our test, we were all impressed with the Liberty's seemingly endless torque (typical of a diesel) and its civility (less typical). PM Liberty CRD

    Gee kyle, impressed with endless torque and civility, sounds like they do not like it. ;)

    Liberty CRD is quicker than V6 Liberty, it is not slow off the line. If you understood diesels at all you would know that they excellent off the line. It's called TORQUE. :surprise:
  • winter2winter2 Member Posts: 1,801
    No recalls on the CRD. There are several TSBs but no recalls.

    There are a few people within this forum that have been unhappy with there CRDs but most of that is attributable to their lousy dealer. Even Toyota and Honda have rotten dealers.

    Is it noisy? Yes, a little bit but it is a diesel and that little bit of noise comes with the territory. Is it slow? No, but it is not a rocket. 0 - 60 in 10.1 seconds (C&D, 09/2005).

    Below is a link to Motorweek's test of the CRD.

    http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2415.shtml

    The CRD is no slouch. I have gone through mountains with my CRD without a problem and no loss of power. BTW, I would like to see those articles you have read.
  • suvorbust69suvorbust69 Member Posts: 5
    Probably a big majority. Half those posts seem like unhappy customers. Some guy even traded his for a Tahoe. Let's see, overheating, turbos frying, leaking oil, tranny failures. I'd say---> :lemon: :lemon:

    Go with Honda, at least it is more reliable.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    I also would agree!! ALL oem's and model's have statistical RATES of faults. Some are obviously less or more than others.

    One basically tries to dodge the bullets as much as possible.
  • winter2winter2 Member Posts: 1,801
    So true. No one makes the perfect vehicle. There is no one best solution or better solution in my view.
  • moparbadmoparbad Member Posts: 3,870
    If the following contributors were all in the same room, do you think there would be more than one person? ;)
    suvorbust69
    kylecivicsi
    carsbikes
    hondausa

    Too strange how similar the content is to falconone's.

    New CRD's are available for less than $20K at Carmax. Now that is a GREAT deal!
  • moparbadmoparbad Member Posts: 3,870
    Prius= :lemon: :lemon: Let's see, overheating, turbos frying, leaking oil, tranny failures. I'd say---> Did not know Prius had a turbo!

    Go with Honda, at least it is more reliable 2002 Civic I owned was lemon :lemon: from day 1. It was purchased new and was in ths shop more than any other new vehicle I've ever owned. Thankfully I got rid of it in the first year during the rare time it was not in the shop.
  • suvorbust69suvorbust69 Member Posts: 5
    Mopars=DC= :lemon:
    And that's the new math. Mopar = closet case greenie= he love da Prius.

    hehehehehehe
  • suvorbust69suvorbust69 Member Posts: 5
    Anyone know that the Liberty CRD scored a 1 on a scale of 1-10 from the EPA. This beast spews out more crap than a sewer. No thanks diesel Liberty!!
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Bingo, except you left out kiagal.
  • carlisimocarlisimo Member Posts: 1,280
    Yeah, diesels are a mixed bag. One part of the big giant Global Warming debate is what kinds of pollution have the most effect. What's known is that NOx molecules (nitrogen oxides) have a much stronger effect than CO2 molecules, in the same quantities. But it's not known how much more. CO2 is produced in much greater quantities than NOx molecules, so which one's worse overall is uncertain.

    Europe thinks that controlling CO2 emissions is more important, and diesels do a better job at that. (Europeans also like them because they're forced to buy very small engines, and small gasoline engines barely have enough torque for their needs.) Environmental engineers here in the US believe that small quantities of NOx are worse than large quantities of CO2.

    Not only that, but the particulate emissons of diesels cause local pollution (smog over a city, grime on buildings), and California policymakers prefer to focus on local pollution first. I can understand that... smog is visible, smelly, and now that so many people seem to have allergies and/or asthma it's become a quality of life issue.

    Just thought I'd share. I don't think the facts are up for debate; how to weigh the pros/cons against each other is.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I would like to see more study with ULSD in the modern diesel engine. I think removing the sulfur cleans up the bulk of the PM. NOx can be removed with a urea filter. How expensively is a good question. Along that same line if you look at the cost to make a gas engine SULEV it is expensive also. Gas engines are also bigger contributors of carbon monoxide, that carry a lot of nasty stuff that can kill you. If you look back 4-5 years the cars that are now SULEV were getting a 1-2 rating. So do we remove all cars from the roads that do not come up to the top level? I consider consumption as an equal problem to emissions.

    After all the EPA and CARB have virtually ignored the big polluters, such as planes, trains, ships, tractors and earth moving equipment.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    However your analysis is done on a backdrop of little to unmitigated or no emissions controls on items like home furnaces, (heating oil), airplanes, trains, boats, ships, generators, power plants, construction and farm equipment, etc etc. Diesel trucking while it has emissions controls has been far from state of the art. However looking forward to 2007 there will be a renewed emphasis on controling diesel emissions.

    Now for the bad news- MUDDHA NATURE! How much do you think is emitted by MA nature at places like Yellowstone National Park or the active volcanos as in Hawaii? Geothemo vents deep in the ocean's seabeds, etc etc.
  • winter2winter2 Member Posts: 1,801
    Those posts do smell alot like our old friend. Good pick up!
  • carlisimocarlisimo Member Posts: 1,280
    Well, it's a car forum. So there =p.

    But good point. There's good news... according to the EPA we've significantly reduced every type of air pollution in tons since 1970. Not quite the sort of breakdown I was looking for... my guess would be that all sources except for the aviation and livestock industries have become a lot cleaner. Airplanes... they're probably cleaner individually, but their quantity has increased tremendously.

    Ah, here's a trove of information:
    US Emissions Inventory 2005

    They state that they've excluded volcanos and such (Annex 5). I'd argue that natural processes have been relatively constant and aren't likely to have contributed to the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gasses over the last 200 years. The "In Brief" document shows measures of gasses over the last 1000 years (from ice cores), and it looks like atmospheric gas levels were pretty constant until 1800 or so. Since then CO2's gone up 30%, NOx 17%, and methane 125%. Seeing how the graphs correspond to our industrialization, I'd say it's not the earth's fault. Now, the effects are uncertain, but humanity is using the younger generations' lifetimes as an experiment. We'll see.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Well bud, the farts give "it" away :) If stuff is by admission, NOT measured, how do we really know, and by what factors? Do you ever wonder how past global warming/cooling ,global winter, summer, spring and falls happened BEFORE the dawn of internal combustible engines!!?? :)
  • winter2winter2 Member Posts: 1,801
    PM filters are not all that expensive and the use of urea or ammonia to reduce/kill NOx is obviously not that expensive either. If Mercedes is including it in cars in Eurpoe and as I understand here too for 2007, it is probably not that outrageous cost wise.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Well I think what has made it "outrageous" cost wise is compliance in the USA when the gasser vs diesel passenger vehicle fleet is 97% vs less than 3% diesel.

    So what would say a 100 dollar cost for gasser emissions abatement be for a 100 dollar diesel emissions abatement if the ratio was reversed, i.e., 97% diesel vs less than 3% gassers? While I do not have the figures to show it, if the ratios were more like 50/50 as they are in Europe,I swag the diesels would probably be much better than the gassers insofar as diesel having less emissions than gassers.
  • carlisimocarlisimo Member Posts: 1,280
    What I was saying was that the relatively constant amounts of atmospheric greenhouse gas before 1800 included all those natural factors. If you care to, all the data is available for you to add up the manmade sources of say, CO2, and compare it to that graph. If the manmade CO2 is less than the difference in 2000ad CO2 levels and 1000ad CO2 levels, then the earth's releasing more. (Seriously, look at the graph in the "In Brief" section. It takes a large leap of faith to attribute the increased gasses to natural causes.) It'd be too time consuming for me to do during this lunch break... maybe next time.

    Winter and summer are easy; the earth's axis's inclination makes sunlight hit the earth at different angles depending on latitude, so the same light is spread over a larger surface area in winter zones.

    Ice ages are a bit uncertain. They've been pretty cyclical, and it looks like a major cause is the earth's inclination and orbit just lining up certain ways every 100,000 years. That leads to some stronger winters or summers, which affects albedo (reflectivity due to more ice/snow) and plant death (which releases CO2). More land mass closer to the poles (as is currently the case) amplifies the effects. Right now we're 10,000 years out of the last ice age, and the length of cycles between ice ages are 12,000, 23,000, 40,000, or 100,000 years depending on who you ask. So we shouldn't expect a natural one anytime soon.

    I'd like to see stronger arguments disagreeing with mine. I'm still unsure about all this, but one side has numbers and graphs, and the other side has rhetoric based more on emotion than anything else. I'm not a liberal arts guy, so change your debate strategy.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    Measurements before "accurate" measurement is suspect. Just remember not too long ago the earth was FLAT? So how did that change things scientifically??? We already know there are more than 9 planets in our solar system, etc. etc. This of course can be a liberal arts debate but as you can see science is infinitely involved here??!!!
  • carlisimocarlisimo Member Posts: 1,280
    They're very accurate. These are modern measurements, using cores from million year old glaciers... not data written down hundreds of years ago. In the "modern era", measurements are taken directly from isolated locations (including islands in Hawaii) that are believed to be out of the way of focused air currents.
  • gran_natgran_nat Member Posts: 2
    VW and Jeep WAY down on the bottom of the list. Of course Lexus is at the top. That means based on statistics the VW and Jeep will fail more often. No thanks!! Can we say :lemon: ??

    http://www.jdpower.com/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=2005089
  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 33,769
    interesting also when you look at account creation and last post dates:

    suvorbust69 - 1/31-1/31
    kylecivicsi - 1/30-1/30
    carsbikes - 1/27-1/29

    maybe the poor guy keeps forgetting his login and has to create a new account every time. ;)

    could probably add the last poster to that, too ... 1/31-1/31

    '11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S

  • moparbadmoparbad Member Posts: 3,870
    Thank you for the link.

    :)Jeep Liberty is ranked in the top three for dependability for 2005 among entry SUVS! :)

    JD Power Jeep Liberty TOP 3 among entry SUVS
  • winter2winter2 Member Posts: 1,801
    Isn't he boring? :blush:
  • gran_natgran_nat Member Posts: 2
    How does the TDI rank? I hope their dealer network is better than Jeep. Both Jeep/Chrysler/MBenz/VW at the bottom of the barrel. No thanks! :lemon:
  • winter2winter2 Member Posts: 1,801
    So boring..... I am having a terrible time staying awake. Yawn....
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I filled my Motor home in Phoenix for $2.26 per gallon. diesel was $2.69 in San Diego when I got home. Another case of lousy politics. It will take more than Ahnold to clean up the mess in Sacramento.

    Diesel fuel prices have hit an all time high in California, topping San Francisco off at $3.15 per gallon. The national average is only $2.55 per gallon. California truckers are being forced off their interstate highways, unable to compete with trucks driving in from other states with less expensive diesel fuel. “Big rigs can travel nearly 1800 miles on a single fueling, making California the no-fuel zone for out of state trucking companies and negatively impacting the state’s highway revenue,”

    “Higher CARB diesel costs have caused a slowdown in California truckers’ replacement of their older
    vehicles”, said Jim Ganduglia President of Ganduglia Trucking located in Fresno. “We are priced out of
    the market and can’t afford less polluting trucks because California fleet owners must absorb the higher
    CARB diesel costs to compete with interstate trucking operations.”


    Bad Politics
  • winter2winter2 Member Posts: 1,801
    Common sense strikes again! :sick: :sick: :sick:

    No big trucks, no services, food, fuel, jobs.

    Stupidity at it's best.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    I would also agree!!! Just when the new 2007 standards (for big rigs) is coming into view on the home stretch. CARB made a monumental mistake in not easing into so called "low sulfur" fuel back when it mandated the switch to UNleaded regular!
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    As a side note ULSD is lower in sulfur than unleaded gasoline. I would think the result would be more particulate matter from gasoline cars than diesel cars.

    Beginning January 2005, new limits were established for the sulfur content of gasoline including;
    a Refinery Average Limit of 30ppm, a Corporate Pool Average limit of 90ppm, and a Per-Gallon
    Cap of 300ppm.


    Sulfur in gasoline
  • moparbadmoparbad Member Posts: 3,870
    Diesel Boom article Edmunds

    As a result, consumers are unlikely to see new diesel vehicles on the market until the 2008 model year.

    We have to wait another year and 1/2? Darn!
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    I am glad you mentioned that. In fact #2 diesel fuel will have by regulation LESS SULFUR than unleaded regular. I also understand that diesel refinery from natural gas and to a little lesser extend from coal has structurally WAY less sulfur even over that!!!
  • gogogodzillagogogodzilla Member Posts: 707
    Yup, diesel liquefied from low-sulfur coal (which America has plenty of) is inherently low-sulfur as well.

    And the break-even pricepoint for the coal gasification process is between $25-35 per barrel...

    Far less than the $65-70 per barrel the market is currently charging.

    So, of course, the US oil companies will NOT build any coal gasification facilities. For that would have them increasing the supply of fuel AND increasing their profits.

    Which is, of course, bad. For if it was good for the oil companies to do it, they would do it, yes?

    :P

    Gotta laugh at the logic our oil companies use... Because if we didn't laugh at it, we'd be crying about it.

    :cry:
  • winter2winter2 Member Posts: 1,801
    So gasoline will have ten times the amount of sulfur that ULSD will have. Lovely!

    Since gassers make up the vast majority of motor vehicles in this country, they will be the biggest contributor to acid rain or nearly so. Coal plants do not help either. Would be nice to see ULSD used for trains, boats, heating, etc. Jet aircraft should also use ULS fuel.

    Nice acid trip for the lungs.....
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    So, of course, the US oil companies will NOT build any coal gasification facilities.

    I think if you do some research you will find that the oil companies do not own the bulk of the coal reserves. I think the US government owns most of them. That would require some fancy lobbying to bring those reserves onto the table. It is difficult to get the oil industry to add refineries for gas and diesel. They are playing a game of just producing what we need. Any little glitch like a hurricane throws the whole business into a panic. We pay the price.

    If what you say is correct that they can make diesel out of coal for $25-$35 per barrel equivalent. It should not take too long for some enterprise to be formed that will take advantage of that. Right now the price of diesel makes biodiesel feasible and we are seeing an expansion in that product.

    These are not low cost projects. The red tape alone can take years to get through our multiple levels of government. Heck I finally gave up on building a 20x30 foot barn on my 5 acres. I had $3500 in environmental & engineering costs and they wanted more studies. Can you imagine if I wanted to build a coal gasification plant.
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    You are definitely on to some of the critical issues here!! With the USA having INXS of 300 years of coal, it kind of makes you wonder why the environmentalists, etc like to develop and foster the feelings we are energy paupers. We have been referred to (by those in the real know) as the Saudi Arabia of coal!! Of course this misnomer was founded on the premise that Saudi Arabia has FAR MORE than what it has been shown to have.

    So "we" have done a great job in regulating things almost completely out of existence. So at times it is best to take the counterintuitive approach.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I believe that CA has gotten their gas to 50 PPM sulfur. That is still over 3 times the mandate for diesel at 15 PPM. It is the major cause of the catalytic convertors in SULEV cars going bad. In the case of the Prius it is a $2000 charge after the warranty is up. Cleaning up our gas cars emissions is not cheap.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    With the USA having INXS of 300 years of coal

    For those that can remember when Glen Canyon Dam was built. The Sierra Club tried blocking the project. One of the premises was the coal that would be under such a lake would be enough to supply the US coal needs for 25,000 years. I guess we can drain the lake in the next 300 hundred years if we need that coal for diesel....
  • ruking1ruking1 Member Posts: 19,826
    See you all heard it here first!!

    The Sierra Club with a 25,000 year estimate makes my INXS 300 year reading look like the prognostigation of a serious gloom and doom er, chicken littler, the sky is falling type of protagonist!! :) And here I was getting ready for Armageddon! :(:)
This discussion has been closed.

Your Privacy

By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our Visitor Agreement.