Fuel Economy and Oil Dependency

1404143454679

Comments

  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Praise the Lord and hide the women and children !!

    Moment of silence for the official Death Knell for the SUV Era.............................................................................- .
    ......................................................................

    Can I get an "it's about time, brothers and sisters!!"
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    and good riddance! :-P

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Long live the much safer, longer lasting BOF PU and SUV :)

    A moment of silence for the Death Wish of the econo box drivers and their kids. :sick:
  • bumpybumpy Member Posts: 4,425
    Who wants to live forever? Life is too short to spend it entombed in a penalty barge.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    But wasn't Explorer a BOF SUV?

    I don't think today's BOF SUVs will last significantly longer than those built in the 90s.

    And of course, to stay on topic, Ford has already announced that the next Explorer will no longer be BOF, but rather a really big crossover...to greatly improve the ride, handling, and fuel economy dontcha' know...

    ;-)

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • dtownfbdtownfb Member Posts: 2,918
    They still sell the Explorer? Isn't the Freestyle the crossover version of the Explorer? All Ford has to do is eliminate the Explorer and simply market the Freestyle. I can't remember the last commercial or ad I've seen for the Freestyle.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I don't think today's BOF SUVs will last significantly longer than those built in the 90s.

    Aren't most of them still on the road? I know my son's early 90s 4Runner is rusted through on all four fenders. He still drives it daily with close to 200k miles. It was rusted out and patched when he bought it. Are Explorers any worse? What is the major complaint with a BOF PU or SUV? They are much more solid built.

    Who cares that the Prius outsold the Explorer? Is that significant with 50 CUVs vying for the SUV dollars. Wait till they go to trade those Prius in and find they have lousy trade-in value. It will be back to driving an Explorer or 4Runner.
  • boaz47boaz47 Member Posts: 2,747
    I have been waiting to see the numbers posted. I am surprised we haven't see that so far. I knew Explorer sales were down and I had read somewhere that Escape sales were up but I haven't see any Saar or YTD figures. Most of my old sites have shut down that I could see those numbers.

    Looking at the Detroit Auto show headlines it looks like the Prius might be old news as early as 2010. I just hope they do better with what they are offering as plug ins this time.
  • boaz47boaz47 Member Posts: 2,747
    but I don't see how many Prius were sold. At one time, 2002 or so the Explorer sold about 400K units a year. Has prius sold 200K this year? I knew explorer was hurting but I didn't realize it fell to such lows. While researching the article I notice edmunds listed Scion as one of the big losers for 2007. Never thought I would hear that attached to Toyota before.
  • saabturboidsaabturboid Member Posts: 178
    They still sell the Explorer? Isn't the Freestyle the crossover version of the Explorer? All Ford has to do is eliminate the Explorer and simply market the Freestyle. I can't remember the last commercial or ad I've seen for the Freestyle.

    The Freestyle (now called Taurus X) is a crossover that is an on-road people mover. It is a great vehicle and I own one, but there are reasons to buy an Explorer. If you need to tow or go off-road then the Explorer is a much better choice. It is all a matter of needs.

    I agree that Ford has done a poor job of marketing both the Freestyle and the Taurus X. I'm not sure why this is.

    - Chad
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,056
    probably applies to trucks the same way that it applies to cars. That is, once you get into smaller sizes, unitized construction is often the way to go, although body-on-frame is still best for more rugged type applications, such as pickups, full-sized SUVs, etc.

    Now that Ford has crossover stuff like the Edge and Taurus X, and the Escape on the smaller end, is there really a need anymore for an Explorer-type vehicle. It seems to me that if they converted the Explorer to unitized, it would overlap with the Edge/Taurus X too much. Might be best to just axe it. People who don't really need a beefy SUV would be just as well served by a crossover, while people who DO need the capability might be better off with an Expedition.

    About the only advantage I could see to the Explorer versus an Edge or Taurus X, is perhaps the Explorer might be a better off-roader? Probably cheaper to fix when it breaks too. And I'd imagine it has a better towing capacity, although if you're towing anything heavy, I'd think an Expedition would still be a better way to go.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    sold around 180K last year. Explorer is down in 125K territory, I believe. Specifically I remember reading its current sales level is about 1/3 of its peak sales. With 400K being its peak, sales now must be around 133K. A mere shadow of its former self.

    Freestyle is still on the block to be axed come 2010, which is why you never see it advertised. Explorer will replace it in its segment, when Explorer evolves to be unibody. Freestyle sales have always been below Ford forecasts and projections.

    gagrice: "I don't think today's BOF SUVs will last significantly longer than those built in the 90s.

    Aren't most of them still on the road?"

    I'm sorry, I think I misunderstood what you originally posted. I thought you meant to say that today's BOF trucks will last even longer than the ones designed and built in the 90s. But in fact, you may have been saying that BOFs last longer than other types of vehicles, and the 90s examples are living proof, or something like that?

    BOF vehicles are very durable, that is a key advantage of them. I know, I have had a few. However, downsides for the daily transport market are many: poor handling, excess weight and fuel consumption, etc etc. Not to mention, many of the big ones are so hard to park that even at the mall, where the parking spaces are slant-in, people can't seem to get them in just one spot, but end up occupying two instead.

    My mantra is unchanged: for all the folks that only need to seat seven or want a smooth highway cruiser, PLEASE buy a minivan. You will save 20-25% in fuel consumption, you will have a vehicle you can actually fit between the lines at the mall parking lot, and you will present somewhat less of an obstacle to the forward sightlines of all the drivers in your wake.

    If you tow (that's 5% of all you SUV owners out there, and yes gagrice, I know that includes you), then by all means buy the BOF SUV or pick-up.

    That's my wish, NOT my directive, you understand.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • bumpybumpy Member Posts: 4,425
    Prius was 181,221 for 2007 versus 106,971 for 2006. Explorer was 137,817 for 2007 versus 179,229 for 2006. Escape was 165,596 for 2007 versus 157,395 for 2006.

    Toyota
    Ford
  • british_roverbritish_rover Member Posts: 8,502
    Ehh BOF designs are not as safe as unibody designs. In a BOF design the strength of the chassis is limited by the strength of the bolts holding the body to the frame.

    In a unibody design it is easier to predict where forces in an accident will go and to channel those forces around the safety cage.
  • boaz47boaz47 Member Posts: 2,747
    is better with BOF but I agree the explorer was never the king of towing anyway. The Expidition was a better option. People forget that one principal of towing is to have a vehicle Heavy enough that you aren't overpowered by the object you are towing. Still it is pretty depressing to get outsold by Prius. Is the world turning into what we saw in Blade Runner? ;)
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    "Still it is pretty depressing to get outsold by Prius. Is the world turning into what we saw in Blade Runner?"

    In the cheap-gas 90s, people were just buying much more vehicle than they needed, that's all. Gas prices go up, peoples' buying decisions shrink from the maximum they can get, down to closer to just what they actually NEED.

    I am not much of a fan of the Prius, but if its popularity causes other automakers to begin to offer us genuinely fuel-efficient vehicles that can meet consumers' needs satisfactorily, then I am happy that Prius is outselling formerly popular models like Explorer.

    My folks followed the craze in '98 and bought an Explorer. In ten years, that thing has never been further off the pavement than a dirt road, has never towed anything, and has spent most of its life running to the mall and the hardware store. Think of all the gas it used in ten years and 110K miles (and all the repairs it has needed, but that's a different story altogether)...

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • smithedsmithed Member Posts: 444
    "Praise the Lord and hide the women and children !!
    Moment of silence for the official Death Knell for the SUV Era
    Can I get an "it's about time, brothers and sisters!!"

    They only sold in excess of another 100,000 Explorers last year. Trucks will still be needed for towing and off road conditions. trucks will likely go back to be for work and recreational (boats, campers) towing. For larger family uses, minivans (and those reborn with the name "crossover") are more useful. :shades:

    Enjoy your hybid vehicle.

    Ed
  • boaz47boaz47 Member Posts: 2,747
    Yes but Nippon Cars don't even represent 50 percent of our energy useage in the US. We aren't changing the size houses we have just because the market is in the dumper. And the housing market has effected our economy much more than fuel prices ever have. The need argument always falls back on the decline of our society. Happiness is working for what you can afford and getting what you want. africans struggle to get what they need.

    I am not saying we haven't been a society of excess. We are guilty of that maybe more than anyone else. But having to see the Prius as a success story is sad. It is the poster child of the pocket protector children and the bleeding heart liberals that want to protect the spotted owl rather than provide jobs and food for the men working in the lumber industry. I wonder if the Romans felt this way when the Vandals and Visigoths were at the city gates? The Prius has always been smoke and mirrors from day one. While the Explorer may not have delivered as a off road experience that brought us back to nature the Prius has never delivered on mileage verses price. And as my wife has often said, is there a law that says a hybrid has to be ugly? Maybe not with some of the other hybrids but when you see a Prius you expect to see a geek driving it. Maybe the revenge of the nerds was art imitating life. But maybe that is the view of the future, Vanilla cars with turtles on the dash. I find the very picture of a road full of Prius as the beginning of the decline of the leadership of the Western World. Blade Runner depressing. :confuse: Yes, that is how I see it and I do not have the same problem with the other hybrids.
  • bumpybumpy Member Posts: 4,425
    when you see a Prius you expect to see a geek driving it.

    I see mostly menopausal women driving them. As for the rest of it, I find it sad that you think the nation's self-esteem is based on driving antiquated, sloppy-handling gas hogs.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    "Prius owners are an attractive target audience: 71% have household incomes over $100,000, with 28% at $200,000 or more." Marketing Green

    I don't see much demographic info for Explorer owners - downsizing baby boomers are shifting out of big SUVs apparently (link).
  • boaz47boaz47 Member Posts: 2,747
    Yes, I realize who the Prius was targeted at. The car just leaves me cold. It is just what Toyota offered CARB 25 years ago when we were supposed to get a totally ZEV car mandated for our state. Toyota told CARB they didn't think a EV would be practical and offered a gas hybrid. CARB said no way and in the end we got just what was offered by the manufacturers in the first place.

    I have never had an Explorer. During its hay day I bought a Jeep Cherokee, same kind of vehicle but one that saw quite a bit of dirt in its day. I tend to be into outdoors outings a bit more than the average Prius driver. I almost always have something to tow or carry or ride or launch and the Prius owners hardly ever do any of those things. I know full well that we need vehicles that get better fuel mileage but the Prius just isn't what I would expect.

    It is all in what we are into that determines our preferences. If you have ever seen my carspace you can tell where I come from and what I like. Almost everyone I know that has a Prius is almost what I would call Anti enthusiast. But as was mentioned before it is Toyota's posters child for a movement. I see it as the end of our motoring glory days when we could drive whatever we wanted where ever we wanted without being concerned with what someone in Europe was doing. It is like we are leaving the golden era and entering the dark ages of motoring.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    Between the Prius and the Camry, maybe you and I could co-launch a new thread entitled "Is Toyota sucking the fun out of motoring in America?" ;-)

    Wanna hear something ironic? My folks are pretty much 100% now in their decision to trade in the Explorer for a Prius. How about that?!

    Oh yeah, and they are baby boomers and recently became empty nesters. Steve must be onto something there....

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    Man, you just described my image of the Prius and its drivers to a "T!" Hybrids don't have to look dorky but the Prius looks over-the-top dorky. The Prius is like that one dude in school who deliberately dressed and acted so much like a geek you just had to pound him.
  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    My brother is an outdoorsy type. He owned a 1989 Chevrolet S10 Blazer on which he put a riduculous amount of miles and currently owns a Jeep Cherokee Sport. Unlike too many SUV owners, his vehicles are regularly used off-road.

    Shoot, I already lived through autodom's dark age of the late 1970s through the early 1980s. I don't want to go through that again!
  • 1stpik1stpik Member Posts: 495
    "Is Toyota sucking the fun out of motoring in America?"

    No, OPEC is doing that. The $1.50/gallon gas tax they've imposed on us has caused consumer demand to shift from "fun" to "efficient."

    Toyota and Honda were ready for it. Unfortunately, the Big 3 weren't. Either way, the entire auto industry is in trouble.

    TOYOTA PREDICTS SLOW GROWTH

    DETROIT – Auto industry dynamo Toyota Motor Co. expects only 1 percent growth this year, another sign of a slide in the car business.

    In most years this decade, Toyota has grown an average of 8 to 10 percent.

    "It's pretty modest," the president of Toyota Motor Sales said. "It's driven by the whole credit crunch we're in, and oil prices are just compounding it."

    If Toyota expects minimal growth, other automakers could struggle for any gains, industry observers said.

    Last year, Toyota passed Ford Motor Co. in sales to become the No. 2 automaker in the U.S. Next week, the industry will learn whether Toyota has slipped past General Motors Corp. to become the largest automaker in worldwide sales – a distinction GM has held for 76 years.

    .
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,056
    Not to mention, many of the big ones are so hard to park that even at the mall, where the parking spaces are slant-in, people can't seem to get them in just one spot, but end up occupying two instead.

    That's not the fault of the SUV necessarily, that's just sucky driving. I see people do that all the time in vehicles of all sizes. I think it's bad enough when someone does it with a big vehicle, but with something small, there's just no excuse and it just smacks of entitlement.

    I do remember though, when my Mom & stepdad first got their Expedition, whenever they'd go anywhere they'd always park way out in the boonies, away from the other cars. Grandmom commented on it a few times that she always hated going anywhere with them when they drove that thing.

    you will have a vehicle you can actually fit between the lines at the mall parking lot, and you will present somewhat less of an obstacle to the forward sightlines of all the drivers in your wake.

    Aren't some "mini" vans pushing 80" in width these days? That's about as wide as any pickup truck, SUV, or car ever got. One you get above 80", I think some states require you to register your vehicle as a heavy-duty truck.

    I agree on the other points, though. Minivans are usually much better people haulers. A minivan can usually seat 6 big people with 2+2+2 seating, and 7 in a pinch. Most SUVs seem to be 2+3 at best, with a 3rd row best left for children or contortionists.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    "That's not the fault of the SUV necessarily, that's just sucky driving. I see people do that all the time in vehicles of all sizes. I think it's bad enough when someone does it with a big vehicle, but with something small, there's just no excuse and it just smacks of entitlement."

    Now andre, you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree here, as it seems like you are implying that there's no excuse for the driver of a small car to take up two spots, but there IS an excuse for the driver of a large vehicle to do so. Not in my book. If you can't properly maneuver the thing because it is too big for your abilities, that's a problem, and there's no excuse for it.

    And this IS a problem with the large SUVs, out there on the streets of America every day. But this was only one part of my point, so I won't belabor it.

    Hey, here's a contrast though: Explorers (and other large vision-blocking SUVs) are allowed to have (and generally do have) tinted windows at the rear, meaning that not only can I not see past them because of height and width, but I can't see THROUGH them, because of the tint. OTOH, it's easy to see through a Prius! (and not that hard to see over/around it too)

    Prius even has extra glass in the rear hatch, below the belt line, to make seeing through it even easier.

    As for the minivans, yeah some are pretty wide but none are as high as the BOF SUVs. They all have more interior space for cargo and passengers alike than even the biggest BOF SUVs, and are a lot easier for passengers to board too. The funny thing is, most of them will tow 3500 pounds too, so unless you are towing something big with that SUV, a minivan might do for you even if you DO tow.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    As for the minivans, yeah some are pretty wide but none are as high as the BOF SUVs

    I can fully understand your perspective on seeing around and through the larger vehicles on the road. I feel the same when I drive the old LS400. The width of my Sequoia is about an inch more than the Honda and Toyota mini vans. The Sequoia has better ground clearance which is one of my criteria for going out in the desert. I hated the clearance on my Passat and the LS400. You cannot go into many driveways without scraping the bottom of the vehicle. Even in a Sequoia there are 1000s of lifted vehicles that tower over me on the road. So I do not see any future for driving a small vehicle if you are interested in seeing more than one car ahead.

    You get a cheaper ride without the view. I am willing to pay several hundred thousand more for a home with a view. Same goes for my vehicles. The bus has a good side view.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    "The bus has a good side view."

    OK, you have piqued my curiosity: do you own a bus, or was that just a rhetorical statement? What do you use your bus for?

    Yeah, I appreciate your perspective regarding ground clearance, and certainly if you bought the Sequoia to go desert-running or do significant offroading, well, a minivan wouldn't have made the grade by a long shot!

    I just ask that in general, people examine what they bought their last SUV for and whether they actually ended up DOING any of those "rugged" things. If they didn't, the minivan or perhaps even a car like Prius (which seats four adults very comfortably) would probably be a better choice for the next purchase.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,056
    Now andre, you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree here, as it seems like you are implying that there's no excuse for the driver of a small car to take up two spots, but there IS an excuse for the driver of a large vehicle to do so. Not in my book. If you can't properly maneuver the thing because it is too big for your abilities, that's a problem, and there's no excuse for it.

    Sorry, I didn't mean it to come off that way. Basically, it's bad no matter WHO does it, but I'm trying to put the focus of the blame on the driver, and not just the vehicle. However, one of the advantages of a smaller car is supposed to be that it's more nimble. But if the driver STILL can't get it between the lines, then what's the point? If you have trouble getting a big vehicle parked properly, then you really need to learn how to drive it, so you don't inconvenience other people. However, if you have trouble parking something small properly, then you REALLY need to get a clue, that perhaps public transportation might be better suited to your needs!

    I guess it just annoys me to see a small car that's used in a similar fashion to a big car.

    However, one thing I DO have a problem with is substandard-sized parking spaces. Ages ago, I used to be able to parallel park my grandmother's '85 LeSabre, all 218" of it, in the spaces on the street in front of my building, with ease. However, the street has been restriped several times since then. Today, my Intrepid, at 203", won't even fully fit in those spaces. If centered properly, the nose and the rear of it barely overlap the painted lines on either end. They don't actually encroach into the other spaces, but it's tight enough that if I parked in one of those spots, I could easily be blocked in. And that happens to other people out there, on a regular basis. As for me, once I figured those spaces were no longer viable, I just parked in the lot, which has pull-in spots. Even with those, they've shrunken them about 5-6 inches, width-wise, over the years. Last time they re-painted, you could barely see where the old lines were.

    By losing 5-6 inches of width per pull-in space you might get what? Maybe one extra space for every 16-20 that you had before? IMO that's not much of a return for forcing people to park tighter together, risking more door dings and such.

    And width is one area where cars definitely have NOT shrunken down much. If anything, today's cars have bigger doors (many 4-door cars today have front doors on par with some of the old coupes of the 60's) than in the past. Plus, well, I don't need to make any comments about the fattening up of America, as plenty has been said on that subject. Just suffice to say that today's cars, coupled with today's passengers (I hesitate to call many of them "drivers"), adds up to a formula that needs just as much parking room as it ever did.

    Oh well, I guess it could be worse. I guess I should be thankful that these people who can't even park their little cars correctly didn't get a bigger vehicle. Just imagine the havoc and annoyance they would have created then! :P
  • boaz47boaz47 Member Posts: 2,747
    I understand your parents getting a Prius. I can see them trading in a SUV on one. I would have bought something else but that is just me. However it goes the other way as well. We have a young couple that just had a baby. The wife has had a WRX for about two years and the husband drives a Quad Cab Chevy. Well mommy decided the baby had to sit too close to the window in the car seat of the WRX so she wanted something else. I noticed she had been driving the Quad Cab. They looked at the Prius but decided it wouldn't cut it and bought an Edge. She buts the baby in the middle of the back seat and she doesn't miss the WRX at all. But then the Edge has all the bells and wistles as well. Heated seats and a Nav system and about everything else I could think of.

    Mini vans are good people haulers but like gagrice has said the seating position of the SUV has some advantages besides towing and the ability to go places a Mini van just can't.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I have No bus, I was referring to riding public transit for the view. Actually I did enjoy my trips to San Diego on the Trolley several years ago. I mostly had these big air conditioned cars to myself all the way downtown. Saved me $18 per day parking at the hotel where the conference was held.

    The Prius is out of the question. After watching them get tossed around in the wind on Interstate 8 I would not ride in one outside the city limits. The Odyssey is an interesting vehicle for sure. I went to test drive an EX-L and the dealer was so snooty I passed.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    I kind of view the Edge as just a differently shaped minivan with less space inside. Most folks could realize many of the advantages I mentioned simply by switching to a crossover (like Edge for instance) from a BOF.

    But as for this: "she doesn't miss the WRX at all."...is she crazy? Going from the fun of a WRX to the boredom of an Edge would have me missing the WRX all the time. I guess this is just the sacrifice enthusiasts with kids have to make...

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I think that many folks have traded the fun of driving for all the gadgets such as NAV. No matter what you drive there are compromises.
  • 1stpik1stpik Member Posts: 495
    The sacrifice you have to make is MONEY.

    Every time you have "fun" driving, OPEC has even more fun collecting its fee.
  • boaz47boaz47 Member Posts: 2,747
    Yes it is a matter of perspective. For me to give up something I might be able to take off road, even if I didn't, for a Prius would be as much of a disappointment as giving up a WRX would be to you. The Prius represents to me pretty much what the 70s cars did to those of us who had mussel cars. A time of performance regression and depressing vehicles. Did they get you from point A to point B? Yes they did but there was nothing special about getting there. Living in a era where gas was less that 50 cent a gallon and we had 426 Hemi powered Dodges was a impressive time. Today reminds me of the song American Pie.

    I am not dissing anyone that buys a Prius as much as I am venting about how plain that car is. We talk about people getting too big of vehicles for 90 percent of their driving but the only fun you can have in a Prius is at the pump so 99 percent of the time you are in one you are not having enjoying yourself. Unless you enjoy slow non responsive vehicles that can only get you from Point A to point B. Just how I see it.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 26,056
    I am not dissing anyone that buys a Prius as much as I am venting about how plain that car is. We talk about people getting too big of vehicles for 90 percent of their driving but the only fun you can have in a Prius is at the pump so 99 percent of the time you are in one you are not having enjoying yourself. Unless you enjoy slow non responsive vehicles that can only get you from Point A to point B. Just how I see it.

    Heck, in most of my driving situations, I don't even get a chance to push my '85 Silverado to anywhere near its limit, much less a performance car. There's just too much traffic, congestion, intersections, pedestrians, cops, etc.

    I think one advantage of a little car though, is that you often feel like you're going faster than you really are, so that might give you a bit of a go-kart type experience. Rolling along at 80-85 mph in my uncle's Corolla is an eye opener. Doing it in a big car is often a yawn inducer. Even in my pickup truck, those speeds feel like you're going slow, although wind resistance is bad enough that it gets noisy.
  • 1stpik1stpik Member Posts: 495
    "... those of us who had mussel cars."

    Do mussel cars have clamshell doors?

    .
  • boaz47boaz47 Member Posts: 2,747
    Lol..Well that is the problem of not using spell check.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    "Unless you enjoy slow non responsive vehicles that can only get you from Point A to point B. Just how I see it."

    I think Prius sells well to people who primarily want a comfortable quiet ride. Indeed, that is in line with the primary promise of most (all?) Toyotas these days, and we both know they are not hurting for sales.

    The Prius is not for me, no question there, but I can see why it sells well, and it is pretty much for the same reason the Camry sells well. It is the almost-Camry for people who want superlative fuel economy.

    No way could Honda or Subaru have as much success selling Prius as Toyota does. It fits the Toyota mold, not that of the other two.

    In 18 months Honda will be selling a 3-door Prius with real sport built in and better fuel economy - it will be called the CRZ. ;-)

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • boaz47boaz47 Member Posts: 2,747
    "In 18 months Honda will be selling a 3-door Prius with real sport built in and better fuel economy - it will be called the CRZ."

    well we shall see I suppose. But I can't see any Prius owners switching, they might be worried that their pocket protector would fly off in a corner. ;)
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    Well by contrast with the Prius, the CRZ will actually look attractive, and will ride much too noisily and stiffly for those coddled Prius drivers...

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,963
    55 MPH speed limits are such a bad idea that legalizing Lorena Bobbit like attacks would be a better move than going back to 55. I'd rather have a 100 MPH speed limit.
    '18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    euphonium: Your comment was repeated after WWI as then it was thought the machine gun was too horrible of a weapon, but look what happend a few decades later. I would like to believe your crystal ball image, but my military background says to be more realistic.

    The machine gun was horrible for the troops fighting the war.

    Nuclear weapons would be horrible for everyone - troops and civilians (not to mention water supplies and the soil). Considerable difference.

    euphonium: Final Word: When fuel is needed to fight a war, it will be rationed. When it is rationed, the speed limit will be 55 or less. The Military has prior claim and the Military will be honored.

    During World War II there was never a shortage of gasoline. In some cities, unused gasoline was dumped into rivers (this being the era prior to the formation of the EPA).

    Gasoline was rationed to prevent driving in order to conserve rubber. The U.S. was worried about being cut off from South American rubber plantations. Tires were virtually impossible to buy during World War II. There was a shortage of rubber.

    Given that this scenario isn't anywhere close to happening with gasoline, and that tires last MUCH longer today, any enthusiasm for the return of the dubious 55 mph speed limit is wildly premature, especially given its ineffectiveness in other areas.
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,592
    Gasoline was rationed to prevent driving in order to conserve rubber.

    The major issue with gas in the beginning of the war was there was no real way to get it from where it was like the Gulf to where it was needed like the northeast without shipping it up the east coast. The major problem with that is that German U-boats were sinking our ships like there was no tomorrow.

    2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • euphoniumeuphonium Member Posts: 3,425
    That we failed to "black out" our coastal towns and cities enabled the sinkings to occur at night as the tankers were silouetted agains the lights of the cities.

    I believe there was an Admiral King who was in command that did nothing about the U boats and he was deflagged.
  • euphoniumeuphonium Member Posts: 3,425
    I retrack my last sentence about Admiral King as I don't believe that was his correct name who was responsible for tanker escorts on the East Coast.
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,592
    yeah that was another bad thing not blacking out the East Coast cities as most ships were lost within sight of shore.

    Realistically we had a second rate navy at the start of the war and until we got up and running all our attempts of stopping the U-Boats were feeble.

    2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • lemkolemko Member Posts: 15,261
    Not only did we have a second-rate navy, but a third-rate army. Before the war, soldiers were training with broomsticks in lieu of rifles and "tanks" were trucks with the word "TANK" painted on a wooden plank on them. At that time I believe the United States only had the 10th largest army in the world.
  • kdhspyderkdhspyder Member Posts: 7,160
    But you're looking at the situation from only one perspective.. strong performance vehcles of the 90's vs the Prius which is relatively boring and plain.

    Now look at it from another perspective, which actually might be the more popular ( meaning more numerous ) pov. The Prius is far more vehicle than anything I ever owned or drove in the entire period of the 80s or 90s. It has better acceleration, more safety features, more room, more utility and more gadgets than any other vehicle I've owned over the last 25 years. It's far quicker than the plodding Olds and LHS I had, but not as fast in a drag race.

    It is far far far more trouble-free....and it gets 48 mpg like clockwork.

    I admit that coming from a different 'fleet' of vehicles I might have a different perspective but to me all my vehicles are just tools. I drive them for 30000-40000 miles annually for 5 or 6 years, ding them, bump them, use them like a capenter uses a hammer then replace and repeat. As long as this tool does the same work as a carpenter's hammer day in and day out at little or no cost it's served its purpose.
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.