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.
Comments
The AWD is "only" rated at 29 highway.
It's funny how that engineering can make such a difference. My 3400 pound Eclipse with a heavy cast-iron block 3.8L gets 23/30 mpg. My wife's PT Crusier at 3200 pounds and a 2.4L so far gets about 19/25.
American car companies seem to not try to advance their technologies until mandated by the government. I wonder why.
To be fair to Chrysler, they do have a more modern 2.4L in production now (developed with Hyundai and Mitsubishi) that's better.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Recent surveys show Americans cooling to global warming, and they're even less keen on environmental policies they believe might raise power bills or imperil jobs. Those sentiments could mean a tougher road ahead for elected officials looking to fund investments in renewable power or install a carbon cap-and-trade system.
"Right now, Americans are more concerned about the economy than the environment," said Frank Newport, editor-in-chief of the Gallup Poll. "The politician who says, 'I'm going to cripple jobs and shut down factories' would be in trouble in this economy."
WHAT THE NUMBERS SAY
Here's what Gallup found: The number of Americans who say the media have exaggerated global warming jumped to a record 41 percent in 2009, up from 35 percent a year ago. The most marked increase came among political independents, whose ranks of doubters swelled from 33 percent to 44 percent. Republican doubters grew from 59 percent to 66 percent, while Democratic skeptics stayed at around 20 percent.
What's more, fewer Americans believe the effects of global warming have started to occur: 53 percent see signs of a hotter planet, down from 61 percent in 2008. Global warming placed last among eight environmental concerns Gallup asked respondents to rank, with water pollution landing the top spot.
Another recent Gallup study found that, for the first time in 25 years of polling, more Americans care about economic growth than the environment. Just 42 percent of people surveyed said the environment takes precedence over growth, while 51 percent asserted expansion carries more weight. That reverses results from 2008, when 49 percent of respondents said the environment was paramount and 42 percent said economic growth came first. In 1985, the poll's first year, 61 percent placed a bigger priority on the environment, while 28 percent ranked economic growth highest.
As the reality of what the Liberals are trying to do to our lifestyle sinks in, those numbers will become even more negative toward Man Made GW/CC and the environment. Al Gore and company could be pushing people away from good stewardship of our planet with their crazy GW theories.
http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-08/skeptical-environmentalist-thr- ows-his-weight-behind-geoengineering?page=
This story is one of the most bizarre stories I have seen in years. Bjorn Lomborg wants to create a fleet of ships to tackle a problem he doesn't think is a problem. And he thinks 1,900 ships will fix the problem? Apparently the thousands of power plants, 800 million cars, tens of thousands of ships, trains and airplanes aren't influencing climate in a significant way, YET, just 1,900 ships will solve the problem.
I guess we can just shut down the forum now because even if cars are a significant cause of global warming we can just build a few more boats. [insert Bob Newhart sarcasm icon right here]
How many thousands of power plants are there in the world already generating steam from cooling towers and from fossil fuels? If you look at building just 20 or 30 nuclear plants with their associated cooling towers you would likely generate more steam. How much energy could one boat generate? A Nuclear plant could create hundreds of megawatts of heat to vaporize water. All we need to do is borrow the floating nuke plants the Russians want to build.
I am going to sleep well tonight knowing that the problem has been solved. [insert second Bob Newhart sarcasm icon right here]
This whole thing reminds me of a really bad science experiment - one where the rat experiments on himself.
Just like for all the Prius's running around in LA LA LAND since 2003 or 7 years, there are no measurable results, let alone discern able or even statistically correlated results !!!! Sure DiCaprio et al, FEEL better. But you know in basic experimental design taught in high school, they call that the placebo effect.
No one can say former President Bill Clinton doesn’t know how to throw a birthday party for former President Bill Clinton.
Mr. Clinton is in Las Vegas on Monday as one of the marquee speakers at the National Clean Energy Summit, put together by Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader. The event has drawn a pretty impressive turn-out, from former Vice President Al Gore to the wealthy oilman T. Boone Pickens.
But it became clear that something else was afoot in this sweltering desert city when some of Mr. Clinton’s friends – the kind who would appear not to have a particular interest or expertise in the kind of summit Mr. Reid has arranged – were spotted on the Vegas strip.
Turns out Mr. Clinton decided to celebrate his 63rd birthday with a dinner at one of this city’s hottest – and most pricey – restaurants: Craftsteak at the MGM Grand hotel. How pricey? The 8-ounce wagyu New York strip steak goes for $240. (Potatoes and other sides are extra.)
As of Monday afternoon, it is not clear that Mr. Gore – who appears to have had something of a rapprochement with Mr. Clinton after the North Korea rescue mission – was going to be on hand. One of Mr. Clinton’s friends said they were told that Mr. Gore was leaving town after today’s summit and would not be able to attend the night’s festivities.
Anyone want to guess who paid for the $240 steak dinners? Poor Al Gore gets snubbed on the free steak dinner. Would you want Gore at your festive occasion? Talk about a downer. Not to mention the fact that the conference is in direct defiance of his majesty King Barry. Will he fire his labor secretary for going and speaking at the conference?
There's a libertarian physicist who thinks it's already too late to avoid a disaster. He says he's just a layman as far as climate change goes, but it's a fun video (or you can just skim the text).
"The world is buzzing at the moment with plans to force reductions in gas emissions at all costs. It ought to be buzzing with plans to reduce the temperature, and with plans to live at the higher temperature. And not at all costs, but efficiently and cheaply."
David Deutsch on TEDTalks (Ted.com)
If you read the comments that follow the article you see what the author of the article glossed over. The "Skeptical Environmentalist" was not a (gasp) denier but was just trying to propose less bankrupting solutions to the possible problem.
I don't know if his fleet of ships will have any effect but I'd rather spend 9 billion and find out it doesn't work than spend 250 billion for the same failure.
BTW, my personal preference is to spread iron on the oceans to encourage algae growth.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Ah, now that would be a CO2 sink for sure. The downside can be seen in the Gulf of Mexico "dead zone". Where fertilizer runoff has caused a gigantic algae bloom that has decimated the shrimp and fish population. I think algae is best grown in the desert under controlled circumstances.
For those that believe the ocean will rise and they insist on living in the area. I suggest building your own dike. Don't ask me to pay for it. I don't like rebuilding homes along the coast every time a hurricane blows them down either. That goes for New Orleans and Galveston. That is their problem of their creation and not mine.
If the gubmint wants me to use less fuel, quit blocking the means to that end.
It truly shows who the REAL "deniers" are !!
Part of those include the folks that made and enforced having leaded fuel far longer than needed, forced MTBE, and FORCED massively higher levels of sulfur in D2 for construction, farming, air travel, all manners of shipping, etc etc. yet only recently Oct 2006, mandated less than 15 ppm D2. (actual is now 15-5 ppm, bio diesel is as good as ZERO ppm) for almost non existent diesel passenger cars (2% max) In contrast the overwhelmingly preferred and less efficient RUG to PUG fuel can approach nominally (exists in name only) 30 ppm sulfur with off line mitigations FROM 90 ppm. So therefore the preferred fuel RUG to PUG (used by 98% of the passenger vehicle fleet) can be 18 times dirtier than D2. It can be 90 times dirtier than bio diesel !!! (@ 1 ppm sulfur)
Are you COMPLETELY kidding?
Every Prius on the road, or at least about 98% of them, is in place of a more polluting car.
It does not take a $1 million study to see the common sense conclusion: air pollution has been lessened compared to what it WOULD have been had the dirtier cars been on the road.
Puh-Leeze don't insult our intelligence by pretending to assume that cleaner cars in place of more polluting cars does not mean cleaner air.
ALL YOU have to do is post complete links to studies that have ACTUALLY been done !!??
Or do you really want to insult everyone intelligence that follows the REAL deniers point of view?
Further as dirty as the air is in LA LA county, (the assumptions are of human causes) there are absolutely ZERO plans to stop (human)/to reverse long term growth. In fact, AZ, CA, TX, etc. which from the GW folk's perspective suffer from human growth, which should be capped and decreased HAVE the most porous borders !!! INS projects up to 8 to 10 M undocumented folks in the USA. My take is the projections are wildly conservative. The GW folks do not support deportation, when procedurally discovered !!??
I do not believe you can prove a net decrease in the world wide pollution by replacing a perfectly good 1995 Ford Explorer with a new Prius. You got the data spit it out. I will read it. This whole stimulus was to get rid of new vehicles on the dealers lots. To make room for more and boost production. Cutting the use of fossil fuel will be an insignificant benefit. With the number one new C4C vehicle being the Ford Escape there could be as little as 2 MPG gain to make the deal. In the case of work trucks they only have to match the weight to qualify. They could get less mileage as that is not a factor in the CARS program rules. The gains in many vehicles emissions wise over the last 10 years is also insignificant. We reached the point of diminishing returns in the 1990s.
Cleaner car replaces dirtier car = cleaner air.
'Nuff said.
I don't need "proof" because I possess common sense.
"Cleaner car replaces dirtier car = cleaner air."
Both you and ruking1 are smart enough to know it's true, but admitting it goes against your agenda, so you cannot do so.
'Nuff said.
I am perplexed however, that you see NO danger here, constitutional and otherwise and more to our point, "environmental" ??
The numbers I saw last say a 53% increase in mileage across the program.
The late 1990s Ford Exploders are the number one car being taken off the road. That alone will save lives.
Trucks win in Cash for Clunkers game
Because of distorted sales figures, Ford's Escape cross-over SUV, not the Focus small car, tops the list for most popular 'clunker' buy.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- What are people trading their clunkers in for? It depends on who you ask.
The government's results showed small cars as the top choice for shoppers looking for Cash for Clunker deals. But an independent analysis by Edmunds.com disputed those results, and showed that two full-size trucks and a small crossover SUV were actually among the top-ten buys.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/07/autos/cash_for_clunkers_sales/index.htm
That means you can trade in a 1990s Explorer getting 18 MPG for an Escape getting 20 MPG. You can trade in a 1990 F250 on a new F250 fire breathing monster truck that gets even less than the one you traded in. Again an insignificant gain in fuel usage and emissions output. Not to mention the monstrous gain in pollution manufacturing the new vehicles. Something you Enviro types don't like to see or admit to. Keeping an older vehicle in good condition is far better environmentally than buying the latest vehicles pushed out by the auto makers. That being said I have to go down and pay the crooks at the Smog test place to get the license renewed on our LS400.
Let's see, you have a 20 year old Lexus, grow a lot of your own food, eat local, avoid the junk like HFCS. You're pretty green - don't be so hard on yourself.
.."You're pretty green - don't be so hard on yourself"...
I can't speak for Gagrice, but I have been "there" for 40 years (over actually if you count the Haight Asbury days). Bikes instead of electrified public transportation or leaded gas use.... etc. etc. yada, yada.... Now keep in mind that riding a bike was indeed a labor of.... (whatever you wish to call it) Mass transportation was .05 cents @ the time. A bike cost REAL money up front. So for example, a 100 dollar bike/.05 cents = 2000 rides or 1000 round trips. So it took you almost 2 years to break even over mass transportation.
So it's a win for clean air regardless.
People still love them some SUVs looks like.
Sad.
link title
So I guess a reasonable notice would be if the trains do not show up at your preferred stations.... you might conclude it might be due to a strike and you have been reasonably notified? :lemon:
But here is an interesting take on how local mass transportation really works
link title
Now I have heard from several reliable sources that drivers can take this "category of paid leave" up to 18 times in a year without even NOTIFYING management they will not be coming into work that day (no consequences) Of course the passing of a year resets that to ZERO.
No one is much interested in your "common sense". We need foolproof, no nonsense, scientific method approved bonafide PROOF, else those of us here who abide by the scientific method will continue to deride and dismiss your assertions.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Government agencies have historically follow the "lose the horse from the barn first and then lock it down after the horse has long disappeared" (so that NOTHING now can disappear... (certain irony in this...?) policy. So I take it there was no deviation from this time honored and proven... policy. :lemon:
Dirtier car not on road, replaced by cleaner car.
Air gets cleaner.
There is nothing to debate.
Anyone who does not see this logic is lying to themselves.
While I know almost exactly what you mean, would you care to put the question in context, so I don't explain how a clock is made, when you were really calling for the time hack.
"None are so fallible as those who are sure that they are right"!
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I'm talking about the "all the Priuses in the world have not produced cleaner air" comment.
The C4C program forum is somewhere else.
Cleaner car replaces dirtier car = cleaner air.
My statement stands, as it tain't necessarily so. It depends on the miles being driven.
Keep squirming !!
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Air gets cleaner.
There is nothing to debate.
You are assuming that a 10-20 year old car is "Dirtier". My question is how much and is it dirtier than the pollution put out to build the new car? Until you can prove that the new car in its totality has polluted less your common sense means nothing.
Just returned from the smog guys:
1990 LS400 results:
15 MPH test
HC (ppm) max allowed 102 average 31, LS400 1
CO% Max allowed 0.68 average 0.10 LS400 0.00
NO (ppm) max allowed 748 average 237 LS400 10
25 MPH test: LS400 all zeros.
Smog tester claims the difference between my 20 year old Lexus and a 5 year old Lexus of that size is impossible to calculate. In other words way below their test equipment.
I have posted the facts enough times. The HC, PM and SoX emitted during the manufacturing of a vehicle far surpasses what that car will put out in its normal 150K miles of driving. So go ahead and justify in your own mind buying new at every whim. That does not change the facts. The longer you keep a car in good operating condition the better it is for the environment. C4C was strictly an economic booster with a vail of green thrown over it. Will do nothing to curb GW.
Not squirming.
I was and am not even talking about C4C. Someone else brought C4C into the equation, which is really a topic for another forum.
My statement stands: Anyone who bought a hybrid other that virtually ANY OTHER CAR ( Civix GX excluded) is polluting the air less than they would have been, almost every time.
Whether is has been "measured" or not.
Clean car (doing the same thing) that replaces dirtier car = cleaner air.
It's as simple as that.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I'm looking out the window toward the ocean. Clear 30 mile view today without any clouds. The air around here has been clean and clear for at least a couple decades. Since we got rid of leaded gas and the basic Catalytic converter. Long before the Prius and all the wasted money on finite gains in emissions. Gains that are used to keep jobs in the EPA and CARB. You think if they were to say hey, PZEV is clean enough they would have any reason to keep the EPA? No, so now the EPA jumps on the GW scam. Ah, a way to keep our jobs into perpetuity. As long as people, cows and cars are around we can milk this CO2 business forever
We have far surpassed the point of diminishing returns with regard to pollution in cars. Now if we could just get rid of the waste in Government and limit how long the leeches can spend in Congress, we will be making progress.
Speaking of measurable results, it will be interesting to see how the recent worldwide recession impacts the CO2 numbers they measure in Hawaii. In a year or two we should see an impact, if not...
Ricky Ricardo: Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to do!
Don't you just love being in a huge science experiment, the twists, the turns, the sheer volume of data...ah, to be a young graduate student again. :shades:
You are in Hawaii today?
The air in San Diego is much better than 1975, but "clean and clear?"
Tell that to someone who does not travel as often to Cali as I do, my friend.
When I was last on Coronado Island, the view was awful because of smog.
Same in San Fran, Corona Del Mar, and Oxnard, other Cali locations I have visited in the last 4 years.
Better than the leaded gas days? For SURE.
"Clean and Clear" ??? Not a chance !!!
You did not include a sarcasm icon so I'll assume you think it is OK. The last I heard was that the first go around did not work. My major concern about this or any other grand experiment is that we still do not have enough understanding of the issue to try a solution on the scale some people are proposing.
I think the idea is that the carbon goes to the bottom of the ocean where it supposedly doesn't matter. The problem with this scheme is that they do not understand how the organisms on the bottom of the ocean will react to all this new found organic material. If the oxygen levels plummet we could be left with a lot of anaerobic bacteria. They produce methane which is a more dangerous gas than CO2 from a global warming standpoint. Will that gas make it to the surface? We certainly do not know enough about the ocean to try such a foolish experiment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaerobic_digestion
"...we still do not have enough understanding of the issue to try a solution on the scale some people are proposing..."
That's how I feel about schemes like cap & trade. I worry that in the attempt to do good we will do great harm. (note that there is no sarcasm icon)
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
The air in San Diego is much better than 1975, but "clean and clear?"
Actually my last few times in Hawaii the air was less than clear. The man made volcanic VOG was toxic. People were advised to stay indoors. Sulfur levels coming from Kilauea were real bad. I am surprised this Congress has not passed a bill to prevent this from happening. :shades:
Having lived in So California off and on since 1943, this is a good as I have ever seen it. I moved to Alaska in 1970 and dirty air and too many people were tops on my list. I came back on a regular basis in 1986 and the difference was dramatic. Only place I know that is still horrible is San Bernardino. They get the dirty air coming from the ships in the LA & LB harbor. Something CARB has not done much to alleviate.
When you can see the sun glittering off the ocean from 32 air miles, I consider that pretty darn clear. I can see the Pt Loma light house with my naked eyes. Much of the brown haze is from dust. Much of it from unbridled building. You know all about that in Phoenix. Where two mile visibility is a wonderful day in PHX.