I know that routine. We have them for the library run, church, picnics etc. We keep a bunch for groceries though. I used to give them away. Now I am hording them, as the crap they sell in the stores won't even carry a 10 lb bag of potatoes without the handles falling off. I have never had a handle rip loose from the heavy ones we have. If I remember right the company was very adamant about buying bags made in the USA. it is real heavy canvas. One of the perks of the job. Always a bunch left that ended up back down here.
I suppose we do worry about bacteria a lot. The recent egg thing got me to thinking even more about buying locally grown produce, eggs etc.
8 or 10 of our heavy canvas bags is a load unto itself. My wife always has a full load before doing laundry. So it does take a percentage of the water and soap. Nice try to justify the waste. So it does cost environmentally. Probably more than the plastic grocery bags. My wife was saying when she spent some months in Israel, they use plastic and put each different item in a bag by itself. Probably something to do with their Kosher laws.
I will still use them. Just do not consider them as eco friendly as the blind Eco Nuts would like US to believe.
Well it's not just "cheap gas". Stories like this certainly make me think twice of the possible extra expenses and problems getting parts, once the warranties are over.
With a Sonata getting 35 mpg, why does the average person want to run out and buy a $30K Ford Fusion hybrid? I remember having several actual combined 40mpg cars in the 80's - a Ford Escort, a Nissan Sentra, and a Civic CRX; imagine what could be done for mpg if they just took that basic design and employed the latest engine technology like direct-injection to them. Simple, high mpg cars could get us Prius mpg, without the need for all the gee-whiz complexity.
With a Sonata getting 35 mpg, why does the average person want to run out and buy a $30K Ford Fusion hybrid?
Yeah, the idea of getting a hybrid or an all-electric is seeming slimmer and slimmer to me all the time. Especially when I saw that Toyota is putting out this in Nov. of 2011.
2012 Toyota Celica
And, with RWD, a 170hp Subaru horizontally-mounted boxer engine, and a 6-speed manual tranny, Toyota is promising 35mpg! So why go electric or hybrid? I'm thinkin' I'm gonna trade for one of these Celica's in Nov.'11. Hotter than hell.
After all, the Celica is really the only Toyota motorcar I've really consistently liked throughout the years.
Iluv, you will be hating that car before they ever hit our shores. I can tell you that front dam will be trashed the first time your wife takes it to the grocery store and it hits the bumper.
By the time that car gets here the Eco Nuts will have outlawed the IC for cars. It will be pedal power for you my friend.
kernick says, " remember having several actual combined 40mpg cars in the 80's - a Ford Escort, a Nissan Sentra, and a Civic CRX; imagine what could be done for mpg if they just took that basic design and employed the latest engine technology like direct-injection to them."
Your comment is a textbook case of "easier said than done."
You can't make cars like those any more. Those 80s cars do not have the safety features required for today's modern regulations.
Don't you think if it were "easy" to produce a lineup of 40+ MPG, affordable, SAFE, desirable cars, that someone would have done it already and taken the market by storm?
Those 80s cars do not have the safety features required for today's modern regulations.
While safety may add a bit of weight to the current vehicles. I think it is the consumer wants more room and power today. The 1990 CRX was 148 inches long and 2174 lbs. The 2009 Civic coupe is 175 inches long and 2700+ lbs. We have given up MPG for comfort and emissions control. I doubt seriously the current Civic coupe is as much fun to drive as the CRX. So we have compromised and MPG is the loser. Emissions alone can kill mileage by 20% or more.
You can't make cars like those any more. Those 80s cars do not have the safety features required for today's modern regulations.
Sure I know that. I just wanted to make sure we all understood that our governemnt and society has decided that it's better to use more energy and produce more CO2, to improve safety. Our regulators have said improve safety regardless that the weight additions cause more fuel to be used.
Doesn't it seem illogical to you though that the government then allows millions of people to ride motorcycles which are no where near as safe as the 80's designs. I can ride a small motorcycle with no seatbelt (of course) no airbag, no ABS, and in my state - no helmet, but I can't buy a new car like my old '88 CRX. And you wonder why many of us think question the sanity of our leaders!
And "The Fusion comes standard with anti-lock disc brakes, stability control and six airbags. The Sonata adds traction control and active front head restraints. Of the two, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety likes the Sonata better, labeling it a "Top Safety Pick" for the year.
5. Hybrids have never make purely economic sense. But they fulfill a need for some people.
I'm going to be looking at a new Mini in a year or 2, as thye have a 2 seater coupe coming out. I know it's relatively unsafe in an accident, but those small cars are fun to drive. I've been kicking around the idea of a nice '05 Lotus Elise for sale nearby, but it does sound a little too-raw.
I think one of the big differences in mpg has been the blending of 10% ethanol into the gas. It seems to have reduced more than just what's proportional. Mpg should have gone down 1-2% based on energy content, but typical has been 1-2 mpg which is 5-10% reduction in mpg. In my mind ethanol in the gas, is like having put Diet Coke in your Coke. It's effect is "a filler" and that's about it. Certainly the ethanol burns, but somthing in the chemistry and engine control management that compensates, is hurting the mpg.
Well, you got me on the one........in some fairness to me, however, they were comparing the NEWLY redesigned 2011 Sonata to the "couple of years stale" Fusion hybrid.
And the Fusion Hybrid does have this distinction: At 41 miles per gallon, the Fusion Hybrid is the most fuel-efficient mid-size sedan in America. That turns a few heads.
My other points still stand though.....
By the way - in researching this post, I found that there are now 28 different hybrids for sale in the USA. WOW. That's a big number.
September sales for each car are as such:
1,671 FFH 20,639 Sonata
So apparently, more people think the Sonata is a good idea.
P.S. I just noticed the 2011 Sonata is going to be available with a HYBRID drivetrain? If true, well that certainly settles this argument. Sonata all the way. . . .
My annual commute to work needs 220 gallons in my 4 cyl car and I travel 31 mph avg speed. If my commute distance doubled and the price of gas doubled, a 47 mpg hybrid would save me $72 a month at the pump. But for now, that possible savings is only $19 a month and I don't plan on moving again and the economy would go into deep depression with $5.36 gas. I would have to be in my car for at least 3 hours a day to justify a hybrid and then the space and comfort of a hybrid would have to be such that I could put up with that much time spent sitting in it.
Remember when it took $100 to fill up a pickup truck? Hybrids sold well that month. How are oil companies doing now with 10% unemployment? I can't believe a 'summer driving season' could actually be felt this year or last.
Yes the Sonata wil be getting a hybrid version, and if there is the same increase that the Ford Fusion sees, then the Sonata hybrid will be getting about 45mpg.
The Sonata hybrid should have good initial economics; primarily because Hyundai hasn't made and sold any hybrids here in the states, and the U.S. government will be giving a tax credit. That tax credit will make up a good portion of the price difference. But for most people, the extra mpg just doesn't make financial sense. If you burn 20 or 22 gal/month doesn't make a big difference. Saving $10/month does not makeup for laying out the thousands $ more to save that $10/month.
Batteries add substantial weight which is an enemy of getting optimal mpg, and the whole hybrid system, which may be reliable, does increase the probability of something going wrong and needing replacement and repair. Meaning that if I take car A and add 100 more parts (for the hybrid), the chances of stuff going wrong and my repair costs goes up. When gas hits $7/gal, they might make sense. But then as we saw 2 years ago, gas can't go that high with our current social and economic structure, as the high cost ruins the economy.
Well, I'm not going to go into the detailed economics of the hybrid decision.
However: more than a million buyers around the world don't care too much about the overall bottom dollar, but do seem to just appreciate seeing that 700+ miles on a tank and that low total dollar number when filling up at the pump.
Apparently, that's enough to sell plenty of high-mileage hybrid cars.
P.S. Then you have the case of the new Lincoln hybrid, which sells for the exact same price as the non-hybrid version. No bad economics there at all.
larsb, my 11 year old grandson asked me a question the other day and all I could do was scratch my head. I know you are an expert on all things climate so I will see if you can answer his question. It was something like this:
If putting more particulate matter etc. in the atmosphere causes the earth to warm, why would we have a nuclear winter in the event of nuclear war?
Oh, the chance to edu-micate a kid !! Love Those !!! :shades:
Answer:
Because that (a Nuclear Winter) would be virtually a TOTAL blockage of the Sun.
In addition, "Particulate matter" in the air per se does not directly affect the climate as in "causes warming" because if it did, areas with high levels of diesel exhaust would have higher temps than other locales merely because of the PM in the air.
I watched a documentary called 'Global Dimming'. They have factual proof that PM in the air cuts down the intensity of the sun. This reduces evaporation and thus the steadily declining rainfall over the equator (Sahara, India). It (PM in the air)counterbalances greenhouse gasses and there is only a slightly warmer result lately. They go on to say that if we reduce PM, the greenhouse effect will increase. So they conclude we shouldn't cut down on PM. Volcanoes put a huge amount into the air. Us cutting down could easily be counterbalanced by one big eruption.
If I read the same article you did the gist was the more industry putting out PM the better for counteracting the other GHG emissions. In other words coal powered generation blocks the sun and keeps the earth cooler.
If a car loses 50% of it's value by 50,000 miles and it is a 700+ mile per tank hybrid, then it takes only 70 tanks of gas to lose 50% of it's value. Each tank of gas could be $200 in value lost to total $14k depreciation in 50,000 miles. About 50% for a $28k msrp hybrid.
So dropping only $35 into the gas tank feels good but you probably don't want to be reminded that almost $200 in depreciation, just for that single tank of gas, just happened. So far, over a million people can do this. Some will argue that Hybrids are still worth 50% of msrp at 100,000 miles. Great, then they only depreciated $100 per tank.
My gas guzzler is as bad as a hybrid. In 80 tanks of gas, my 4X4 has lost $13,000 from depreciation. That is $162 per tank. Almost 50 cents a mile.
They measured rates of evap in the Israeli desert constantly since about 1972 and have prrof that the rate of evaporation is constantly being steadily reduced at the same location at the same time of the same day under cloudless conditions across all 37 years. This was suspected 37 years ago and the study is still ongoing. Everyone starving in Kenya didn't start 5 years ago. Scientists want to know why each drought is worse than the one before. They found their answer. Since the US puts out the PM, Kenya probably wants us to truck in water to compensate them for us wrecking their climate. Clouds forming in the Indian Ocean drop rain on Kenya. Less rainclouds due to less evap.
At this point, just guessing, I'd venture to guess that both India and China (who don't have the Clean Air regs we have) put out far more PM than the good ole' USA.
Well, EVERY car depreciates. Some more quickly than others, but if you are worried about depreciation, you need to drive a collectible car.
Here's my philosophy:
1. For the most part, I'm ALWAYS going to have a car payment. Because I like having cars under WARRANTY, where I will never have to shell out $1500 for a new compressor.
2. I'm always going to have comprehensive and liability insurance on that car.
3. If I'm going to have a car payment ANYWAY (established in Point #1 above) then I might as well drive a car which is cheap to refuel and fairly decently low-priced to insure, although I put "lower gasoline usage" at a much higher priority than insurance, because again, see Point #2.
4. Since I enjoy lower operating costs, I might as well trumpet this system, which works so well for me, to others, so that they TOO might enjoy the pleasure I get from 550-700 miles per tank experiences.
5. I dislike air pollution (and creating it) so I want to drive a low-emission car. For the most part (exceptions exist) the current high-mileage hybrids for sale in the USA are right at or near the top of that list. My last two cars have both been AT-PZEV, and I will continue that trend with whatever my next car is.
So that leaves me with the choice of a high-mileage hybrid or a high-mileage clean diesel sedan. And since my last car purchase was in June 2006, when VW did not have any Jetta TDIs available in my area, I had to go with the TCH since I have two kids who are growing fast.
That to me is the scary part. Not having any car payments over the last 12 years, I can tell you it is nice to not be helping the bankers get richer. If you were to keep that car for 3-4 years past your payoff and just save the same amount you could break that habit, and move into the ranks of the fiscal conservatives.
PS Don't give me the 0% or 2.9% nonsense. They are a joke. Those come on rates are in lieu of other discounts. Beat em down till they bleed and pay cash.
Speaking of LEDs. I went to Home Depot yesterday. The LED flood lights I would need over my sink were $64.95 each. With tax it would be $141.27 to replace the two CFL bulbs currently in there. No way that would fit my conservative life style.
Gary, The last time I did not have a car payment was in 1991.
I'm FINALLY (I hope) going to pay off this TCH to zero with the next 20 months, and I will again see what it was like not having a car payment. Hard to remember that feeling after 19 years.
On the LED bulbs - WOW That's CRAZY HIGH !!! Shop Costco or Sam's Club and see what they have.
They only sell one flood light at Sam's. They seem to be out of stock at the only two locations in our county. And I don't have a membership. Costco does not list any. And the reviews are not so good on those Sam's club LED floods. So keep us posted on your experience. I think I will wait until they get the technology perfected.
I bought 2 of these lights. One stays on all the time while the other is used less often. The one that is constantly on is now very dim. It is much, much less bright than the one that is not used as often. Some of the LED do not come on at all and the rest are not very bright. It is not even bright enough to use as a night light.
Waste of money I am going to try to return the bulb to LOA or Sams.
I am on my third LED Flood and it too failed after about a month. The bulbs start flickering in a pie shaped order. 25% at first flicker then die, then the next 25% and after the third 25% I threw the bulb out. I had exchanged the first 2 dead bulbs but got fed up and threw the third in the garbage. I have other (smaller) LOA bulbs which seem to work fine so am assuming its the build quality on this particular bulb which is bad. It gives off Great Bright Light in the beginning but who cares if it only lasts a month. Also, I used it inside and out on separate bulbs and it didn't make a difference so environmental factors can't be blamed.
according to my DIC, The miles on my tank and the gas left total 490 miles for my 2.5 Liter car. Depreciation per tank for it is around $125. Fill ups avg 13 gallons. That is almost $10 per gallon in depreciation. Maybe $17 depreciation per gallon in a Prius. How does this compare to the 54 cents per mile that the gov allows for business travel? That's $270 for a 500 mile tank. 80 for gas, 10 for tires, 5 for oil, 175 for depreciation?
I don't like car payments. Last time I signed up for them was my '98 Astro. I did throw 1/3 of my 2010 Malibu on my 2nd mortgage but had the balance down to $400 in 2 months. A $1500 compressor is not a big deal after over 10 of the last 13 years with no car payments. At 127000 miles, I keep full coverage on the 13 yr old Astro. Don't want to be sorry after a single 10 minute hail storm next April while I'm sleeping. The extra coverage is maybe $20 a month. In January (ice) and April (hail), it is worth it.
You are correct. All other auto expenses pale when compared to depreciation expense. On a per miles driven basis it is horrendous, and the fewer miles you drive the worse it gets.
My wife's car/truck is a good (bad) example. 2007 LX 470. We have had it for 2 years and she only drives about 5,000 miles per year. It was a year old when we bought it as a Lexus certified vehicle.
The cost was $51,000, and after 2 years we would be lucky to get around $38,000. on a dealer trade-in. That means it has cost $13,000 in depreciation to drive 10,000 miles. That is $1.30 per mile driven in depreciation. The truck gets about 14 mpg on average so for 10,000 miles we filled the tank about 36 times. That works out to $361. in depreciation at each fill up, even if the gas was free.
Another way to look at it is about $541. per month in depreciation for the 24 months we have had it. Of course I could have less depreciation expense with a less expensive vehicle that had less dollar depreciation...but my wife would be miserable driving a cheap econobox.
All cars are expensive to own. Some more than others.
And those expenses are really bad for people that finance. On a $51,000 vehicle you would average about $200 per month in interest that is money down the toilet. And another $100 for insurance and gas seems insignificant.
The longer I keep the Sequoia the better off I will be. So far I am averaging 7000 per year with one 5600 mile vacation. My gas to date is 18.7 cents per mile and depreciation is over $1 per mile. Paid cash so that did not cost anything to finance. Money in the bank today gets you about 4/10th of a percent interest on $100,000. No incentive to finance a vehicle.
My wife and I would both be miserable driving an econobox further than the 3 miles to the grocery store, bank and PO. Unless gas goes to $6 per gallon I see no need to worry about that aspect of driving. If you live in CA add another $50 per month for license fees.
Looking at their lobbying Advocacy page, it looks like Harold Lewis was spot on about the money in his resignation letter from the American Physical Society ('Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life').
I was once offered membership to the APS, but turned them down. I would never join an organization that would have someone like me as a member!
It will be interesting though to see if anyone does investigate the funding and investments of the leaders and prominnt members of the APS, to see if their statement that they have nothing to gain from agreeing with MMGW.
I guess the favorable way to look at depreciation it is in cost per day if you don't drive a lot of miles. In that light, my Silverado is about $3.40 a day in depreciation instead of $162.5 per tank. That is spread over 10.5 years.
And thanks to our government's policies - Federal Reserve - that $3.40/day is becoming less and less valuable in the world. So cheer up! I see today that now the Canadian $ is worth more than ours, and every other currency is gaining! So that means resources like oil - stay the same price for the rest of the world, and become more expensive here.
A continuation of these policies will create inflation and $4+/gal gasoline again. If anyone thinks our government is competent; with trillion+ $ deficits, awful trade balance, 10% official and 20% unofficial unemployment, millions of homes in the foreclosure-pipeline, broke local and state governments, and now a devaluing currency ...
I don't give any of these bums and crooks, the benefit of the doubt. I'm with Ike, beware large government and business working together to consolidate their power and wealth.
Yeah, the dollar is down 10 or 20% in the last decade. In today's dollars, I wouldn't be suprised if a new Cruze LT ($18,195) costs less than a new stripped '96 Neon ($9999) did Min wage is up mortgage rates are down homes bottoming out in value great for youngsters
soc sec frozen cd money devalued and earning .4% homes bottoming out in value horrible for the retired
no wonder the TEA party is energized against the wealth redistribution
In his push to force the rest of US to cut back, he lives the life of Carbon Opulence. Just another Al Gore elitist trying to push AGW down the throats of the little guy.
is actually living the GW life, right? I mean, you're spending money on this stuff, that does go a long way towards actually doing something about what you believe.
Gracias. I do what I can with the resources I have. If I had more money, I would do even more.
James Cameron is so filthy rich, he could build the largest, most luxurious "Negative Footprint" mansion in the world and hardly dent his budget, if he "cared so much" about it.
about James Cameron, but did he not do a great job in making the Titanic ship replica? And actually, he did a fine job with the entire making of the movie 'Titanic'. Tis my favorite movie of all time.
Reporting from Washington — Faced with rising political attacks, hundreds of climate scientists are joining a broad campaign to push back against congressional conservatives who have threatened prominent researchers with investigations and vowed to kill regulations to rein in man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
The still-evolving efforts reveal a shift among climate scientists, many of whom have traditionally stayed out of politics and avoided the news media. Many now say they are willing to go toe-to-toe with their critics, some of whom gained new power after the Republicans won control of the House in Tuesday's election.
On Monday, the American Geophysical Union, the country's largest association of climate scientists, plans to announce that 700 climate scientists have agreed to speak out as experts on questions about global warming and the role of man-made air pollution. CLARIFICATION: The effort by John Abraham is separate from the Geophysical Union's.
John Abraham of St. Thomas University in Minnesota, who last May wrote a widely disseminated response to climate change skeptics, is also pulling together a "climate rapid response team," which includes scientists prepared to go before what they consider potentially hostile audiences on conservative talk radio and television shows.
"This group feels strongly that science and politics can't be divorced and that we need to take bold measures to not only communicate science but also to aggressively engage the denialists and politicians who attack climate science and its scientists," said Scott Mandia, professor of physical sciences at Suffolk County Community College in New York.
"We are taking the fight to them because we are tired of taking the hits. The notion that truth will prevail is not working. The truth has been out there for the past two decades, and nothing has changed."
During the recent campaigns, skepticism about climate change became a rallying cry for many Republican candidates. Of the more than 100 new GOP members of Congress, 50% are climate change skeptics, according to an analysis of campaign statements by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.
Prominent Republican congressmen such as Darrell Issa of Vista, Joe L. Barton of Texas and F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin have pledged to investigate the Environmental Protection Agency's regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. They say they also intend to investigate the so-called Climategate scandal, in which thousands of e-mails of leading climate scientists were hacked and released to the public last year.
Climate change skeptics argued that the sniping in some e-mails showed that scientists suppressed research by skeptics and manipulated data. Five independent panels subsequently cleared the researchers involved and validated the science.
My question would be? How many of those scientists are sucking on the tax payers teat? Let them get funding from some of the fat cat GW cult members. Like Gore or Soros. They got $billions to waste on such nonsense. Let the NWS go back to predicting the weather. When they get to where they can predict a week in advance, let them graduate to a month in advance. Trying to tell us what the climate will be like 100 years from now is total hogwash. Another liberal biased story from one of the worst papers in the USA. Only paper more biased might be the NY Times. I see the author used to work for the NYT.
Ahhh,,,you just stole my thunder...I say DE FUND the UN and make them move to another country....how about China..(yeah, lotsaluck.) I remember when I was about 9 years old in 1959 seeing a big hand made sign in a farmers field by a rural road while my family was vacationing in Texas. It said "GET THE UN THE HELL OUT OF THE US". I didn't know until later when I went to college just what he meant. They are the most corrupt, useless, asinine, gang of thieves ever presented to the human condition. :lemon:
Comments
I suppose we do worry about bacteria a lot. The recent egg thing got me to thinking even more about buying locally grown produce, eggs etc.
Funny what cheap gas will do.
September Hybrid Sales Falter as Economy, Gas Prices Stagnate (Green Car Advisor)
Back to subsidies?
Major Disintegration of Your Point - wait for it.....>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Washing them DOES NOT WASTE ANY WATER if you just add them to a load you were DOING ANYWAY.
I will still use them. Just do not consider them as eco friendly as the blind Eco Nuts would like US to believe.
http://gmauthority.com/blog/2010/09/gm-recalls-mild-hybrid-saturn-aura-vue-chevy- - -malibu/
With a Sonata getting 35 mpg, why does the average person want to run out and buy a $30K Ford Fusion hybrid? I remember having several actual combined 40mpg cars in the 80's - a Ford Escort, a Nissan Sentra, and a Civic CRX; imagine what could be done for mpg if they just took that basic design and employed the latest engine technology like direct-injection to them. Simple, high mpg cars could get us Prius mpg, without the need for all the gee-whiz complexity.
Yeah, the idea of getting a hybrid or an all-electric is seeming slimmer and slimmer to me all the time. Especially when I saw that Toyota is putting out this in Nov. of 2011.
2012 Toyota Celica
And, with RWD, a 170hp Subaru horizontally-mounted boxer engine, and a 6-speed manual tranny, Toyota is promising 35mpg! So why go electric or hybrid? I'm thinkin' I'm gonna trade for one of these Celica's in Nov.'11. Hotter than hell.
After all, the Celica is really the only Toyota motorcar I've really consistently liked throughout the years.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
By the time that car gets here the Eco Nuts will have outlawed the IC for cars. It will be pedal power for you my friend.
Well, she is just washing them the wrong way. Just have her add one bag at a time to another load. Won't use more water or soap.
It takes no more water or soap to wash 15.2 pounds of clothes than it does to wash 15.4 pounds of clothes.
Your comment is a textbook case of "easier said than done."
You can't make cars like those any more. Those 80s cars do not have the safety features required for today's modern regulations.
Don't you think if it were "easy" to produce a lineup of 40+ MPG, affordable, SAFE, desirable cars, that someone would have done it already and taken the market by storm?
Several reasons.
1. You can't get 40+ mpg on the freeway with a Sonata.
2. You can't drive up to 47 MPH using only electric power with a Sonata.
3. The Fusion is larger, more well-appointed, and just a much nicer ride all around.
4. Some people just want a hybrid for many different reasons. Let them be themselves.... :shades:
5. Hybrids have never make purely economic sense. But they fulfill a need for some people.
While safety may add a bit of weight to the current vehicles. I think it is the consumer wants more room and power today. The 1990 CRX was 148 inches long and 2174 lbs. The 2009 Civic coupe is 175 inches long and 2700+ lbs. We have given up MPG for comfort and emissions control. I doubt seriously the current Civic coupe is as much fun to drive as the CRX. So we have compromised and MPG is the loser. Emissions alone can kill mileage by 20% or more.
Sure I know that. I just wanted to make sure we all understood that our governemnt and society has decided that it's better to use more energy and produce more CO2, to improve safety. Our regulators have said improve safety regardless that the weight additions cause more fuel to be used.
Doesn't it seem illogical to you though that the government then allows millions of people to ride motorcycles which are no where near as safe as the 80's designs. I can ride a small motorcycle with no seatbelt (of course) no airbag, no ABS, and in my state - no helmet, but I can't buy a new car like my old '88 CRX. And you wonder why many of us think question the sanity of our leaders!
And the typical person would pay $5,000+ extra for the Fusion Hybrid to get those few mpg better?
3. The Fusion is larger, more well-appointed, and just a much nicer ride all around.
Wrong! The Hyundai Sonata beats the Fusion out in the category of interior volume. In fact, it's so big that the EPA has been forced to classify it as a large car. Front seats are especially roomy, with Hyundai Sonata specifications that will be sure to please taller drivers. http://www.autotropolis.com/new-car-reviews/new-2011-hyundai-sonata-vs-2010-ford- -fusion.html
And "The Fusion comes standard with anti-lock disc brakes, stability control and six airbags. The Sonata adds traction control and active front head restraints. Of the two, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety likes the Sonata better, labeling it a "Top Safety Pick" for the year.
5. Hybrids have never make purely economic sense. But they fulfill a need for some people.
So do cats for Cat-Ladies!
I think one of the big differences in mpg has been the blending of 10% ethanol into the gas. It seems to have reduced more than just what's proportional. Mpg should have gone down 1-2% based on energy content, but typical has been 1-2 mpg which is 5-10% reduction in mpg. In my mind ethanol in the gas, is like having put Diet Coke in your Coke. It's effect is "a filler" and that's about it. Certainly the ethanol burns, but somthing in the chemistry and engine control management that compensates, is hurting the mpg.
And the Fusion Hybrid does have this distinction: At 41 miles per gallon, the Fusion Hybrid is the most fuel-efficient mid-size sedan in America. That turns a few heads.
My other points still stand though.....
By the way - in researching this post, I found that there are now 28 different hybrids for sale in the USA. WOW. That's a big number.
September sales for each car are as such:
1,671 FFH
20,639 Sonata
So apparently, more people think the Sonata is a good idea.
P.S. I just noticed the 2011 Sonata is going to be available with a HYBRID drivetrain? If true, well that certainly settles this argument. Sonata all the way.
.
.
.
Remember when it took $100 to fill up a pickup truck? Hybrids sold well that month. How are oil companies doing now with 10% unemployment? I can't believe a 'summer driving season' could actually be felt this year or last.
The Sonata hybrid should have good initial economics; primarily because Hyundai hasn't made and sold any hybrids here in the states, and the U.S. government will be giving a tax credit. That tax credit will make up a good portion of the price difference. But for most people, the extra mpg just doesn't make financial sense. If you burn 20 or 22 gal/month doesn't make a big difference. Saving $10/month does not makeup for laying out the thousands $ more to save that $10/month.
Batteries add substantial weight which is an enemy of getting optimal mpg, and the whole hybrid system, which may be reliable, does increase the probability of something going wrong and needing replacement and repair. Meaning that if I take car A and add 100 more parts (for the hybrid), the chances of stuff going wrong and my repair costs goes up. When gas hits $7/gal, they might make sense. But then as we saw 2 years ago, gas can't go that high with our current social and economic structure, as the high cost ruins the economy.
However: more than a million buyers around the world don't care too much about the overall bottom dollar, but do seem to just appreciate seeing that 700+ miles on a tank and that low total dollar number when filling up at the pump.
Apparently, that's enough to sell plenty of high-mileage hybrid cars.
P.S. Then you have the case of the new Lincoln hybrid, which sells for the exact same price as the non-hybrid version. No bad economics there at all.
If putting more particulate matter etc. in the atmosphere causes the earth to warm, why would we have a nuclear winter in the event of nuclear war?
I will be standing by.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Answer:
Because that (a Nuclear Winter) would be virtually a TOTAL blockage of the Sun.
In addition, "Particulate matter" in the air per se does not directly affect the climate as in "causes warming" because if it did, areas with high levels of diesel exhaust would have higher temps than other locales merely because of the PM in the air.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
So dropping only $35 into the gas tank feels good but you probably don't want to be reminded that almost $200 in depreciation, just for that single tank of gas, just happened. So far, over a million people can do this. Some will argue that Hybrids are still worth 50% of msrp at 100,000 miles. Great, then they only depreciated $100 per tank.
My gas guzzler is as bad as a hybrid. In 80 tanks of gas, my 4X4 has lost $13,000 from depreciation. That is $162 per tank. Almost 50 cents a mile.
But "man-generated PM" does not block anywhere NEAR the blockage we would see from a huge volcanic eruption or a Nuclear Winter.
Here's my philosophy:
1. For the most part, I'm ALWAYS going to have a car payment. Because I like having cars under WARRANTY, where I will never have to shell out $1500 for a new compressor.
2. I'm always going to have comprehensive and liability insurance on that car.
3. If I'm going to have a car payment ANYWAY (established in Point #1 above) then I might as well drive a car which is cheap to refuel and fairly decently low-priced to insure, although I put "lower gasoline usage" at a much higher priority than insurance, because again, see Point #2.
4. Since I enjoy lower operating costs, I might as well trumpet this system, which works so well for me, to others, so that they TOO might enjoy the pleasure I get from 550-700 miles per tank experiences.
5. I dislike air pollution (and creating it) so I want to drive a low-emission car. For the most part (exceptions exist) the current high-mileage hybrids for sale in the USA are right at or near the top of that list. My last two cars have both been AT-PZEV, and I will continue that trend with whatever my next car is.
So that leaves me with the choice of a high-mileage hybrid or a high-mileage clean diesel sedan. And since my last car purchase was in June 2006, when VW did not have any Jetta TDIs available in my area, I had to go with the TCH since I have two kids who are growing fast.
That to me is the scary part. Not having any car payments over the last 12 years, I can tell you it is nice to not be helping the bankers get richer. If you were to keep that car for 3-4 years past your payoff and just save the same amount you could break that habit, and move into the ranks of the fiscal conservatives.
PS
Don't give me the 0% or 2.9% nonsense. They are a joke. Those come on rates are in lieu of other discounts. Beat em down till they bleed and pay cash.
Speaking of LEDs. I went to Home Depot yesterday. The LED flood lights I would need over my sink were $64.95 each. With tax it would be $141.27 to replace the two CFL bulbs currently in there. No way that would fit my conservative life style.
I'm FINALLY (I hope) going to pay off this TCH to zero with the next 20 months, and I will again see what it was like not having a car payment. Hard to remember that feeling after 19 years.
On the LED bulbs - WOW That's CRAZY HIGH !!! Shop Costco or Sam's Club and see what they have.
I bought 2 of these lights. One stays on all the time while the other is used less often. The one that is constantly on is now very dim. It is much, much less bright than the one that is not used as often. Some of the LED do not come on at all and the rest are not very bright. It is not even bright enough to use as a night light.
Waste of money
I am going to try to return the bulb to LOA or Sams.
I am on my third LED Flood and it too failed after about a month. The bulbs start flickering in a pie shaped order. 25% at first flicker then die, then the next 25% and after the third 25% I threw the bulb out. I had exchanged the first 2 dead bulbs but got fed up and threw the third in the garbage. I have other (smaller) LOA bulbs which seem to work fine so am assuming its the build quality on this particular bulb which is bad. It gives off Great Bright Light in the beginning but who cares if it only lasts a month. Also, I used it inside and out on separate bulbs and it didn't make a difference so environmental factors can't be blamed.
http://www.samsclub.com/sams/shop/product.jsp?productId=180830&searchTerm=LED%20- flood%20lights&_requestid=146469&_requestid=146522&_requestid=146549&_requestid=- 146575#reviews
No explanations or answers given, of course. When you don't answer to anyone, you don't have to answer.
How does this compare to the 54 cents per mile that the gov allows for business travel? That's $270 for a 500 mile tank. 80 for gas, 10 for tires, 5 for oil, 175 for depreciation?
I don't like car payments. Last time I signed up for them was my '98 Astro. I did throw 1/3 of my 2010 Malibu on my 2nd mortgage but had the balance down to $400 in 2 months. A $1500 compressor is not a big deal after over 10 of the last 13 years with no car payments. At 127000 miles, I keep full coverage on the 13 yr old Astro. Don't want to be sorry after a single 10 minute hail storm next April while I'm sleeping. The extra coverage is maybe $20 a month. In January (ice) and April (hail), it is worth it.
My wife's car/truck is a good (bad) example. 2007 LX 470. We have had it for 2 years and she only drives about 5,000 miles per year. It was a year old when we bought it as a Lexus certified vehicle.
The cost was $51,000, and after 2 years we would be lucky to get around $38,000. on a dealer trade-in. That means it has cost $13,000 in depreciation to drive 10,000 miles. That is $1.30 per mile driven in depreciation. The truck gets about 14 mpg on average so for 10,000 miles we filled the tank about 36 times. That works out to $361. in depreciation at each fill up, even if the gas was free.
Another way to look at it is about $541. per month in depreciation for the 24 months we have had it. Of course I could have less depreciation expense with a less expensive vehicle that had less dollar depreciation...but my wife would be miserable driving a cheap econobox.
All cars are expensive to own. Some more than others.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
The longer I keep the Sequoia the better off I will be. So far I am averaging 7000 per year with one 5600 mile vacation. My gas to date is 18.7 cents per mile and depreciation is over $1 per mile. Paid cash so that did not cost anything to finance. Money in the bank today gets you about 4/10th of a percent interest on $100,000. No incentive to finance a vehicle.
My wife and I would both be miserable driving an econobox further than the 3 miles to the grocery store, bank and PO. Unless gas goes to $6 per gallon I see no need to worry about that aspect of driving. If you live in CA add another $50 per month for license fees.
lobbyingAdvocacy page, it looks like Harold Lewis was spot on about the money in his resignation letter from the American Physical Society ('Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life').http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/13/aps-responds-deconstructing-the-aps-respon- se-to-dr-hal-lewis-resignation/
MODERATOR
Need help getting around? claires@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Tell everyone about your buying experience: Write a Dealer Review
It will be interesting though to see if anyone does investigate the funding and investments of the leaders and prominnt members of the APS, to see if their statement that they have nothing to gain from agreeing with MMGW.
A continuation of these policies will create inflation and $4+/gal gasoline again. If anyone thinks our government is competent; with trillion+ $ deficits, awful trade balance, 10% official and 20% unofficial unemployment, millions of homes in the foreclosure-pipeline, broke local and state governments, and now a devaluing currency ...
I don't give any of these bums and crooks, the benefit of the doubt. I'm with Ike, beware large government and business working together to consolidate their power and wealth.
Min wage is up
mortgage rates are down
homes bottoming out in value
great for youngsters
soc sec frozen
cd money devalued and earning .4%
homes bottoming out in value
horrible for the retired
no wonder the TEA party is energized against the wealth redistribution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKZ4RolQxec
It's a fairly common problem, not limited to Global Warming hypocrites.
For those about to rock, we salute you.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
James Cameron is so filthy rich, he could build the largest, most luxurious "Negative Footprint" mansion in the world and hardly dent his budget, if he "cared so much" about it.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Don't Mess With My Grant Money, Punks
Reporting from Washington —
Faced with rising political attacks, hundreds of climate scientists are joining a broad campaign to push back against congressional conservatives who have threatened prominent researchers with investigations and vowed to kill regulations to rein in man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
The still-evolving efforts reveal a shift among climate scientists, many of whom have traditionally stayed out of politics and avoided the news media. Many now say they are willing to go toe-to-toe with their critics, some of whom gained new power after the Republicans won control of the House in Tuesday's election.
On Monday, the American Geophysical Union, the country's largest association of climate scientists, plans to announce that 700 climate scientists have agreed to speak out as experts on questions about global warming and the role of man-made air pollution. CLARIFICATION:
The effort by John Abraham is separate from the Geophysical Union's.
John Abraham of St. Thomas University in Minnesota, who last May wrote a widely disseminated response to climate change skeptics, is also pulling together a "climate rapid response team," which includes scientists prepared to go before what they consider potentially hostile audiences on conservative talk radio and television shows.
"This group feels strongly that science and politics can't be divorced and that we need to take bold measures to not only communicate science but also to aggressively engage the denialists and politicians who attack climate science and its scientists," said Scott Mandia, professor of physical sciences at Suffolk County Community College in New York.
"We are taking the fight to them because we are tired of taking the hits. The notion that truth will prevail is not working. The truth has been out there for the past two decades, and nothing has changed."
During the recent campaigns, skepticism about climate change became a rallying cry for many Republican candidates. Of the more than 100 new GOP members of Congress, 50% are climate change skeptics, according to an analysis of campaign statements by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.
Prominent Republican congressmen such as Darrell Issa of Vista, Joe L. Barton of Texas and F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin have pledged to investigate the Environmental Protection Agency's regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. They say they also intend to investigate the so-called Climategate scandal, in which thousands of e-mails of leading climate scientists were hacked and released to the public last year.
Climate change skeptics argued that the sniping in some e-mails showed that scientists suppressed research by skeptics and manipulated data. Five independent panels subsequently cleared the researchers involved and validated the science.
I remember when I was about 9 years old in 1959 seeing a big hand made sign in a farmers field by a rural road while my family was vacationing in Texas. It said
"GET THE UN THE HELL OUT OF THE US". I didn't know until later when I went to college just what he meant. They are the most corrupt, useless, asinine, gang of thieves ever presented to the human condition. :lemon: