If a country such as Brazil can switch to totally E85 in such a short time, we can too
You better do some more research on Brazil. About three flaws in your perception.
One: Brazil has only a fraction of the cars that the USA has
Two: Brazil uses E100 mostly made from sugar cane. A much better source of ethanol than corn.
Three: The only reason Brazil is now energy independent is a huge oil find. They only use about 20% ethanol. The rest is from the oil they found off shore.
We could buy the much cheaper ethanol from Brazil. Our dear Mr Jimmy Carter tacked a 53 cent tariff on to protect the US farmers in the last ethanol boondoggle. Remember that one? When we bought the last batch of refineries that are now just rusting away in towns across the midwest.
You can buy a diesel Jetta that will run fine on biodiesel and get close to 50 MPG.
That's a long time to warranty anything. What's that all about anyway? No other part of a vehicle needs to be guaranteed for 10 years so why this higher standard for battery packs?
That is how Toyota was able to get the AT-PZEV emissions rating from CA. There is some confusion as to what all is covered under that mandated warranty. I think any part that can cause the emissions to fail the AT-PZEV test. I think that CARB and the EPA were skeptical about battery longevity as many of us are. Honda did not go for that with the Insight and several owners were stuck with bad batteries.
Save money buy buying a Camry? Yeah right. The money that you save will be money in the tow truck drivers pocket. Ask me. I felt the pain of the Toyota Engine Sludge fiasco, myself. I'll pass on any Toyota or Honda product. My wifes Honda Odyssey has been through two transmissions along with many other quality issues. Hell, I might as well buy Hummer and call it a draw. My brother is on a waiting list for a Chrysler Aspen Hybrid. I am leaning in that direction. I have four kids and will not punish them by driving a sardine can on wheels like the corolla civic sentra triplets. Maybe a Saturn Vue.
I didn't mention all hybrids did I? I'd think something like the Camry and Altima and Escape hybrids would have adequate power. Even better would be that Lexus hybrid, though the price is rather steep. I wouldn't mind a hybrid system supplementing the LS3 engine on a Vette.
I know first hand that the Prius has more than adequate acceleration for normal driving.
It isn't normal driving that'll get you hurt or killed, when a fellow driver causes you to do something emergency like. It's better to have excellent acceleration, braking, and handling which these high mpg hybrids sacrifice to maximize economy.
So if the Prius battery pack fails after 9 years does Toyota have to replace it at no cost? If so I think that's ridiculous. I could understand Toyota being obligated to give this customer a 10% credit towards a new battery pack since the customer only got 90% of the expected battery life. If I was a customer considering an EV I'd be satisfied with this type of limited warranty. I'd look at a battery pack the same way I'd look at tires. It is something that will wear out but as the customer you'd like to be able to accurately budget for the replacement.
Granted Tesla Motors hasn't actually delivered any cars yet but I understand they are telling their customers to expect 5 yrs./100,000 miles from their battery packs.
Hybrids are far better in comparable versions than their gasoline counterpart.
Far better is subjective more than objective but given their much higher initial purchase cost, one would hope they are better.
They pollute less.
PZEV is PZEV, no matter if its a Toyota hybrid or a Subaru
They allow you to spend less on fuel.
Which at current fuel prices will take about 6 years to reach a break even point for the higher initial purchase price.
They hold resale value better.
Better than what?
They allow you to feel "all warm and fuzzy" about your car-buying choice, which is something that is invaluable monetarily.
In exchange for a total lackluster driving experience.
They have spurred invention and innovation like the upcoming Volt and the fuel-cell cars of the future.
Nah, they didn't. Saturn's EV1 adn Toyota's electric RAV4 did more to kick off things like the Volt. Fuel cell cars were on the boards before hybrid power was.
Even a Prius doing 82 mph is getting 40+ MPG.
That hasn't been my experience. In fact, the 3 people I know closely that have Priuses (Priui?) have complained about the mileage.
I have gotten 40 MPG at 70 MPH in my 2007 Camry Hybrid (on flat ground for all you smarty-pantses) so I know the Prius can do better. A Corolla can't do that.
A Civic can.
But yes, a Prius is the wrong car for a leadfoot. The good thing is that very few "leadfeet" are customers for that particular car.
Maybe that is why my MIL has the issue with her mileage. I find when I drive it, I try to make it run on electric power as much as possible to get the best possible economy. I have also found that below about 60 degrees, it really doesn't like to just run on batteries, which might explain why my friends in Michigan complain about their mileage.
And as far as who "needs" a hybrid? Soon the choices will be so great that it will not matter what you need because there will be a hybrid to fill that bill
Nah, they are a stop-gap, not a long term solution. I don't think there will be a hybrid sports car, as you typically wouldn't want 600 lbs of batteries in the vehicle. The Insight, while small and cramped, was hardly sporty to drive. I think it was also the last one with a manual transmission.
Any expectations that hybrids would be a fad, a niche vehicle, or a short-term phenom are gone now. So far 10 years and the sales are still climbing and the choices expanding year by year.
It will be in-favor until the next thing comes along. First will be the "plug in hybrids" and then real electric vehicles and then fuel cells.
So if the Prius battery pack fails after 9 years does Toyota have to replace it at no cost? If so I think that's ridiculous. I could understand Toyota being obligated to give this customer a 10% credit towards a new battery pack since the customer only got 90% of the expected battery life. If I was a customer considering an EV I'd be satisfied with this type of limited warranty.
That is a very valid point. I think I would be happy if they just promised to support the vehicle in 10 years;I can think of a lot of automakers that don't support conventional vehicles that long (Audi).
I must have really touched a nerve there. You spent a lot of time attempting to refute my correct statements, in fact even bolding them for me and everything !! Thanks !!!
Everything I said is still true. Allow me to touch on a couple of things you attempted to refute however.
When I said "they pollute less" I was referring to a hybrid versus the comparable gasser. Can you show me a case where a hybrid and a comparable gasser pollute the same? I don't think you can. Same with resale - I meant resale for the comparable model, like a Civix EX versus a Civic Hybrid.
As proof, I just did a kbb lookup on a 2004 HCH with 75K miles versus a 2004 EX with 75K miles. The data:
Civic EX 2004 75K Excellent $10,225 Good $9,435 Fair $8,055
Civic HCH 2004 75K Excellent $12,150 Good $11,260 Fair $9,655
And a four-door non-hybrid Civic CANNOT get 40 MPG at 70 mph. Sorry.
And hybrids indeed might be a "stop gap" technology, but that gap is going to be about 20 years. I'll take 20 years of low-polluting hybrids as a "stop gap" period.
We all want something better and cleaner, at least those who care about the Earf and the legacy we leave for people 100 years from now. I will welcome any technology which is better and cleaner and more fuel efficient than hybrids when that time comes.
When you say "pollute less" you need to be more specific. Are you talking greenhouse gasses? Are you talking particulate? NOx? CO? They are all pollution and they are all formed in different ways.
If you are talking about greenhouse gasses (I assume you are) it is a really easy calculation. As MPG goes up GHG/mile driven goes down. It is that simple. All cars that burn anything produce the same amount of CO2 per unit of fuel used. It is simple chemistry that nobody can get around.
Hydrocarbon + O2 = CO2 + H2O
One could argue that the car that is spewing smoke and gets the same MPG is actually emitting less CO2. Why? Because incomplete compustion converts the hydrocarbon to CO instead of CO2. But, CO is much more dangerous and bad for you than CO2.
NOx is formed in two ways. The first way is the Nitrogen bound in the fuel. Not much of this in gas. Comes up more in coal. The second way is the N2 in the air is oxidized to NOx at very high temperatures. You can get rid of it two ways. One is to stage the combustion so that the temperature does not get so high. Not practical in cars with pistons. The second way is to put a cat converter ont he tailpipe. If you really wanted to get rid of the NOx you would inject Ammonia into the gas stream prior to the converter. This reduces the NOx to N2 and O2.
So if the Prius battery pack fails after 9 years does Toyota have to replace it at no cost?
Yes, that is my understanding. This is a warranty mandated by CARB. There are documents on the CARB site that indicate they may drop that mandate. It seems that law is a deterrent to automakers building more hybrids. Honda has had a lot of battery issues. Toyota Japan had a lot of problems with their early Prius batteries. Personally I would not even consider a hybrid without that cushion of 10 years longevity on the battery. I am sure the EV builders will have similar requirements. I have heard of cases where Toyota refused to replace a battery that was bad when any modifications were done to the cars electrical.
The long warranty is a deterrent to the automakers using cheap batteries. There is a HUGE difference in battery quality. I have bought too many replacement batteries that just did not live up to the OEMs. 10 years or 100k milesis a nice round figure.
When I said "they pollute less" I was referring to a hybrid versus the comparable gasser. Can you show me a case where a hybrid and a comparable gasser pollute the same?
You have to define what type of pollution you're referring to and what state the vehicle was purchased and being used. If its GHGs then the car that burns less fuel will definitely pollute less. If you're talking about the kind of particulate pollution that causes smog then you can't make the assumption that the hybrid pollutes less. For instance in CA there are plenty of V6 vehicles from BMW (328s) and GM (most 3.8L models) that get the same EPA pollution score of 9.5 that the Prius gets. In fact there are a lot of economy cars like the Yaris, Fit, Corolla, Sentra, Civic that only get an EPA pollution score of 7 despite the fact that they burn considerably less fuel than these V6s.
My definition of "pollutes less" is "creates less pollution IN TOTAL per year" than a comparable car.
Sure, there are other cars which score 9.5 on the Air Pollution score. But how much GHG in tons do they produce per year? All of them more than the Prius. How much annual fuel do they use than the Prius? All of them more.
A common misconception is that particulate = smog. This is not true. Smog is ground level ozone. The precurser to that is NOx + Hydrocarbons in the air = O3 and smog. Ever notice that the air seems cleaner in the winter in urban areas? The air is not warm enough (and less sunlight) to get that reaction going.
Didn't you forget something in your comparison? The Hybrid cost at least $3000 more when sold than the EX. So that money was lost less the small gas savings. It should really be compared to the DX, as most people shopping for the lowest mileage car are not looking for all the Foo Foo that Toyota and Honda force on the hybrid buyers. Making hybrids a marginal buying value at best for the person looking for true economy.
Civic EX 2004 75K Excellent $10,225 Good $9,435 Fair $8,055
Civic HCH 2004 75K Excellent $12,150 Good $11,260 Fair $9,655
You are saying that GHG are the only things that matter. That is a load. There are far more things that present a far more imminent threat to human health than GHG. Diesel exhaust is one. It is a proven carcinogen and that is why you don't see a lot of them getting past the EPA and produced in mass quantities as passenger cars.
GHG will cause the Earth to get warmer in 50 years, but take the cat converters and other pollution reduction devices off of a car and we will all die of cancer much sooner. This goes to prove that the EPA is the second best government program ever (the military being #1). We went from having to wear dust masks outside and wondering if an inversion layer would kill us (ask the Chinese about this) to worrying about the Earth getting a few degrees warmer.
Diesel exhaust is a problem with high sulfur diesel. ULSD which should have been mandated decades ago is cleaner in many ways than gasoline. As you have pointed out CO is much more of a problem than CO2. Diesel cars put out less of both than comparable sized vehicles with gasoline engines. There are a lot of trace elements that unleaded gas exhaust puts off that is cancer causing as well.
I do agree that is it a lot better now than when I was a kid growing up in Los Angeles. Especially the 1960s. I would go up and visit my grandmother and could hardly breath it was so bad up there.
Ever notice that the air seems cleaner in the winter in urban areas?
Not here in Boise unfortunately. We're in a valley (think LA) and everything gets trapped under inversions now and then. Today I can see across the valley to the Owyhee Mountains some ~50 miles away, but often I can't see the lights of Home Depot 2 miles away. Then I pop up 3,000 to the ski hill and the sun can be shining brightly. Used to see the same thing in Anchorage, aka Los Anchorage.
When the inversions hit, our air quality goes to pot, burn orders go into effect and I can see the typical LA style brown haze lying near the valley floor.
$3.xx a gallon gas hasn't decreased traffic (and resulting particulates and smog) any.
As you have pointed out CO is much more of a problem than CO2. Diesel cars put out less of both than comparable sized vehicles with gasoline engines.
I don't think CO is much of an issue for today's modern LEV, SULEV, and PZEV vehicles. I'd bet that the new vehicles being sold today account for a very small fraction of the particulate pollution being generated. We'd accomplish more in terms of cleaning up the air by getting the small percentage of dirty cars off the road rather than focus on making these clean vehicles cleaner. So if modern diesels can meet the LEV standard I'm all for them.
While diesels definitely achieve greater mpg isn't there more CO2 being generated from burning a gallon of diesel versus a gallon of gasoline? It seems like there would have to be since diesel fuel contains more energy. Overall I'm sure diesel engines would still come out on top in terms of overall CO2 emissions due to the fact that their engines are more efficient. But I don't think you can conclude that if a diesel is getting 30% better mpg it is emitting 30% less CO2.
I must have really touched a nerve there. You spent a lot of time attempting to refute my correct statements, in fact even bolding them for me and everything !! Thanks !!!
I feel it makes it easier to read. And easier to refute propaganda.
2004 Honda Civic Hybrid CVT
Base Price $ 20,650 Price As Tested $ 21,140
Civic HCH 2004 75K Excellent $12,150 Good $11,260 Fair $9,655
Base price: US$17,260;
Civic EX 2004 75K Excellent $10,225 Good $9,435 Fair $8,055
So given the fact that it was $4000 more initially, I am glad it is worth more used. I would also argue that since the hybrid doesn't have the moonroof or other features, it would be more comparable to an LX.
And a four-door non-hybrid Civic CANNOT get 40 MPG at 70 mph. Sorry.
Are you kidding? Its even rated at 40 mpg.
I will welcome any technology which is better and cleaner and more fuel efficient than hybrids when that time comes.
Like a bicycle? Like not living 100 miles from work?
But I don't think you can conclude that if a diesel is getting 30% better mpg it is emitting 30% less CO2.
According to the fueleconomy website, CO2 is linear to the MPG. A VW Jetta diesel that gets 41 MPG on the highway emits 6.1 tones of CO2 per year. The same Jetta gasser that gets 28 MPG highway emits 8.3 tons of CO2 per year. That is +or - 2%.
So, diesel emits about 10% more CO2 per gallon used. This makes sense. Diesel is a heavier (lb/gal) fuel and has more Carbon-Carbon bonds than gas and far more than NG. The longer the carbon chains are, the more CO2 produced and the heavier it is. A diesel has to get 10% better fuel economy than a gas car to "break even" on GHGs.
Just for fun:
Coal: ~205 lb/MMBTU (varies depending on type of coal)
"The Hybrid cost at least $3000 more when sold than the EX. So that money was lost less the small gas savings. It should really be compared to the DX."
Yes, the Civic Hybrid does cost $3,000 more than the Civic EX.
No, it doesn't compare to the DX, because a car without air conditioning, cruise control and power windows is not the same as a car with all those options.
If you want to play that game (and many people do), just compare the Civic Hybrid to the Kia Rio. You'll see a huge price difference and that will justify your opinion that hybrids suck.
If, however, you want a fair comparison, include the facts that the hybrid comes with a $2,100 tax credit, and it saves the average driver $40/month in gasoline costs. That makes up for the higher price.
Plus you get the bonus of making fewer trips to the gas station, and giving less money to OPEC.
Regarding the emasculating factor of hybrids, the speed limits pretty much neuter that argument. Is a guy driving 70 mph in a Corvette really more manly than a guy driving 70 mph in a hybrid?
Inversion layers muck everything up. I would not consider that a "normal" condition for most areas. That would be equating Toyota sludge problem = all Toyotas suck. Anybody can cherry-pick isolated incidences to prove a point.
Sorry that you are confusing truth with propaganda.....
Don't know what you are looking at, but the 2007 and 2008 Civic 4-door is rated at 29 MPG combined at fueleconomy.gov. No 4-dr non-hybrid Civic can get 40 MPG at 70 MPH. Once again, SORRY, but it cannot do that. My TCH can though...:) Go to this page to see come Civic numbers:
And in my comparison, I equipped the HCH and the EX exactly alike. The EX has ALWAYS BEEN the most comparable Civic to the HCH, since day one. The hybrid naysayers have tried to stick the LX in there, but the facts remain that the EX is closest.
And we are not talking about bicycles (I have a hybrid bike I ride to work every day) but automobiles.
I've been polling Prius owners, all friends who wouldn't lie, since they bought them. I've got 7 victims now, and their average gas mileage works out to 41.5 mpg. That's 7 cars driving under all conditions. So some are getting up to 44 and some in the high 30s.
My xA averaged 34.5 and the '95 Corolla averages 35.5, both driven REAL fast, about 3/4 hwy, 1/4 city. This is calculated over thousands of miles and under all possible conditions.
So for me, switching to a Prius makes little sense at this point. The ICE cars are still "too good".
Got a guy sitting 12 feet from me - he's on his fourth hybrid, his second Prius. He averages 49+ on every tank, some as high as 54 and some as low as 44. His commute is 32 miles a day, about 90% stop and go hwy and the rest city streets. This in Phoenix when he is killed in the summer by A/C.
No Prius and no car ever will get the same mileage for every driver. The significant advantage of the hybrids is that they have instruments which allow the driver to "work on" improving their mileage by learning how to drive to make the car perform the most efficiently. Very few gasser or diesel cars have those tools, and thus they lose that capability.
When you can get a tank of 110 MPG like a Prius has done on your xA or Corolla, let me know....
Is a guy driving 70 mph in a Corvette really more manly than a guy driving 70 mph in a hybrid?
If you really have to ask this ... OF COURSE (at least for these low powered models)! It's not just the driving 70mph, it's how you get there - how fast, the exhaust sound, and the overall performance. Style is an important aspect, and as in any other aspect of life people judge you by your appearance whether your clothes, hairstyle or car. So no I don't think a low-powered car is manly, anymore than a guy riding a girl's bike with a basket on front is manly (remember Jonathan Winters in It's a Mad, Mad, Mad World? - that was funny). It is not the same thing for a man to ride a girl's bike at 15mph as it is to ride a mountain bike at 15mph.
It's illogical yes, but that's the way it is. We're not that removed from the jungle!
I could probably beat that in my Outlook. All I need to do is find the top of a large hill/mountain with a reasonably straight road down and pop it into nuetral...
The significant advantage of the hybrids is that they have instruments which allow the driver to "work on" improving their mileage by learning how to drive to make the car perform the most efficiently.
If what you are inferring is what I think it is - changing driving styles, which affects other traffic, then this has been discussed before. And I believe your position is that hybrid owners have a right to drive differently, even if it PO's the majority of drivers around them? Great position. :mad:
Also I hope you are not going to promote methods of increasing mpg that decrease safety, such as overinflating (beyond the vehicle manufacturers specifications) tires, and such. :sick:
I am an advocate for driving slower. For EVERYONE to drive slower. Do you realize the epidemic of danger and costs which can be attributed to overly fast drivers are a huge burden on us all?
Wasted Fuel. Too many ruined brake pads from all the hard stops. Worn out rubber tires from wasted rubber. Higher insurance rates for cars. Higher insurance rates for accident victims. More lawsuits, leading to large damage awards and wasted court time. More pollution from the wasted fuel. Parents losing kids to car accidents which did not need to happen. Road rage deaths.
There are multitudes of things wrong with driving too fast, and very few things wrong with trying to be a responsible driver and driving the speed limit (or below - EGAD !!!!) and accelerating normally and driving with safety, not HURRY HURRY HURRY, on your mind.
You know what? I demonstrate to my kids all the time how stupid it is to go fast. I'll be driving 3-5 MPH under the limit on a Phoenix street, and some yahoo will pass me going 10-15 MPH over. But you know what? Unless he turns, I INVARIABLY meet him at the the next red light, or the one after that, or the one after that. Speeding like that is a waste, and on top of all of it, it DOESN'T GET YOU THERE FASTER !!! It just increases the chances of dying when you have a crash and wastes fuel.
And yes, I overinflate, ( but do not recommend it to people without having them do their own research ) and you know what? Not a single problem with about 2 1/2 years of overinflating my Segway, my bike, and my two hybrid cars. No uneven wear, no blowouts. It's far worse and more dangerous to underinflate than to overinflate.
Got a guy sitting 12 feet from me - he's on his fourth hybrid, his second Prius.
Wow, 4 cars inside of 10 years, that gives me confidence.
The significant advantage of the hybrids is that they have instruments which allow the driver to "work on" improving their mileage by learning how to drive to make the car perform the most efficiently.
If you are referring to the human factors design disaster video game screen with all the arrows, that is one of the biggest reasons I could never recommend that model to anyone. Who at Toyota thought it would be a good idea to have this constantly changing screen to compete for driver's attention I don't know.
When you can get a tank of 110 MPG like a Prius has done on your xA or Corolla, let me know....
When you can get 110 mpg on a stock Prius, let me know.
I am glad you are happy with your vehicle choice and it makes you feel good about yourself, I think that is very important. However, its very important not to confuse that with factual information.
Oh no, he's had far more than 4 cars in 10 years. He's had a Hummer, an Escalade, a Yukon, a FJ Cruiser, a Suzuki something or another, and two motrocycles. He's a chronic car buyer.
There was a stock Prius which got 110 MPG in a tank, And one in Japan which got even more than that. Google it.
You know what? I demonstrate to my kids all the time how stupid it is to go fast. I'll be driving 3-5 MPH under the limit on a Phoenix street, and some yahoo will pass me going 10-15 MPH over. But you know what? Unless he turns, I INVARIABLY meet him at the the next red light, or the one after that, or the one after that.
Actually, it sounds like if you were truly concerned with the environment and driving safety, you wouldn't impede the flow of traffic by driving under the speed limit. Further, I would take your city council and urban planning departments to task for not properly timing traffic signals to promote better flow rates.
There was a stock Prius which got 110 MPG in a tank, And one in Japan which got even more than that. Google it.
Actually I think i said when your hybrid gets 110 mpg, let me know. A Ripleys believe it or not article about coasting down from Haleakala Crater doesn't do it for me, anymore than my 40 mpg Civic does it for you.
"Actually, it sounds like if you were truly concerned with the environment and driving safety, you wouldn't impede the flow of traffic by driving under the speed limit"
Studies show that it takes someone driving 10 MPH or more below the speed limit to become a significant danger to the traffic flow. I never drive that slow, and would not recommend anyone driving 10+ MPH under the limit.
People driving at or below the speed limit, in THIS town, cause FAR FAR fewer traffic problems than speeders and red-light runners.
There is nothing the City planners can to to slow down people other than increasing patrols and increasing traffic fines to a ridiculous level, both of which I advocate.
There is nothing the City planners can to to slow down people other than increasing patrols and increasing traffic fines to a ridiculous level, both of which I advocate.
Traffic should be moving faster, not slower. The idea is the system should be efficient, with as little time spent using the system as possible. The more time spend on the road, the less time spend doing something productive.
There are actually an incredible number of tools urban planners have at their disposal for controlling traffic flow, from the timing of lights to how wide they make the lanes to modifying the layout of the road to increase driver workload.
The Gerdes run was filmed by HBO and appeared on an HBO special. It was not merely "self-reported." It also was covered by local reporters and appeared in several newspapers.
Regardless, no one can do that on their commute. But people can and do get 60, 70 mpg when babying the Prius and driving it in the correct way.
The Gerdes run was filmed by HBO and appeared on an HBO special. It was not merely "self-reported."
So you are saying this event was spectacular enough to be filmed, produced and shown by a premium cable channel? Wow yeah that sounds like typical experience to me.
Regardless of what the speed limit says, there are always idiots who drive 10-15 MPH over the limit and are the people who run the most red lights and waste the most gas. And in almost every case, they don't get where they are going any faster (at least not significantly faster) than someone driving at the speed limit.
ENFORCEMENT of existing laws and hitting people in the wallet hard enough to make them slow down is the only way.
You also realize that the speed limit is a somewhat arbitrary number in most urban settings, and an 85th percentile number in more rural settings? If you check biblical references, at no point will it say thou shalt drive 55.
The Gerdes run was filmed by HBO and appeared on an HBO special.
Wayne also has a lifetime average of 48.7 MPG with a non-hybrid Accord EX. Makes the average Prius look pretty poor. If you are willing to drive like that, a hybrid is not necessary. It is just extra money down the toilet.
If you are "going to drive like that anyway" you might as well buy a hybrid and save money on gas costs and reduce your pollution at the same time. And show off.
Comments
You better do some more research on Brazil. About three flaws in your perception.
One: Brazil has only a fraction of the cars that the USA has
Two: Brazil uses E100 mostly made from sugar cane. A much better source of ethanol than corn.
Three: The only reason Brazil is now energy independent is a huge oil find. They only use about 20% ethanol. The rest is from the oil they found off shore.
We could buy the much cheaper ethanol from Brazil. Our dear Mr Jimmy Carter tacked a 53 cent tariff on to protect the US farmers in the last ethanol boondoggle. Remember that one? When we bought the last batch of refineries that are now just rusting away in towns across the midwest.
You can buy a diesel Jetta that will run fine on biodiesel and get close to 50 MPG.
That is how Toyota was able to get the AT-PZEV emissions rating from CA. There is some confusion as to what all is covered under that mandated warranty. I think any part that can cause the emissions to fail the AT-PZEV test. I think that CARB and the EPA were skeptical about battery longevity as many of us are. Honda did not go for that with the Insight and several owners were stuck with bad batteries.
You do realize that there can be no torque at 0 RPM.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I didn't mention all hybrids did I? I'd think something like the Camry and Altima and Escape hybrids would have adequate power. Even better would be that Lexus hybrid, though the price is rather steep. I wouldn't mind a hybrid system supplementing the LS3 engine on a Vette.
I know first hand that the Prius has more than adequate acceleration for normal driving.
It isn't normal driving that'll get you hurt or killed, when a fellow driver causes you to do something emergency like. It's better to have excellent acceleration, braking, and handling which these high mpg hybrids sacrifice to maximize economy.
Granted Tesla Motors hasn't actually delivered any cars yet but I understand they are telling their customers to expect 5 yrs./100,000 miles from their battery packs.
Far better is subjective more than objective but given their much higher initial purchase cost, one would hope they are better.
They pollute less.
PZEV is PZEV, no matter if its a Toyota hybrid or a Subaru
They allow you to spend less on fuel.
Which at current fuel prices will take about 6 years to reach a break even point for the higher initial purchase price.
They hold resale value better.
Better than what?
They allow you to feel "all warm and fuzzy" about your car-buying choice, which is something that is invaluable monetarily.
In exchange for a total lackluster driving experience.
They have spurred invention and innovation like the upcoming Volt and the fuel-cell cars of the future.
Nah, they didn't. Saturn's EV1 adn Toyota's electric RAV4 did more to kick off things like the Volt. Fuel cell cars were on the boards before hybrid power was.
Even a Prius doing 82 mph is getting 40+ MPG.
That hasn't been my experience. In fact, the 3 people I know closely that have Priuses (Priui?) have complained about the mileage.
I have gotten 40 MPG at 70 MPH in my 2007 Camry Hybrid (on flat ground for all you smarty-pantses) so I know the Prius can do better. A Corolla can't do that.
A Civic can.
But yes, a Prius is the wrong car for a leadfoot. The good thing is that very few "leadfeet" are customers for that particular car.
Maybe that is why my MIL has the issue with her mileage. I find when I drive it, I try to make it run on electric power as much as possible to get the best possible economy. I have also found that below about 60 degrees, it really doesn't like to just run on batteries, which might explain why my friends in Michigan complain about their mileage.
And as far as who "needs" a hybrid? Soon the choices will be so great that it will not matter what you need because there will be a hybrid to fill that bill
Nah, they are a stop-gap, not a long term solution. I don't think there will be a hybrid sports car, as you typically wouldn't want 600 lbs of batteries in the vehicle. The Insight, while small and cramped, was hardly sporty to drive. I think it was also the last one with a manual transmission.
Any expectations that hybrids would be a fad, a niche vehicle, or a short-term phenom are gone now. So far 10 years and the sales are still climbing and the choices expanding year by year.
It will be in-favor until the next thing comes along. First will be the "plug in hybrids" and then real electric vehicles and then fuel cells.
That is a very valid point. I think I would be happy if they just promised to support the vehicle in 10 years;I can think of a lot of automakers that don't support conventional vehicles that long (Audi).
Everything I said is still true. Allow me to touch on a couple of things you attempted to refute however.
When I said "they pollute less" I was referring to a hybrid versus the comparable gasser. Can you show me a case where a hybrid and a comparable gasser pollute the same? I don't think you can. Same with resale - I meant resale for the comparable model, like a Civix EX versus a Civic Hybrid.
As proof, I just did a kbb lookup on a 2004 HCH with 75K miles versus a 2004 EX with 75K miles. The data:
Civic EX 2004 75K
Excellent
$10,225
Good
$9,435
Fair
$8,055
Civic HCH 2004 75K
Excellent
$12,150
Good
$11,260
Fair
$9,655
And a four-door non-hybrid Civic CANNOT get 40 MPG at 70 mph. Sorry.
And hybrids indeed might be a "stop gap" technology, but that gap is going to be about 20 years. I'll take 20 years of low-polluting hybrids as a "stop gap" period.
We all want something better and cleaner, at least those who care about the Earf and the legacy we leave for people 100 years from now. I will welcome any technology which is better and cleaner and more fuel efficient than hybrids when that time comes.
If you are talking about greenhouse gasses (I assume you are) it is a really easy calculation. As MPG goes up GHG/mile driven goes down. It is that simple. All cars that burn anything produce the same amount of CO2 per unit of fuel used. It is simple chemistry that nobody can get around.
Hydrocarbon + O2 = CO2 + H2O
One could argue that the car that is spewing smoke and gets the same MPG is actually emitting less CO2. Why? Because incomplete compustion converts the hydrocarbon to CO instead of CO2. But, CO is much more dangerous and bad for you than CO2.
NOx is formed in two ways. The first way is the Nitrogen bound in the fuel. Not much of this in gas. Comes up more in coal. The second way is the N2 in the air is oxidized to NOx at very high temperatures. You can get rid of it two ways. One is to stage the combustion so that the temperature does not get so high. Not practical in cars with pistons. The second way is to put a cat converter ont he tailpipe. If you really wanted to get rid of the NOx you would inject Ammonia into the gas stream prior to the converter. This reduces the NOx to N2 and O2.
Yes, that is my understanding. This is a warranty mandated by CARB. There are documents on the CARB site that indicate they may drop that mandate. It seems that law is a deterrent to automakers building more hybrids. Honda has had a lot of battery issues. Toyota Japan had a lot of problems with their early Prius batteries. Personally I would not even consider a hybrid without that cushion of 10 years longevity on the battery. I am sure the EV builders will have similar requirements. I have heard of cases where Toyota refused to replace a battery that was bad when any modifications were done to the cars electrical.
The long warranty is a deterrent to the automakers using cheap batteries. There is a HUGE difference in battery quality. I have bought too many replacement batteries that just did not live up to the OEMs. 10 years or 100k milesis a nice round figure.
You have to define what type of pollution you're referring to and what state the vehicle was purchased and being used. If its GHGs then the car that burns less fuel will definitely pollute less. If you're talking about the kind of particulate pollution that causes smog then you can't make the assumption that the hybrid pollutes less. For instance in CA there are plenty of V6 vehicles from BMW (328s) and GM (most 3.8L models) that get the same EPA pollution score of 9.5 that the Prius gets. In fact there are a lot of economy cars like the Yaris, Fit, Corolla, Sentra, Civic that only get an EPA pollution score of 7 despite the fact that they burn considerably less fuel than these V6s.
My definition of "pollutes less" is "creates less pollution IN TOTAL per year" than a comparable car.
Sure, there are other cars which score 9.5 on the Air Pollution score. But how much GHG in tons do they produce per year? All of them more than the Prius. How much annual fuel do they use than the Prius? All of them more.
Civic EX 2004 75K
Excellent
$10,225
Good
$9,435
Fair
$8,055
Civic HCH 2004 75K
Excellent
$12,150
Good
$11,260
Fair
$9,655
GHG will cause the Earth to get warmer in 50 years, but take the cat converters and other pollution reduction devices off of a car and we will all die of cancer much sooner. This goes to prove that the EPA is the second best government program ever (the military being #1). We went from having to wear dust masks outside and wondering if an inversion layer would kill us (ask the Chinese about this) to worrying about the Earth getting a few degrees warmer.
Diesel exhaust is a problem with high sulfur diesel. ULSD which should have been mandated decades ago is cleaner in many ways than gasoline. As you have pointed out CO is much more of a problem than CO2. Diesel cars put out less of both than comparable sized vehicles with gasoline engines. There are a lot of trace elements that unleaded gas exhaust puts off that is cancer causing as well.
I do agree that is it a lot better now than when I was a kid growing up in Los Angeles. Especially the 1960s. I would go up and visit my grandmother and could hardly breath it was so bad up there.
Not here in Boise unfortunately. We're in a valley (think LA) and everything gets trapped under inversions now and then. Today I can see across the valley to the Owyhee Mountains some ~50 miles away, but often I can't see the lights of Home Depot 2 miles away. Then I pop up 3,000 to the ski hill and the sun can be shining brightly. Used to see the same thing in Anchorage, aka Los Anchorage.
When the inversions hit, our air quality goes to pot, burn orders go into effect and I can see the typical LA style brown haze lying near the valley floor.
$3.xx a gallon gas hasn't decreased traffic (and resulting particulates and smog) any.
I don't think CO is much of an issue for today's modern LEV, SULEV, and PZEV vehicles. I'd bet that the new vehicles being sold today account for a very small fraction of the particulate pollution being generated. We'd accomplish more in terms of cleaning up the air by getting the small percentage of dirty cars off the road rather than focus on making these clean vehicles cleaner. So if modern diesels can meet the LEV standard I'm all for them.
While diesels definitely achieve greater mpg isn't there more CO2 being generated from burning a gallon of diesel versus a gallon of gasoline? It seems like there would have to be since diesel fuel contains more energy. Overall I'm sure diesel engines would still come out on top in terms of overall CO2 emissions due to the fact that their engines are more efficient. But I don't think you can conclude that if a diesel is getting 30% better mpg it is emitting 30% less CO2.
I feel it makes it easier to read. And easier to refute propaganda.
2004 Honda Civic Hybrid CVT
Base Price $ 20,650
Price As Tested $ 21,140
Civic HCH 2004 75K
Excellent
$12,150
Good
$11,260
Fair
$9,655
Base price: US$17,260;
Civic EX 2004 75K
Excellent
$10,225
Good
$9,435
Fair
$8,055
So given the fact that it was $4000 more initially, I am glad it is worth more used. I would also argue that since the hybrid doesn't have the moonroof or other features, it would be more comparable to an LX.
And a four-door non-hybrid Civic CANNOT get 40 MPG at 70 mph. Sorry.
Are you kidding? Its even rated at 40 mpg.
I will welcome any technology which is better and cleaner and more fuel efficient than hybrids when that time comes.
Like a bicycle? Like not living 100 miles from work?
According to the fueleconomy website, CO2 is linear to the MPG. A VW Jetta diesel that gets 41 MPG on the highway emits 6.1 tones of CO2 per year. The same Jetta gasser that gets 28 MPG highway emits 8.3 tons of CO2 per year. That is +or - 2%.
Gas: 154.79 lb/MMBTU, 130,000 BTU/gal = 20.1227 lb CO2/gal
Diesel: 159.69 lb/MMBTU, 137,000 BTU/gal = 21.8775 lb CO2/gal
Natural Gas: 116.38 lb/MMBTU, 1020 btu/scf = 0.1187 lb CO2/scf
So, diesel emits about 10% more CO2 per gallon used. This makes sense. Diesel is a heavier (lb/gal) fuel and has more Carbon-Carbon bonds than gas and far more than NG. The longer the carbon chains are, the more CO2 produced and the heavier it is. A diesel has to get 10% better fuel economy than a gas car to "break even" on GHGs.
Just for fun:
Coal: ~205 lb/MMBTU (varies depending on type of coal)
Yes, the Civic Hybrid does cost $3,000 more than the Civic EX.
No, it doesn't compare to the DX, because a car without air conditioning, cruise control and power windows is not the same as a car with all those options.
If you want to play that game (and many people do), just compare the Civic Hybrid to the Kia Rio. You'll see a huge price difference and that will justify your opinion that hybrids suck.
If, however, you want a fair comparison, include the facts that the hybrid comes with a $2,100 tax credit, and it saves the average driver $40/month in gasoline costs. That makes up for the higher price.
Plus you get the bonus of making fewer trips to the gas station, and giving less money to OPEC.
Regarding the emasculating factor of hybrids, the speed limits pretty much neuter that argument. Is a guy driving 70 mph in a Corvette really more manly than a guy driving 70 mph in a hybrid?
.
Don't know what you are looking at, but the 2007 and 2008 Civic 4-door is rated at 29 MPG combined at fueleconomy.gov. No 4-dr non-hybrid Civic can get 40 MPG at 70 MPH. Once again, SORRY, but it cannot do that. My TCH can though...:)
real owners report MPG
And in my comparison, I equipped the HCH and the EX exactly alike. The EX has ALWAYS BEEN the most comparable Civic to the HCH, since day one. The hybrid naysayers have tried to stick the LX in there, but the facts remain that the EX is closest.
And we are not talking about bicycles (I have a hybrid bike I ride to work every day) but automobiles.
My xA averaged 34.5 and the '95 Corolla averages 35.5, both driven REAL fast, about 3/4 hwy, 1/4 city.
So for me, switching to a Prius makes little sense at this point. The ICE cars are still "too good".
But the hybrids are CLEANER of course.
No Prius and no car ever will get the same mileage for every driver. The significant advantage of the hybrids is that they have instruments which allow the driver to "work on" improving their mileage by learning how to drive to make the car perform the most efficiently. Very few gasser or diesel cars have those tools, and thus they lose that capability.
When you can get a tank of 110 MPG like a Prius has done on your xA or Corolla, let me know....
If you really have to ask this ...
It's illogical yes, but that's the way it is. We're not that removed from the jungle!
If what you are inferring is what I think it is - changing driving styles, which affects other traffic, then this has been discussed before. And I believe your position is that hybrid owners have a right to drive differently, even if it PO's the majority of drivers around them? Great position. :mad:
Also I hope you are not going to promote methods of increasing mpg that decrease safety, such as overinflating (beyond the vehicle manufacturers specifications) tires, and such. :sick:
Wasted Fuel.
Too many ruined brake pads from all the hard stops.
Worn out rubber tires from wasted rubber.
Higher insurance rates for cars.
Higher insurance rates for accident victims.
More lawsuits, leading to large damage awards and wasted court time.
More pollution from the wasted fuel.
Parents losing kids to car accidents which did not need to happen.
Road rage deaths.
There are multitudes of things wrong with driving too fast, and very few things wrong with trying to be a responsible driver and driving the speed limit (or below - EGAD !!!!) and accelerating normally and driving with safety, not HURRY HURRY HURRY, on your mind.
You know what? I demonstrate to my kids all the time how stupid it is to go fast. I'll be driving 3-5 MPH under the limit on a Phoenix street, and some yahoo will pass me going 10-15 MPH over. But you know what? Unless he turns, I INVARIABLY meet him at the the next red light, or the one after that, or the one after that. Speeding like that is a waste, and on top of all of it, it DOESN'T GET YOU THERE FASTER !!! It just increases the chances of dying when you have a crash and wastes fuel.
And yes, I overinflate, ( but do not recommend it to people without having them do their own research ) and you know what? Not a single problem with about 2 1/2 years of overinflating my Segway, my bike, and my two hybrid cars. No uneven wear, no blowouts. It's far worse and more dangerous to underinflate than to overinflate.
Wow, 4 cars inside of 10 years, that gives me confidence.
The significant advantage of the hybrids is that they have instruments which allow the driver to "work on" improving their mileage by learning how to drive to make the car perform the most efficiently.
If you are referring to the human factors design disaster video game screen with all the arrows, that is one of the biggest reasons I could never recommend that model to anyone. Who at Toyota thought it would be a good idea to have this constantly changing screen to compete for driver's attention I don't know.
When you can get a tank of 110 MPG like a Prius has done on your xA or Corolla, let me know....
When you can get 110 mpg on a stock Prius, let me know.
I am glad you are happy with your vehicle choice and it makes you feel good about yourself, I think that is very important. However, its very important not to confuse that with factual information.
There was a stock Prius which got 110 MPG in a tank, And one in Japan which got even more than that. Google it.
And I have presented nothing but facts.
Actually, it sounds like if you were truly concerned with the environment and driving safety, you wouldn't impede the flow of traffic by driving under the speed limit. Further, I would take your city council and urban planning departments to task for not properly timing traffic signals to promote better flow rates.
Actually I think i said when your hybrid gets 110 mpg, let me know. A Ripleys believe it or not article about coasting down from Haleakala Crater doesn't do it for me, anymore than my 40 mpg Civic does it for you.
Studies show that it takes someone driving 10 MPH or more below the speed limit to become a significant danger to the traffic flow. I never drive that slow, and would not recommend anyone driving 10+ MPH under the limit.
People driving at or below the speed limit, in THIS town, cause FAR FAR fewer traffic problems than speeders and red-light runners.
Go Prius Gurl !!!
Stock Prius, 4 drivers, one tank, city streets, 110 MPG....'nuff said
I have also found that in anything below about 60 degrees, it is very difficult to get the vehicle to operate on battery only.
Again, self reported info from fan sites again doesn't really do it for me, but I am glad you are happy with your purchase.
Traffic should be moving faster, not slower. The idea is the system should be efficient, with as little time spent using the system as possible. The more time spend on the road, the less time spend doing something productive.
There are actually an incredible number of tools urban planners have at their disposal for controlling traffic flow, from the timing of lights to how wide they make the lanes to modifying the layout of the road to increase driver workload.
Regardless, no one can do that on their commute. But people can and do get 60, 70 mpg when babying the Prius and driving it in the correct way.
So you are saying this event was spectacular enough to be filmed, produced and shown by a premium cable channel? Wow yeah that sounds like typical experience to me.
ENFORCEMENT of existing laws and hitting people in the wallet hard enough to make them slow down is the only way.
You also realize that the speed limit is a somewhat arbitrary number in most urban settings, and an 85th percentile number in more rural settings? If you check biblical references, at no point will it say thou shalt drive 55.
Wayne also has a lifetime average of 48.7 MPG with a non-hybrid Accord EX. Makes the average Prius look pretty poor. If you are willing to drive like that, a hybrid is not necessary. It is just extra money down the toilet.
If you are "going to drive like that anyway" you might as well buy a hybrid and save money on gas costs and reduce your pollution at the same time. And show off.