".....What's going to happen when the Genesis Coupe gets into these comparisons? It seems like a legitimate contender to some of them, and would probably directly compete with their V6 trims. "
Exactly OW, they lost me too. Local Pontiac dealers were asking outrageous ADMs for the GTO (rebadged Monaro). They acted as though taking the Monaro and sticking a Grand-Am grill on it, with a couple GTO badges, justified asking for $5 - $10K over sticker. There were some dealers wanting something down just to test drive it - I walked away never looking back. To me, that was the biggest issue why the car was a sales flop and the reason they sat on dealers lots. There were still new '06s on a couple lots around here early last year. It was a shame too as the car itself was / is pretty decent.
It seemed they didn't learn from that as the pricing on G8s were ridiculous and it looks like Chevy dealers didn't learn from the SSR ADMs either.
I actually find G8's pricing not too bad. I mean, sure, it could be more competitive given some lack of interior quality and poor fuel econ. But overall it's still ok.
GTO's a total loser, it's also interesting to know that Monaro was deemed one of the most polluting car in Australia (how the heck did it make it to US.....).
GTO's a total loser, it's also interesting to know that Monaro was deemed one of the most polluting car in Australia (how the heck did it make it to US.....).
Actually, I did like one thing about the GTO...its interior. It seemed a lot higher-quality than your typical domestic, and I'd put it above the likes of Honda, Nissan, and Toyota. It had a sturdy, expensive look to it, more akin to a BMW or Benz or Audi. Another thing I really liked about the interior was the amount of front seat legroom. It felt almost 70's car big, where I could almost stretch my legs out straight and barely be able to reach the firewall. Not too many cars nowadays are like that.
As for how it made it to the US? Well, the stick shift model was actually pretty economical. The EPA originally rated it at 17/29 (16/26 with the new dumbed down numbers). I think it used some kind of skip-shift feature similar to the Corvette. Now the automatic was a bit of a guzzler...16/21 originally (15/20 under the new ratings), and it got slapped with a guzzler tax.
The main things that killed the GTO for me was the looks, and the tiny 8 cubic foot trunk, necessitated by moving the gas tank so it would pass crash tests. Evidently the feds don't like the automakers hanging their tanks off the back of the car under the trunk floor anymore! As for looks, it just had sort of a generic, vanilla look to it. A GTO should look tough. And most of the "real" GTO's did. Heck, compared to the 2004, even the 1974 Ventura based GTO looked tough. Heck, a 1981 LeMans Safari wagon almost looked tough in comparison! :P
I actually find G8's pricing not too bad. I mean, sure, it could be more competitive given some lack of interior quality and poor fuel econ. But overall it's still ok.
For the money, I think the car's a screaming bargain. Well, except for the fact that it's now an orphan. :sick: With the V-8, it's kinda like getting 7-series interior room, 5-series performance and handling, at a 3-series price. As for fuel economy, considering it weighs two tons and has a 6.0 engine...that's roughly 366 cubic inches, and given the performance, I think that 15/24 is actually pretty impressive. Just for comparison, the old 1996 Impala SS is rated at 15/24 under the new ratings (17/26 originally), and the G8 is a faster car. But yeah, I agree, the interior does suffer a bit. I think it's still better than what most of GM does, and for the price of the car still not bad, but if they'd just thrown $50 more per car into the interior...
hrmm i cant remember the last time i seen a hybrid in the city or in my small town of 5000. I dont see anybody making money off green technology, well not these current days maybe when everything is electric or something. Are any car companys even making profits off their green products? Maybe its just me but i personally feel like not spending a extra $5000 for a more gutless and uglier vehicle but then again i guess everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
Toyota was making a profit on Priuses...when they were making a profit anyway. Ford was just profitable this past quarter, they're probably profitable on Escape and Fusion hybrid models, though I'm not sure. Honda and Hyundai are profitable, and their bread and butter models are quite fuel efficient (Civic and Civic Hybrid, Elantra, Sonata, Accord).
GM hasn't been profitable on green technology, but they have a habit of not being profitable period, and especially not being profitable on small cars. So it's highly likely they wouldn't be very profitable on their hybrids or XFE models either. Likewise Honda and Hyundai are typically profitable regardless, so their fuel-efficient and hybrid stuff is probably going to be profitable (yeah, Hyundai is coming out with a hybrid soon).
Bottom line: you have to be able to make a profit on cars in order to make a profit on green cars. :shades: Doesn't help to build a "green car" because if you don't know how to build a car people want, how are you going to build a green car people want? Besides which, you also build a green car that appeals to your customer base. The Prius was for people who liked Corolla and Camry, and was designed to appeal to those tastes. The Civic Hybrid was obviously aimed toward appealing to people who liked Civics (duh!).
GM, unfortunately, built hybrids that appealed to the market they had left...truck and SUV buyers. Where it didn't help a whole lot, as it happens: it was, to be honest, the right tactic for them, and not a bad idea initially, but the system they came up with cost a bunch and didn't increase fuel economy very much. They sort of shot themselves in the foot on it though: they came up with the el-cheapo "mild hybrid" system, kept referring to it as "Hybrid" and charged much less for it. Which makes Joe Consumer wonder why he should spend $5k extra for this other "Hybrid" when they're both "Hybrids" right? So he'll come back later when the price comes down.
OW: $3k markup??? :confuse: In my area you could get the v8 for $32k when it first came into the market.... now it's more like $28-29k fully loaded.
Andre: I'm not sure how it got into US, but I'm sure it's not the EPA numbers. Monaro gets extremely high CO/CO2 pollution tax (European tax not levied in US). Some magazines even made a joke taht Monaro produces more CO2 than a bbq cookout. I wonder if EPA just ignore it because it's never a consideration in US.....
Carstrike: Prius was sold at a loss until recently, that's why even though the production costs for the batteries are much cheaper now, the price for Prius keeps climbing up. But even now it's still a scam for buyers, both economically and environmentally. The way I see it hybrids like Prius was just meant to tackle laws like CAFE, which perhaps explains why hybrids are only popular in N.America, while clean diesel rules everywhere else.
GM flunked out with hybrids because it's "mild hybrid" system is the most ridiculous hybrid I've ever sen, bar none.
But even now it's still a scam for buyers, both economically and environmentally.
Not really that much of a scam: a lot of usable stuff came out of working on hybrids. Idle cutoff, regenerative braking, improvements in battery tech, wider spread of silica tires. All of this stuff can be applied to any internal combustion vehicle, diesels included. GM might be smart to release a hybrid diesel.
Yep, the dealer tacked on a MAP (Market Adjusted Price) of $3K. Not all dealers did that back then I heard a lot of them did. Agree on the current price now. I should go back and have some fun at my local PBGMC dealer, 'cause he has a few of them parked in the Long Term lot today!
Economically: overall ownership costs is still pricier than equally sized economy car. To recoup the differences it'll take about 10 years, and by then the battery needs replacement already. Environmentally: you save fossil fuel but add toxic batteries to the enviro problems.
I prefer the clean diesel idea, particuarly since the mass production of algae bio-diesel is about to become reality.
That's true: it takes a long time to recover the cost of a full-fledged hybrid system. Thing is, I'm not sure there's really been any studies as to which particular components save the most fuel. By implementing pieces of it (say, idle shutoff and silica tires for example) it might cut the cost and raise the fuel economy enough to pay off quicker.
And a full hybrid system can in fact pay off for a lot of city driving. I still think cabs and busses, which are pretty much all stop and go in cities, would be perfect, and fleets would save noticeable amounts long term.
There is someone on facebook giving away GMS certs (employee pricing) to people. Right now, GMS for competitor vehcle owners and supplier discount for other buyers are available...
For example, with the rebates available on the G8, you can get the GT version for under $26K without any haggling..
You can find him on facebook (or google him) "thenewgeneral".
Environmentally: you save fossil fuel but add toxic batteries to the enviro problems.
Batteries can be recycled up to a point so it's not a total environmental impact...just cost-prohibitive at the present time.
The hybrid battery packs are designed to last for the lifetime of the vehicle, somewhere between 150,000 and 200,000 miles, probably a whole lot longer. The warranty covers the batteries for between eight and ten years, depending on the carmaker.
Battery toxicity is a concern, although today's hybrids use NiMH batteries, not the environmentally problematic rechargeable nickel cadmium. "Nickel metal hydride batteries are benign. They can be fully recycled," says Ron Cogan, editor of the Green Car Journal. Toyota and Honda say that they will recycle dead batteries and that disposal will pose no toxic hazards. Toyota puts a phone number on each battery, and they pay a $200 "bounty" for each battery to help ensure that it will be properly recycled.
There's no definitive word on replacement costs because they are almost never replaced. According to Toyota, since the Prius first went on sale in 2000, they have not replaced a single battery for wear and tear.
I agree on the Camaro's visibility issues. My buddy just got a beautiful black on black 2SS. I drove it for a bit, was impressed with how easily it shifted and how easy the clutch was to depress. But I could hardly SEE out the windows. My 94 Z28 and 98 T/A were much, much easier to see out of. I'm not too thrilled with the new designers and their high beltline designs. They look good from the outside, though. Another thing about the Camaro, there was no lumbar support in the driver's seat.
Batteries can be recycled up to a point so it's not a total environmental impact...just cost-prohibitive at the present time.
The problem is the metal in the first place. It doesn't magically appear and the damage caused by mining nickel is well-known. Just go to anyplace online for stories of the horrendous environmental damage that results.
This was the main plant Toyota was using for nickel for the Prius batteries. I wonder what nation they will buy off to mine nickel next(likely someplace where there are loads of poor and a dictatorship)
As usual, GM talks big delivers second rate but were getting used to this, right? Wait until they bleed incentives and the 20% discount. Meet the new SRX.
What is blameworthy is how Cadillac has gone about the transformation. The SRX’s problem is not that it is downsized, but dumbed-down. In so doing, Cadillac may have underestimated what it takes to play in a class that includes not just the redesigned Lexus, but potent newcomers like the Audi Q5, the Volvo XC60, the Infiniti EX35 and the Mercedes-Benz GLK350.
But the Lexus’s true appeal to the Cole Haan class, too often dismissed with left-handed compliments from the enthusiast press, is what’s under its Botoxed skin: how genuinely solid, luxurious and unobtrusive the Lexus feels to drive, or to be driven in, over hundreds of thousands of miles. A reputation for unmatched reliability certainly helps.
The SRX, in contrast, uses splashy surface techniques to mask genetic deficiencies: a peashooter of a V-6; a lazy and intrusive transmission; an occasionally choppy ride. All run counter to the desired luxury-hauler experience. The result is a middling shot into the underbelly of the crossover class.
Cadillac could have used its excellent CTS sedan as the mechanical basis for the SRX, as it did with the first-generation version. Asked why not, G.M. says that Cadillac already had a CTS sport wagon in the works. Yet there’s no reason — other than cost-cutting — that a crossover couldn’t emerge from the same rear-drive drawing board. More debatable from a strategic standpoint, Cadillac will save its best stuff for the more traditional CTS wagon, yet that seems a niche model at best: Here in America, crossovers rule, outselling wagons by exponential margins.
True enough but here's a great response to your argument.
Nickel metal hydride batteries have a much lower environmental impact compared to lead-acid based ones. Consider that the average traditional vehicle replaces the battery 2-4 times over its life. Yes, the hybrid battery is much larger, but last longer. Nickel is no near as toxic as lead. AND they do last! Lithium-ion, more efficient and even safer than Nickel is the next step. Hybrids are not new anymore; they’ve been in Japan since 1997. People less enthusiastic about hybrids will try to put hybrid owners down by saying that they are not “saving the world.” Many hybrid owners are certainly concerned with image. I agree, but every step individuals take to minimize their impact can produce substantial results if others begin to adopt similar changes. Also, the Prius DOES get 46+ miles when driven correctly. Be optimistic. Hybrids represent the best immediate solution to our carbon addiction. A band-aid, yes, but its a start!
Nickel isn't as toxic to the end user as lead, and recycles a bit easier, but it's WAY WAY WAY more toxic to mine. There is no free lunch. Both are horrendously bad to the environment. What we need are options like CNG and fuel cells that run on alcohol and other more benign substances.
if you are trying to say that a hybrid battery lasts 10 years and a lead battery lasts 2.5 years to get the 2-4 times replacement, you are pretty far off. The previous owner of my Riv finally replaced the battery the day he sold it to me at 8.5 yrs old. I have since put 85k miles over 5.5 yrs and still going good on second battery, closing in on 14 yrs old. I usually get about 6-8 years out of a battery.
half the buyers in Indiana are 'S' buyers for all the D3 so MAP is not seen here. G8's and Camaro's sell at list price until the day they can line them up out front. Then they will drop. "S" buyers don't get their price from the dealer.
thats why the bell curve has long tails at both ends. My worst ever in a million miles was over 4 yrs and that was an otherwise healthy battery that the terminal leaked on after acid got to the lead and ate a hole in it. I think GM was saving 50 cents a battery to eliminate a seal and it was later discovered that the seal was necessary.
I cannot remember any GM OEM battery lasting more than 3 years. I usually replace with a 7 year battery from a stable company. We just replaced a 7 year battery in our LS400. It was one week past the 7 years.
I have pretty much gotten 3-4 years out of my oem starting batteries. But comparing a lead acid starting battery to a lead acid deep cycle battery is apples to oranges IMO. I have an 48v electric golf cart and 3-5 years is all you can expect with them to and the last year or two require longer charge time and the run time gets progressively worse, and man are they heavy. I think each of the 4 batteries in my golf cart weigh close to 100lbs. They require proper maintenance to live a long life. Keep the cells filled with water, don't leave them sit with under 75% charge etc.
Batteries are only made by 2 or 3 companies anyway, its like Union Carbide, Johnson Controls, and Interstate, and everyone else just rebrands one of those. It always amuses me when I see those battery comparisons. That said, I have had excellent luck with the Motorcraft "Red Top" in the Contour. The first one lasted 7 yrs, the second one was going strong when I sold the car for a wagon :sick:
Both of my Accords came with "Delco" batteries that seemed to be fine.
As noted in the hybrid discussion, temperature, number of cycles, and vibration are the biggest killers of batteries. I think some mfgs do a better job of isolating the vibration and having a stronger, more even clamping system than others.
Yeah batteries are like antifreeze only a couple of companies actually make them but they do make them to different specs.
I will say the OEM batteries in saabs are some of the most worthless I have ever seen. All of our the Volvos on the lot will start in the cold after sitting for a couple of weeks but the Saabs won't. First big snow storm of the year it is guaranteed that all but one or two Volvos, usually older pre-owned models, will fail to start but a solid 25 percent of the Saabs on the lot will fail to start. We typically carry more Volvos then saabs too.
Funny you should mention that. I went to test drive a VW Passat in 2005. The battery was dead. Seems the yard guy was supposed to rotate these little solar panels from one vehicle to the next to keep the batteries in a charged condition. I only kept my Passat TDI for 13 months with no battery issues. Cold weather is a killer also. We had blankets with heaters for all our trucks in the Arctic. They had trickle chargers plugged in any time they were shut off. Batteries did not last long.
I cannot remember any GM OEM battery lasting more than 3 years.
Must be the weather :P
The Battery in my wife's Ranier will be 6 yrs old come Nov, as will the truck. In the 7 tears I've had the PA Ultra, it's the same Delco battery (not sure if original, as this would make it 10 yrs old. Same for the truck; an '04, bought in '06, same 2 batteries.
Oh those little solar panel things are awesome. One of our Rover techs took a couple of them and rigged them up to be trickle chargers for his motorcycles and ATVs.
I was pleasantly surprised when I got 5.5 years out of the OEM battery in my 2000 Intrepid. In fact, it was still performing fine when I swapped it out; I just did it as a precaution as it was just before a trip to Florida, and I figured that with my luck, it would die down there somewhere, and at the worst possible time.
Unfortunately, changing the battery turned out to be such a cluster that I swore I'd be rid of this car before it came time to change it again! I had to jack it up, take the wheel off, and pull it out through the wheel well!
I think the last battery in my '85 Silverado lasted about 4 years, which probably isn't too bad, considering that truck sits alot and doesn't get used much, and when it does, it's mainly short trips. My '67 Catalina killed its last battery in about 3 years, which again doesn't surprise me, because it doesn't get driven much, rarely starts on the first try, gets "hot spots" on the starter and as old as it is, I'm sure there's some kind of power leak here and there. I think my '79 5th Ave's battery is about 4-5 years old now...I'd have to check my records. I'm impressed with that one because, like the other cars, it doesnt' get driven a whole lot, and often it's just short trips. Or to move it out of the way so I can get one of my other cars out of the garage. And when it's been running awhile, it'll get a hot spot on the starter as well, and can be a pain to start if it's just been turned off for a few minutes.
Is there a general rule of thumb for batteries these days? I've heard in the past, that batteries could start getting iffy after three years, but I've usually had better luck than that, unless there was just something about the car that was stressing out the battery.
Re. SAAB worthless batteries... they must be sourcing them from another source than my old Classic 900 - a "real" SAAB if you will, rather than a GM, or Opel, disguised design. The OEM battery (manufactured in Sweden as well) in our Classic 900 lasted 8 years, before replacement.
I dunno, I get at least 6 years out of the original Delco battery which I always replace with another Delco battery. The only exception was my 1988 Buick Park Ave in which I replace the battery with a Duralast Gold from the nearby AutoZone as I needed the car for work. The worksite was in a neighborhood I definitely didn't want to bring my new Cadillac.
There used to be an Exide Battery plant on Rising Sun and Adams Avenue in Philly back in the day. It's currently the site of a very seedy shopping center. I believe the Exide plant is currently called Deka Battery/East Penn Manufacturing in Lyons Station, PA.
Oh yes I am sure they are doing that. The older Saabs never had this problem. Even Saabs from the early part of this decade didn't have this problem
I am sure GM in their infinite wisdom decided to dumb down the batteries to save a dollar per car but they are probably spending more then that on road side assistance claims from dead batteries.
The 2 GM SUV's I had/have is 3 and done. Probably due to the power options but I do not see the technology improvement in L/A bateries AFAIC. It's a crap shoot after that so hope you are not stuck in a snow storm or out on a desert somewhere.
Could be the heat then. My sister says she is lucky to get two years in Phoenix.
Heat will kill a battery real quick. I've talked to people in Nevada that are lucky to get two years too, regardless of make.
The Delco in my Suburban lasted about 4 years and died in the middle of summer. I've had 4 or 5 batteries completely die and only one time do I remember a battery dieing in the winter. The main thing the cold does is reduce the output of the battery while increasing the load required to start an engine. So a weak battery very likely may not have enough reserve capacity to start a cold engine when below zero.
I believe CCA (cold cranking amps) are measured at 32 degrees, so as ambient temp lowers below 32 degrees the output of even a new battery decreases.
Comments
I would say it is, but yes, I would say they should see their warranty and raise them the transferrable aspect for the full 10 years.
Your wish is C&D's command;
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparisons/09q2/2010_camaro_v6_vs._genesis_- coupe_v6-comparison_tests
It seemed they didn't learn from that as the pricing on G8s were ridiculous and it looks like Chevy dealers didn't learn from the SSR ADMs either.
G8 - rebadged Commodore
I actually find G8's pricing not too bad. I mean, sure, it could be more competitive given some lack of interior quality and poor fuel econ. But overall it's still ok.
GTO's a total loser, it's also interesting to know that Monaro was deemed one of the most polluting car in Australia (how the heck did it make it to US.....).
Last year, the GT price was $32K plus a $3,000 markup.
Now, you can get a new 2009 for $27K since Pontiac has been killed off.
Regards,
OW
Actually, I did like one thing about the GTO...its interior. It seemed a lot higher-quality than your typical domestic, and I'd put it above the likes of Honda, Nissan, and Toyota. It had a sturdy, expensive look to it, more akin to a BMW or Benz or Audi. Another thing I really liked about the interior was the amount of front seat legroom. It felt almost 70's car big, where I could almost stretch my legs out straight and barely be able to reach the firewall. Not too many cars nowadays are like that.
As for how it made it to the US? Well, the stick shift model was actually pretty economical. The EPA originally rated it at 17/29 (16/26 with the new dumbed down numbers). I think it used some kind of skip-shift feature similar to the Corvette. Now the automatic was a bit of a guzzler...16/21 originally (15/20 under the new ratings), and it got slapped with a guzzler tax.
The main things that killed the GTO for me was the looks, and the tiny 8 cubic foot trunk, necessitated by moving the gas tank so it would pass crash tests. Evidently the feds don't like the automakers hanging their tanks off the back of the car under the trunk floor anymore! As for looks, it just had sort of a generic, vanilla look to it. A GTO should look tough. And most of the "real" GTO's did. Heck, compared to the 2004, even the 1974 Ventura based GTO looked tough. Heck, a 1981 LeMans Safari wagon almost looked tough in comparison! :P
I actually find G8's pricing not too bad. I mean, sure, it could be more competitive given some lack of interior quality and poor fuel econ. But overall it's still ok.
For the money, I think the car's a screaming bargain. Well, except for the fact that it's now an orphan. :sick: With the V-8, it's kinda like getting 7-series interior room, 5-series performance and handling, at a 3-series price. As for fuel economy, considering it weighs two tons and has a 6.0 engine...that's roughly 366 cubic inches, and given the performance, I think that 15/24 is actually pretty impressive. Just for comparison, the old 1996 Impala SS is rated at 15/24 under the new ratings (17/26 originally), and the G8 is a faster car. But yeah, I agree, the interior does suffer a bit. I think it's still better than what most of GM does, and for the price of the car still not bad, but if they'd just thrown $50 more per car into the interior...
GM hasn't been profitable on green technology, but they have a habit of not being profitable period, and especially not being profitable on small cars. So it's highly likely they wouldn't be very profitable on their hybrids or XFE models either. Likewise Honda and Hyundai are typically profitable regardless, so their fuel-efficient and hybrid stuff is probably going to be profitable (yeah, Hyundai is coming out with a hybrid soon).
Bottom line: you have to be able to make a profit on cars in order to make a profit on green cars. :shades: Doesn't help to build a "green car" because if you don't know how to build a car people want, how are you going to build a green car people want? Besides which, you also build a green car that appeals to your customer base. The Prius was for people who liked Corolla and Camry, and was designed to appeal to those tastes. The Civic Hybrid was obviously aimed toward appealing to people who liked Civics (duh!).
GM, unfortunately, built hybrids that appealed to the market they had left...truck and SUV buyers. Where it didn't help a whole lot, as it happens: it was, to be honest, the right tactic for them, and not a bad idea initially, but the system they came up with cost a bunch and didn't increase fuel economy very much. They sort of shot themselves in the foot on it though: they came up with the el-cheapo "mild hybrid" system, kept referring to it as "Hybrid" and charged much less for it. Which makes Joe Consumer wonder why he should spend $5k extra for this other "Hybrid" when they're both "Hybrids" right? So he'll come back later when the price comes down.
Andre: I'm not sure how it got into US, but I'm sure it's not the EPA numbers. Monaro gets extremely high CO/CO2 pollution tax (European tax not levied in US). Some magazines even made a joke taht Monaro produces more CO2 than a bbq cookout. I wonder if EPA just ignore it because it's never a consideration in US.....
Carstrike: Prius was sold at a loss until recently, that's why even though the production costs for the batteries are much cheaper now, the price for Prius keeps climbing up. But even now it's still a scam for buyers, both economically and environmentally. The way I see it hybrids like Prius was just meant to tackle laws like CAFE, which perhaps explains why hybrids are only popular in N.America, while clean diesel rules everywhere else.
GM flunked out with hybrids because it's "mild hybrid" system is the most ridiculous hybrid I've ever sen, bar none.
Not really that much of a scam: a lot of usable stuff came out of working on hybrids. Idle cutoff, regenerative braking, improvements in battery tech, wider spread of silica tires. All of this stuff can be applied to any internal combustion vehicle, diesels included. GM might be smart to release a hybrid diesel.
Regards,
OW
Economically: overall ownership costs is still pricier than equally sized economy car. To recoup the differences it'll take about 10 years, and by then the battery needs replacement already.
Environmentally: you save fossil fuel but add toxic batteries to the enviro problems.
I prefer the clean diesel idea, particuarly since the mass production of algae bio-diesel is about to become reality.
And a full hybrid system can in fact pay off for a lot of city driving. I still think cabs and busses, which are pretty much all stop and go in cities, would be perfect, and fleets would save noticeable amounts long term.
Right now, GMS for competitor vehcle owners and supplier discount for other buyers are available...
For example, with the rebates available on the G8, you can get the GT version for under $26K without any haggling..
You can find him on facebook (or google him) "thenewgeneral".
Batteries can be recycled up to a point so it's not a total environmental impact...just cost-prohibitive at the present time.
The hybrid battery packs are designed to last for the lifetime of the vehicle, somewhere between 150,000 and 200,000 miles, probably a whole lot longer. The warranty covers the batteries for between eight and ten years, depending on the carmaker.
Battery toxicity is a concern, although today's hybrids use NiMH batteries, not the environmentally problematic rechargeable nickel cadmium. "Nickel metal hydride batteries are benign. They can be fully recycled," says Ron Cogan, editor of the Green Car Journal. Toyota and Honda say that they will recycle dead batteries and that disposal will pose no toxic hazards. Toyota puts a phone number on each battery, and they pay a $200 "bounty" for each battery to help ensure that it will be properly recycled.
There's no definitive word on replacement costs because they are almost never replaced. According to Toyota, since the Prius first went on sale in 2000, they have not replaced a single battery for wear and tear.
Regards,
OW
Bye Bye, Pontiac! Figured it out yet, GM? Hmmm??? :confuse:
Regards,
OW
The problem is the metal in the first place. It doesn't magically appear and the damage caused by mining nickel is well-known. Just go to anyplace online for stories of the horrendous environmental damage that results.
Xstrata shuts Canada nickel mine due to (environmental) damage
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssMiningMetalsSpecialty/idUSN0938839520090609
This was the main plant Toyota was using for nickel for the Prius batteries. I wonder what nation they will buy off to mine nickel next(likely someplace where there are loads of poor and a dictatorship)
What is blameworthy is how Cadillac has gone about the transformation. The SRX’s problem is not that it is downsized, but dumbed-down. In so doing, Cadillac may have underestimated what it takes to play in a class that includes not just the redesigned Lexus, but potent newcomers like the Audi Q5, the Volvo XC60, the Infiniti EX35 and the Mercedes-Benz GLK350.
But the Lexus’s true appeal to the Cole Haan class, too often dismissed with left-handed compliments from the enthusiast press, is what’s under its Botoxed skin: how genuinely solid, luxurious and unobtrusive the Lexus feels to drive, or to be driven in, over hundreds of thousands of miles. A reputation for unmatched reliability certainly helps.
The SRX, in contrast, uses splashy surface techniques to mask genetic deficiencies: a peashooter of a V-6; a lazy and intrusive transmission; an occasionally choppy ride. All run counter to the desired luxury-hauler experience. The result is a middling shot into the underbelly of the crossover class.
Cadillac could have used its excellent CTS sedan as the mechanical basis for the SRX, as it did with the first-generation version. Asked why not, G.M. says that Cadillac already had a CTS sport wagon in the works. Yet there’s no reason — other than cost-cutting — that a crossover couldn’t emerge from the same rear-drive drawing board. More debatable from a strategic standpoint, Cadillac will save its best stuff for the more traditional CTS wagon, yet that seems a niche model at best: Here in America, crossovers rule, outselling wagons by exponential margins.
Here is the entire NYT review.
Accountants Still Rule
Nickel metal hydride batteries have a much lower environmental impact compared to lead-acid based ones. Consider that the average traditional vehicle replaces the battery 2-4 times over its life. Yes, the hybrid battery is much larger, but last longer. Nickel is no near as toxic as lead. AND they do last! Lithium-ion, more efficient and even safer than Nickel is the next step. Hybrids are not new anymore; they’ve been in Japan since 1997. People less enthusiastic about hybrids will try to put hybrid owners down by saying that they are not “saving the world.” Many hybrid owners are certainly concerned with image. I agree, but every step individuals take to minimize their impact can produce substantial results if others begin to adopt similar changes. Also, the Prius DOES get 46+ miles when driven correctly. Be optimistic. Hybrids represent the best immediate solution to our carbon addiction. A band-aid, yes, but its a start!
Regards,
OW
AKA: Scalping
Regards,
OW
Regards,
OW
The 2010 Camaro buyers ("S" Buyers) this year are the early adopters and will pay ANYTHING to get their car. "S" stands for you know what!
Hint: Lollipop.
Regards,
OW
That said, I have had excellent luck with the Motorcraft "Red Top" in the Contour. The first one lasted 7 yrs, the second one was going strong when I sold the car for a wagon :sick:
Both of my Accords came with "Delco" batteries that seemed to be fine.
As noted in the hybrid discussion, temperature, number of cycles, and vibration are the biggest killers of batteries. I think some mfgs do a better job of isolating the vibration and having a stronger, more even clamping system than others.
I will say the OEM batteries in saabs are some of the most worthless I have ever seen. All of our the Volvos on the lot will start in the cold after sitting for a couple of weeks but the Saabs won't. First big snow storm of the year it is guaranteed that all but one or two Volvos, usually older pre-owned models, will fail to start but a solid 25 percent of the Saabs on the lot will fail to start. We typically carry more Volvos then saabs too.
Must be the weather :P
The Battery in my wife's Ranier will be 6 yrs old come Nov, as will the truck. In the 7 tears I've had the PA Ultra, it's the same Delco battery (not sure if original, as this would make it 10 yrs old. Same for the truck; an '04, bought in '06, same 2 batteries.
Regards,
OW
Unfortunately, changing the battery turned out to be such a cluster that I swore I'd be rid of this car before it came time to change it again! I had to jack it up, take the wheel off, and pull it out through the wheel well!
I think the last battery in my '85 Silverado lasted about 4 years, which probably isn't too bad, considering that truck sits alot and doesn't get used much, and when it does, it's mainly short trips. My '67 Catalina killed its last battery in about 3 years, which again doesn't surprise me, because it doesn't get driven much, rarely starts on the first try, gets "hot spots" on the starter and as old as it is, I'm sure there's some kind of power leak here and there. I think my '79 5th Ave's battery is about 4-5 years old now...I'd have to check my records. I'm impressed with that one because, like the other cars, it doesnt' get driven a whole lot, and often it's just short trips. Or to move it out of the way so I can get one of my other cars out of the garage. And when it's been running awhile, it'll get a hot spot on the starter as well, and can be a pain to start if it's just been turned off for a few minutes.
Is there a general rule of thumb for batteries these days? I've heard in the past, that batteries could start getting iffy after three years, but I've usually had better luck than that, unless there was just something about the car that was stressing out the battery.
I am sure GM in their infinite wisdom decided to dumb down the batteries to save a dollar per car but they are probably spending more then that on road side assistance claims from dead batteries.
Regards,
OW
Heat will kill a battery real quick. I've talked to people in Nevada that are lucky to get two years too, regardless of make.
The Delco in my Suburban lasted about 4 years and died in the middle of summer. I've had 4 or 5 batteries completely die and only one time do I remember a battery dieing in the winter. The main thing the cold does is reduce the output of the battery while increasing the load required to start an engine. So a weak battery very likely may not have enough reserve capacity to start a cold engine when below zero.
I believe CCA (cold cranking amps) are measured at 32 degrees, so as ambient temp lowers below 32 degrees the output of even a new battery decreases.