Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Hybrids in the News

1…9192939496

Comments

  • terry92270terry92270 Member Posts: 1,247
    Yes, I understand your point, and accept it as valid for the argument/point you were making. :)

    However, I repeat: "You cannot look at a car's depreciation in the same way as one does most anything else. They are not investments.".

    Most investments of capital appreciate. And we know that going into them. Automobiles, except for collector items, depreciate, and we know that going into the deal. So while insofar as your point is concerned, it was kind of a oxymoron to say it, as every auto purchase loses money from the moment you sign the contract.

    That was my thinking in terms of what I posted, but I do know some will have more of a loss than they anticipated. Caveat Emptor! ;)
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    CALI legislators need to practice their preaching

    GAS GUZZLERS IN THE CAPITAL
    GLOBAL WARMING: Governor, lawmakers don't exactly practice what they preach

    Matthew Yi, Greg Lucas, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau Chronicle Political Writer

    Tuesday, September 26, 2006

    (09-26) 04:00 PDT Sacramento -- Despite their outspoken support for landmark legislation to fight global warming, Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and some of the leading Democratic lawmakers who voted for the measure still use gas-guzzling vehicles for official state business.

    Schwarzenegger, who is expected to sign the legislation on Wednesday at a ceremony in San Francisco, typically is escorted by the California Highway Patrol's security detail in a massive 2005 Ford Excursion that gets less than 11 miles per gallon, according to an evaluation by Consumerguide.com.
  • terry92270terry92270 Member Posts: 1,247
    Automobiles used for security purposes are a cheap shot. Like if they used a Prius the global environment would be helped so much! :P

    You are talking about an automobile with Steel plating, etc.

    Politicians are elected to represent all of the people in their jurisdiction. They are not elected to set examples. If you think they are, please provide the applicable citation from the Constitution. ;)
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Hey, it's our tax money. We should get to tell THEM which vehicles to spend tax money on. (Californians that is)

    If the Governator is going to be such a Ra-Ra anti-Global-Warming sort guy, which is fine with me, then he needs to start at the state fleet and start buying more efficient vehicles, including hybrid SUVs.
  • stevedebistevedebi Member Posts: 4,098
    "If the Governator is going to be such a Ra-Ra anti-Global-Warming sort guy, which is fine with me, then he needs to start at the state fleet and start buying more efficient vehicles, including hybrid SUVs."

    The Governator recently sold his Hummers, which is his personal statement. Only an idiot would over-ride his security chief's vehicle selection.

    Maybe we should load up the Prius with armor plate and bulletproof glass? Then it would work - but that would use up the vehicle carrying load, and the car would just sit there instead of being able to actually do anything.

    I'm just surprised that the Excursions weren't ordered with diesel engines, which would have given about 40% better MPG. :blush:
  • terry92270terry92270 Member Posts: 1,247
    I would imagine the expenses of an assination, the resulting investigations, trials and the rest, would exceed any savings made in using other than armor plated vehicles, like EV's or green cars, no :confuse:

    This isn't a political forum, so we shouldn't be posting political comments. If people actually read the Constitution, they would find the United States isn't a Democracy, and it was never intended to be one. We are a Republic, which means we elect officials to exercise their own judgment on issues, not ours. If we don't like their judgments, we don't re-elect them. ;)
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    quote stevedebi: "I'm just surprised that the Excursions weren't ordered with diesel engines, which would have given about 40% better MPG."

    Surprised, Why? Diesel is "fossil fuel NON GRATA" in California, dontcha know?

    As far as 'armor plated SUVs' go, well, a Highlander Hybrid can be armourized. So that's not a good argument for allowing government waste.

    And even, let's say, if certain officials, by the nature of security, are REQUIRED to drive SUVs - there are WAYS to get them up to 25 and 35 MPG. One group of scientists took a Ford Exploder up to almost 40 MPG with about $3400 in mods.

    Even if there are good reasons for keeping a few SUV HOGS in the fleet, there is no good reason to buy non-hybrid cars for the part of the fleet which can be a CAR.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "... there is no good reason to buy non-hybrid cars for the part of the fleet which can be a CAR."

    Sure there is; pure economics would be one reason.

    Now, before you jump down my throat, I'm NOT SUGGESTING that current purchase decisions by the government ARE made on a pure economics basis. That's OBVIOUSLY not the case.

    I'm just saying that, IF you wanted a valid reason to not buy a hybrid (assuming a hybrid met the remaining specifications for that job), then purchase/operating/maintenance cost might reveal a 'better' choice.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    So far, every news story I have seen has said that any town or taxi company fleet which has bought a lot of hybrid cars have been pleased with them and pleased with the mileage and with the REDUCED MAINTENANCE costs and the REDUCED FUEL COSTS.

    Remember - these municipalities and private companies are not buying $28K Priuses - they are buying close to the base model.

    It takes longer to recoup the added hybrid costs over, say the Caprice it replaced, but they ARE going to recoup the added cost. Just ask 'em.... :D

    And pollute far less in the meantime, and repair cars far less in the meantime also.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "It takes longer to recoup the added hybrid costs over, say the Caprice it replaced, but they ARE going to recoup the added cost."

    Believe it or not, but the role of a LOT of vehicles purchased by various government agencies could be filled by something like a Toyota Yaris or even a lowly Kia Rio. And from a pure ECONOMICS standpoint, it becomes more difficult to recommend a Prius (even given it's fuel savings) over something like a 4-dr Yaris.
  • terry92270terry92270 Member Posts: 1,247
    Well in spite of the expressed rancor, are you aware that California is among the top five, of all 50 States, in buying alternative fueled vehicles for their fleet :confuse:

    ISSUED JANUARY 31, 2006:

    "The Department of General Services, State of California, (DGS) is issuing this Vehicle Purchase and Lease Policy as part of the State’s efforts to meet ambient air quality standards, reduce the State fleet’s petroleum use and impact on the environment, and control statewide fleet costs. This policy applies to the purchase and lease of light-duty (under 8,500 pounds gross-vehicle-weight rating) alternative fuel, gasoline, hybrid-electric, sport utility, and four-wheel drive vehicles.

    As required by the Federal Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 1992, 75 percent
    of the State’s light-duty vehicle purchases must be Alternative Fuel Vehicles     (AFVs).     A listing of all AFVs on the State’s vehicle master contract can be viewed at: http://www.pd.dgs.ca.gov/contracts/vehicles.htm
    To the maximum extent practicable, each State office, agency, and department that has bi-fuel natural gas and bi-fuel propane vehicles in its fleet shall use the respective alternative fuel in those vehicles.

    After having met the Federal EPAct mandate, all gasoline-powered light-duty sedans purchased or leased by State offices, agencies, and departments must be at a minimum certified to the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) LEV II Ultra Low Emission Vehicle (ULEV) standards. Light-duty pickups, vans, and sport utility vehicles must be at a minimum certified to the CARB’s LEV l ULEV standards or equivalent. Offices, agencies, and departments shall, when available, maximize the purchase or lease of available vehicles that meet or exceed California’s LEV ll Super-Ultra Low Emission Vehicle (SULEV) passenger vehicle standards for exhaust emissions and maximize the purchase or lease of hybrid vehicles that are substantially more fuel efficient. To view a listing of vehicles meeting these requirements, please refer to: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/ccvl/ccvl.htm

    The Vehicle Purchase and Lease Policy does not apply to authorized emergency or law enforcement vehicles that are equipped with emergency lighting per California Vehicle Code, Section 25252.

    The DGS, Office of Fleet Administration (OFA) will review any exception or exemption request to this Policy and assist offices, agencies, and departments with vehicle purchases and leases. All vehicle acquisition requests must be submitted on an OFA 160, Vehicle Acquisition Request Form. For a copy of the OFA 160 Form, please refer to: http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/ofa/forms/ofa160.pdf

    See also THIS LINK for information about the Court validating the South Coast Air Management Agency's very strict fleet rules.

    Seems as though our neighbors in California, being pushed by the Governator, are indeed leading the nation in the purchase and use of AFV's. :)
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    So even the most 3rd environmentally alert fleet can be improved....Great news !!!
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "75 percent
    of the State’s light-duty vehicle purchases must be Alternative Fuel Vehicles (AFVs). A listing of all AFVs on the State’s vehicle master contract can be viewed at: http://www.pd.dgs.ca.gov/contracts/vehicles.htm "

    Did you even look at the list of AFVs?

    I did; the list for Alternative Fueled/Flex Fueled Vehicles and Trucks consists of: E85 compatible Chevy Impala, Chevy Tahoe, and Chevy Silverado. That's it. Now, ask gagrice how many E85 stations are in California?
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    E85 in CA. Still just the one retail outlet in San Diego. E85 going for $3.30. There are 3 private E85 locations on Federal property. I wonder if they let the state of CA have free E85 for being so environmentally astute. With all the noise about flex fuel vehicles and ethanol, you would think that some station in CA would take the handout from Uncle Sam.

    What's in Your State? I see there are none in Phoenix where they need to clean up the air.

    http://www.e85refueling.com/
  • terry92270terry92270 Member Posts: 1,247
    Yes, and I actually read the list of what they have bought.

    It would have shown you those vehicles are specialty items, used by the Department of Water Resources which maintains back-woods dam's and other distribution properties, as well as Fish & Game, lol. We all need to get out of the "gotcha" mind-set. The vast majority of them are normal, LEV's. ;)

    Everyone, just try to be happy and positive about what steps they are taking. What they are doing is 100% more than the majority of States and Countries throughout the world. :)

    I do believe the Dept of General Services also has an E-85 station in Sacramento now, as well.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    I must be confused (go figure).

    Wasn't your initial post mostly to the effect that the State of California was mandating that 75% of their light-duty vehicle purchases MUST be AFV's? I mean, that is the part you bolded and underlined.

    All I did was look at the link provided to see the list of the AFVs on the State's vehicle master contract. When I did so, the only vehicles I see are the Chevy E85 compatible vehicles I mentioned earlier.

    Here's the pertinent page:

    http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/pd/contracts/vehicles/altfuelspecs.htm

    Which I interpret to mean that 75% of the State's light-duty vehicle purchases must be Chevy E85 compatible Impalas, Tahoes, and Silverados.

    Am I missing something?

    "Everyone, just try to be happy and positive about what steps they are taking."

    Well, I'm sure they ARE doing something. But your post was regarding AFVs, which in reality are nothing but (from what I can tell) E85-compatible vehicles. And it's difficult to take seriously that this means they are 'doing something' when there are but a mere handful of E85 stations in California.

    Why not simply mandate that the California fleet mileage must be 'x' mpg? In essence, enact their OWN CAFE standards which, as purchaser, the State would have to meet?
  • terry92270terry92270 Member Posts: 1,247
    They did mandate lots of things, including fuel economy.

    I will have to search through the history from home for all the links, or you could just rummage around like I did. :)
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    The state of California is going to sue all the major auto manufacturers for the damage their CO2 emitting vehicles have caused. I've read several stories on this and there is no mention of suing the people actually buying and driving these vehicles. For the sake of argument let's assume that the CO2 being generated by automobiles is a big contributer to global warming. Why wouldn't you go after the people burning the gas? Its comparable to going after a gun manufacturer but assigning no blame to the shooter. Or stating that its not your fault for being fat, it's the fault of McDonalds and Burger King. IMO, a fairly transparent political stunt.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    Simple -

    Sue the ones with the money. Afterall, as individuals, the consumer simply CAN'T be held accountable....we've all been brainwashed, remember? Even those California state legislators driving Expeditions, Suburbans, and Navigators aren't responsible for their own actions.

    I'm waiting for the State to sue all the oil companies next for making that heathen gasoline available at too cheap of a price.....
  • terry92270terry92270 Member Posts: 1,247
    Well, think about it....

    Suing automobile manufacturers seems a stunt, but who could have honestly predicted 30 years ago that cigarette manufacturers would successfully be sued for making a health hazard, since we all knew they were bad for us! :P
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    That's not a valid analogy. For many years the cigarette manufacturers denied that their product was addictive or caused health problems even though they had evidence to the contrary. The auto manufacturers aren't claiming that their SUV's are fuel efficient. And the auto manufacturers actually do offer efficient vehicles if the consumers wants to make that choice. There is no safe cigarette for the smoker to choose.
  • terry92270terry92270 Member Posts: 1,247
    My God!

    Even when I post agreeing with you, tpe, you still come back with an argument to a tongue-in-cheek post! :surprise:
  • john500john500 Member Posts: 409
    It is a pretty reasonable analogy. No one mandated people to consume more gasoline. They just did. Why? They were duped by seducive advertising. Most people will try to state that it was their "free will" and logic (safety) that made them buy a 6,000 pound, poor handling vehicle (on credit, of course). Like a cigarette, there is no safe automobile or SUV either. A 6,000 pound SUV going head on with a tractor trailer or dump truck will lose every time. Deaths caused by cigarettes are an example of severe extrapolations. People will die from lung cancer regardless of their exposure to cigarettes. However, all people who have smoked even once are generally lumped into the "smoking-induced death" category. People will not die in a car accident if they never came into contact wtih a car.

    I agree with Rorr. Ultimately, the individual is responsible for all of their own actions, no matter how seducive the advertising. Cigarettes were just a convenient target for taxation.
  • terry92270terry92270 Member Posts: 1,247
    Well all the more appropriate, really, in light of the fact the US Government distributed "free" cigarettes to the Armed Forces up until after the Vietnam War, even to VA hospitals! :P
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    We aren't talking about taxation, we're talking about a lawsuit against the auto manufacturers. Specifically they are being sued for the damage caused by the CO2 their vehicles put in the air. I'm pretty sure that these vehicles don't emit any CO2 until someone drives them. And I know that all vehicles have EPA stickers, which clearly state the vehicles mileage, which directly corellates to CO2 emissions. Yes EPA estimates aren't totally accurate but they are actually closer on low mpg vehicles than high mpg vehicles so when someone buys a Lincoln Navigator they know for a fact that they will be generating a lot of CO2 while they drive. My point is how can you sue the auto manufacturers and not the drivers? My conclusion was that its not politically popular to make individuals responsible and accountable.

    I agree there is no completely "clean" or "green" automobile. That brings up another question. If all the vehicles on the road in CA were getting 40 mpg would you still sue the auto manufacturers? These cars are still emitting CO2 and causing environmental damage. So based on the prevailing logic in CA it would still make sense to sue in this situation but seek less in damages.

    I read an article yesterday stating that small car sales are going to set a record this year. Imagine that. High gas prices result in changing the public's buying decisions. This should no doubt equate to a rise in CAFE for the year. It's not rocket science. If you want people to buy and drive efficient vehicles the price of gas needs to be high. To put it on the manufacturer is a cop-out and also ineffective at achieving the goal.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    If all the vehicles on the road in CA were getting 40 mpg would you still sue the auto manufacturers? These cars are still emitting CO2 and causing environmental damage.

    I agree with your whole post. You cannot be a little pregnant. Politicians always go for the easy targets with the most visibility. If they go after the guy driving a 1975 Oldsmobile that is blowing black smoke out the back it would not make big news.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    Toyota says NO DIESEL HYBRIDS FOR YOU !!!

    Toyota has ruled out production of a diesel electric hybrid vehicle in response to plans for such cars from French carmaker Peugeot.

    Environmentalists say a car combining clean diesel technology with electric motors could achieve carbon dioxide emission reductions that would make them cleaner than Toyota's iconic petrol hybrid Prius.

    But doing so would push up costs far beyond what consumers would bear, according to Toyota Motor Europe chief executive Tadashi Arashima.

    "Already the diesel [price] premium is quite high, then you'd have to pay a hybrid premium, so we're not seeing that there's a market," Mr Arashima told BBC News.

    This is not good news. My dream car is a 5-passenger diesel/electric car that gets 70+ MPG on the EPA combined and costs less than $35K.

    Looks like Toyota will not be building it. :cry:
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "My conclusion was that its not politically popular to make individuals responsible and accountable."

    Bingo. It is NEVER politically popular, regardless of the issue, to make individuals responsible. Remember, to a politician, we are but sheep with no minds of our own, wandering aimlessly until Madison Avenue tells us where to go.

    "If all the vehicles on the road in CA were getting 40 mpg would you still sue the auto manufacturers? These cars are still emitting CO2 and causing environmental damage."

    Are they?

    We all emit CO2 just breathing - and we do it 24/7. Are we causing environmental damage?

    "Oh c'mon", you'll say. "The amount of CO2 exhaled by a human is insignificant compared to what is emitted by a 40mpg fuel sipper, let alone a 15mpg SUV".

    TRUE. But then the question becomes: Where is that magic line in the sand? At what point to does 'environmental damage' occur? Just how much CO2 is TOO much? Is the lawsuit saying that the 'damage' inflicted by a 40mpg car OK but the 'damage' inflicted by a 15mpg SUV is not? Now trying PROVING that point in a court of law.

    Another point, all these manufacturers make fuel efficient automobiles. As individual consumers, WE chose whether or not to conserve fuel. Are the manufacturers being sued for giving the consumer a CHOICE? Or are the Califorinia politicos saying that the general public is just too stupid to make the 'right' choice therefor, as our esteemed intellectual betters, they must step in and protect us from ourselves?
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    My dream car is a 5-passenger diesel/electric car that gets 70+ MPG on the EPA combined and costs less than $35K.

    DCX built just such a car, the Intrepid ESX-3, in 1999. It was shot down by Chrysler because they did not believe anyone was crazy enough to pay the hybrid premium that Toyota is currently getting for their hybrids.

    Much better looking than any of the Toyota hybrids IMO.
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    I really have no idea what the politicians are trying to accomplish other than make headlines. It would make far more sense to simply ban vehicles that got less than 20 mpg. But then people would claim that they were being denied choices. But when over 50% of the people choose these inefficient vehicles its the auto makers fault. It's lunacy but somehow it makes sense to the masses because I think the overall reception to this proposed lawsuit is positive.

    I'm not sure what we can do about our producing CO2 when we breath. Its possible that people with certain metabolisms produce more CO2 than others. There are probably medical test that can identify these people and then they need to be sued also.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Or are the Califorinia politicos saying that the general public is just too stupid to make the 'right' choice

    That is exactly how the elitist in our government act. Maybe we are stupid. We keep re-electing the same people to serve us. Most make their views clear during the campaigns. They are going to give us more than the other guy. Right, they will give us our own money back as they see fit.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "It would make far more sense to simply ban vehicles that got less than 20 mpg."

    Or simply institute gas rationing. He who owns a more economical vehicle gets to drive more. It all comes down to just which choices you want the politicos to deny. After all, what's the consumption difference between someone driving a 20mpg vehicle who drives 10k miles a year and a person driving a 40mpg vehicle driving 20k miles a year?

    "There are probably medical test that can identify these people and then they need to be sued also."

    Abso-stinkin'-lutely. And it's a well-know scientific fact that healthy/skinny folks generally have higher metabolisms and exchange more O2 for CO2 than the more, uh um caloric-challenged amoung us.

    Let's sue skinny people! :blush:
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "That is exactly how the elitist in our government act. Maybe we are stupid. We keep re-electing the same people to serve us."

    Ah, a fellow cynic. And completely correct.
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    WELL, SORTA.

    They had a CONCEPT car, and an estimated production price.

    And at the time, battery technology was SUCKY and diesel was WAY WAY DIRTY.

    So, no, they did not build my dream car - they built a CONCEPT of what such a future car might be similar to.

    They do have a good head start if they wanted to try the same car now.
  • terry92270terry92270 Member Posts: 1,247
    "Or are the Califorinia politicos saying that the general public is just too stupid to make the 'right' choice

    That is exactly how the elitist in our government act. Maybe we are stupid. We keep re-electing the same people to serve us. Most make their views clear during the campaigns. They are going to give us more than the other guy. Right, they will give us our own money back as they see fit."

    Yes, they are.

    So long as voters blindly support one party or another, and elect people based on their "feelings", people who are telling them what they want to hear, that will be the case.

    Don't hate the player, hate the game. ;)
  • texasestexases Member Posts: 10,700
    If going to diesel could be done at no cost, fine, but adding a diesel to a hybrid, while certainly improving mileage, likely would not pay. This is the hardest thing to understand - going from, say, 25 mpg to 50 mpg generates much more savings than going from 50 mpg to 75 mpg. Over 100,000 miles, going from 25 mpg (4000 gallons used) to 50 mpg (2000 gallons used) saves 2000 gallons (which means you'd have to drive 50,000 just to pay off the $2800 spent on a hybrid Civic, assuming $2.80/gallon!). Now, assume a diesel hybrid gets 75 mpg. It would use 1333 gallons over 100,000 miles, a savings of only 667 gallons from 50 mpg, one third the savings from the 25 - 50 mpg step. Using the $1400 increment for a diesel Jetta, it would take about 75,000 miles to pay off the cost. If you start with a diesel to get to 50 mpg (25,000 miles to pay that off), then add the hybrid mechanism for $2800 additional to get to 75 mpg, it'll take 150,000 miles to pay that off. Way too long for any mass market. A better question is this - why hybrids at all, if a diesel can get about the same milage improvement for 1/2 the cost? I'm looking forward to Honda's new diesels.
  • stevedebistevedebi Member Posts: 4,098
    "Surprised, Why? Diesel is "fossil fuel NON GRATA" in California, dontcha know?

    As far as 'armor plated SUVs' go, well, a Highlander Hybrid can be armourized. So that's not a good argument for allowing government waste.

    And even, let's say, if certain officials, by the nature of security, are REQUIRED to drive SUVs - there are WAYS to get them up to 25 and 35 MPG. One group of scientists took a Ford Exploder up to almost 40 MPG with about $3400 in mods."

    I would like to see a URL to that story. The only case I know of is a bunch of university students who achieved good MPG - at a cost of 100K in specialized modifications.

    It is not a matter of requiring an SUV, it is a matter of load carrying capacity. Armor plating and bulletproof glass are heavy. A HH bearing that extra weight and the passenger weight would get pretty bad MPG, and might not perform well enough in emergency avoidance situations (the vehicle has to accelerate and maneuver around threats).

    In my younger days I had a tour of duty in Honduras. We had to drive up a mountain several times a week. The government origninally provided Chevy Suburbans with 6 cyl engines and factory armor plating. The vehicles could not get up the mountain. A V8 engine would have worked; this is the same principle.

    A security chief starts with the requirements, and then finds the vehicles that fit the requirement.

    But we needen't worry, the Excursion was phased out last October. So the Governator will be riding in something else next time...
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    You're absolutely correct. The way to make the biggest impact on oil consumption is to focus on the least fuel efficient vehicles, not the most efficient. Unfortunately you now run into the problem of apathy. People buying full size SUVs obviously don't place a high priority on mpg. Its an easier sell to get these people to pay for more power and ammenities than higher mpg.
  • terry92270terry92270 Member Posts: 1,247
    So, you are saying I should sell my Esclade :confuse:
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    People buying full size SUVs obviously don't place a high priority on mpg

    That is not true. There are no choices for efficient full size SUVs. The last diesel Suburban was in about 1999. The diesel Excursion is now history. If you are not interested in a half size SUV you are stuck with the current offering of gas guzzlers. I am hoping that DCX get the Grand Cherokee and MB diesels over here soon.
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    I am actually somewhat amazed by the fuel efficiency full sized SUVs are capable of achieving. I drove a Ford Pinto in college in the late 70's. This was definitely considered a compact, fuel efficient vehicle. I rarely got 20 mpg and that was only when I drove exclusively highway miles. I know people with Suburbans and they claim to get in 15-17 mpg range. Not much difference for a vehicle that is close to 3x the size with 3x the power. If people think that the auto manufacturers can build a Suburban that gets over 30 mpg with no sacrifices in power or size then I'd like to see it.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Suburban that gets over 30 mpg

    I think it is possible. Will it be as fast as one with a big gas V8? No If my Mercedes Sprinter conversion van can get 25 MPG weighing 8k lbs. I think that 5 cylinder diesel with the 5 speed Tiptronic could get 30 in a Suburban size vehicle. It would cruise all day at 80 MPH with that engine transmission combo. They are building one in Europe with a plug-in hybrid for city delivery. FedEx and UPS are buying them by the thousands. Until we get great batteries diesel is the best solution for economy in all but the smallest vehicles.
  • tpetpe Member Posts: 2,342
    I agree that with a diesel you would gain significant mileage, maybe 30%. A better transmission, probably another 1 mpg. I'm still doubtful you'd see 30 mpg, maybe highway miles. I also don't think there is all that big a corellation between engine power and mpg anymore. Especially for larger vehicles where reducing power might actually hurt mpg. I look at cars like the Camry where there is neglible difference in mpg between the 4 cyl and 6 cyl model. I think a few years back the Corvette was rated at as high a mileage as the Miata. In the last 10 years cars have gotten about 50% more powerful, which has resulted in people asking the question, "rather than make cars 50% more powerful why not make them 50% more fuel efficient"? It doesn't work that way.
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Citroen in designing the car, was simply trying to illustrate that a more environmentally friendly sports car can be made, said Lafaury, who was the project leader.
    "Currently, when you buy a sports car, you know it's an ecological problem," he said. He wasn't gushing in his view toward the market leader in hybrids, the Prius from Toyota
    "It's in production, so I have to respect that," Lafaury said. "But a diesel engine has lower emissions."

    Citroen hybrid

    Did I mention 0-60 in 6.2 seconds?
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    gary says "But a diesel engine has lower emissions."

    Lower than WHAT? That's a very vague statement.

    Diesels emissions are:

    Not lower than PZEV gasser hybrids.
    Usually not lower than a SULEV gasser.

    What was his point?
  • gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    If you read the article attached you would know that was not my statement. It was the Citroen fellow's. I believe it will be proved that the MB Blutec is indeed cleaner than any comparably sized gas engine. The only question is do we trust the Americans to maintain the engine. I believe that Ford demonstrated a PZEV diesel hybrid a couple years ago. So I think the statement can and will be proven. I think the only thing Toyota has proven, is that, with enough money you can clean up a gas engine and make it PZEV. Too bad the technology is so complex and limited in its usefulness.
  • terry92270terry92270 Member Posts: 1,247
    "Diesels emissions are:

    Not lower than PZEV gasser hybrids.
    Usually not lower than a SULEV gasser."

    Generally that is true, there are some emissions that are less, but that is splitting hairs maybe...

    Possibly they were speaking of most people's reality, a real life in a world that isn't filled with electric carts and SULEV automobiles. :confuse:
  • larsblarsb Member Posts: 8,204
    I knew it was not your statment Gary. I saw that it was a part of your italicized text.

    Regardless, that's just his opinion I suppose, because so far the EPA has yet to rate even the cleanest diesel it has tested as high as the cleanest hybrid it has tested.

    That might, as you say, change at some point, but so far it has not changed.
  • stevedebistevedebi Member Posts: 4,098
    "I drove a Ford Pinto in college in the late 70's. This was definitely considered a compact, fuel efficient vehicle. I rarely got 20 mpg and that was only when I drove exclusively highway miles."

    Do you realize that your 1970's Pinto probaby had a 3 - 4 Liter engine? I had a 1973 Gremlin myself - 232 Cu In, which is 3.8 liters. I could spin the wheels at stop lights, and it got about 22 MPG in all situations.
  • rorrrorr Member Posts: 3,630
    "Do you realize that your 1970's Pinto probaby had a 3 - 4 Liter engine?"

    Ah, no.

    From '71-'73 your engine choice was either a 1.6L or a 2.0L. From '74-'80 the base engine was the 2.3L Lima engine. The 2.8L Cologne V6 (making a HUGE 90hp :P ) was optional from '75-'79.

    My best friend in HS had an early '70s Gremlin X; not sure what engine it had. He could spin the tires pretty easy from a stop but his car ran out of breath pretty quick (I used to be able to catch up to him on looooooooong straights in my '78 Corolla ;) )
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles