All opinions are welcome here. You are not alone in how people feel towards hybrids. They are in my view a non-solution to a big problem. They may save fuel, but they still use a non-renewable resource. They can use E10 but if you use anything more than E10 in the vast majority of gassers, the loss in fuel economy is terrible. E85 gassers are the worst plus the cost to make ethanol is not worth the return.
Diesels are getting cleaner than gassers. I spoke with a rep from Caterpillar this afternoon. By 2010, Caterpillar will have diesels that will be cleaner than any gasser of equivalent power and performance. His statement was something to the effect that the emissions coming out will be cleaner than the air going in.
It depends on what you are looking for in a vehicle. There never was any formula for a hybrid 'paying for itself'. This is an artificial construct of the press and analysts to try to figure out why hybrids were so popular ( They must be doing it to save money, let see ? ) The hybrids are not a vehicle to save money.
Why people continue to try put this square pet in a round hole is beyond me. People drive hybrids because it suits them and that's what they want to drive.
Saving money is the 5th or 6th reason people buy a hybrid. A buyer saves money by buying a used vehicle.
My reason: it was a better vehicle than the 2000 Camry I was driving; better also than the '97 Camry before that. In the $20-25K range there was no other choice of that met all the criteria I set out. It was an easy decision.
Why people continue to try put this square pet in a round hole is beyond me. People drive hybrids because it suits them and that's what they want to drive.
And I thought it was to save oil and the planet. If it is for some other reason why would a testosterone filled movie star drive one? Why all the phony green Toyota ads? Why are people so fired up about Oil depletion & PZEV ratings? I guess I missed the major reason they were even developed. To save a little OIL.... And save the owner money in the process....
In the final buying analysis people buy a vehicle because they like the way it fits and the way it drives and the way it makes them feel. If it was only about buying inexpensively and saving fuel and the planet and resources everyone would be in an econobox at $12000 getting 40 mpg Hwy. But it's not.
Those who like the vehicle will buy it and those who don't wont. It's the most basic buying impulse.
Anyone who pays any attention to Hollywood hype or doesnt recognize that advertising is intended to appeal to specific segments of buyers is sure to be frustrated. There are hundreds of buying reasons from mine was just t-boned to I want to keep money out of the MidEast. None are better or worse than any other.
Saving money and hybrids are a non-issue. As you know I've said here many, many times ... do not buy a hybrid in order to save money. It's the wrong reason.
Jeremy Anwyl, president of auto industry research firm Edmunds.com, says there is "softness" among all hybrids except for the $21,000 Prius, which doesn't have a comparable non-hybrid model against which to stack a baseline price. Anwyl said sales of Toyota's SUV hybrids, based on pre-existing vehicle designs, aren't performing as well as the Prius.
Hey, I travel about 8 hours a weekend in the summer. I need an SUV to tow, etc. and carry the family. I WANNA DIESEL SUV!!! I need the highway economy. I am sure as heck not buying a hybrid that may breakdown in rural Tennessee. Why can't we have one? I heard that the LR3 from Land Rover will have a diesel by 11/06. :confuse:
3rd option... what if they like it because it's a better car than they're coming out of. Couple traded in their '94 Chrysler New Yorker on a Prius. Anything smaller was too small...and they liked it.. first and foremost reason to buy it.
3rd option... what if they like it because it's a better car than they're coming out of. Couple traded in their '94 Chrysler New Yorker on a Prius. Anything smaller was too small...and they liked it.. first and foremost reason to buy it.
Your comments resemble those of the salespeople at the local Toyota dealership.
My Dentist bought one, anticipating Gasoline Shortages, and figures he'd have a car that would still get his family around. Along with the Prius, he has 2 Suburbans, a Chevy Pickup, a Subaru Forester.
In this you are right.. as a salesperson for 30+ yrs in several industries the one thing I have learned is not to get in the way of a buyer who wants to buy. If they like the vehicle that's all that's necessary.
If they need data, that I've got. If they need hand holding I can do that. If they have a mindset against ( V6's, small cars, 4c's, SUV's, fill-in-the-blank ) I am not going to change that so I just accept it and work with them.
Basic tenet of sales when I was began selling to Ford and Chrysler 30 yrs ago. The seller always loses an argument.
Hybirds are a joke! Good in city traffic only and when it's all used up you got a 4 wheeled 4000 lb toxic waste dump on your hands. I've heard it could cost you 4 K to get rid of it. :surprise:
I also wonder why diesels are not adopted for the Tahoe/Suburban type of vehicle. I really like the Cummins diesel, but balk at getting the Dodge Ram with Quad/MEGA cab, since this is one HUGE vehicle. Of course when you are not towing it is capable of getting 25 mpg. !! I am wondering out loud if a 2k # lighter vehicle in a 4500 # Tahoe/Suburban Dodge Ford will get higher than 25 mpg.
Tahoe/Suburban Dodge Ford will get higher than 25 mpg
If you drive an Excursion diesel using hypermiler technics, they get 25 MPG. That is in an 8000 # vehicle. A 6 cylinder diesel in a Suburban should get an easy 25 MPG and low 30s if you drive conservatively. The ML diesel vs the RX400h cross country run proved you can get low 30s with a heavy SUV like the Mercedes.
ML320 BLUETEC coming in October 2006 MBUSA plans to introduce the 45 states ML320 CDI BLUETEC starting in October 2006 using the 3.0 liter OM642 DE 30 LA V6 turbodiesel with 221 SAE hp and 369 lb-ft of torque. The 50 states version with SCR and Adblue is to follow in 2 to 3 years.
Well a hybrid Suburban will close on 30 mpg. I do agree with you gagrice that a diesel Suburban is long overdue. GM is currently working on 2 new Durmax engines and supposedly a smaller displacement one to. Right now VW perhaps has the best diesel for SUV's. Audi has the best performing diesel. The 4.2L V-8 diesel that has better performance than the same V-8 gas engine but gets 35 mpg hwy. Hopefully diesel cars aren't a to distant future thang for the states.
In the final buying analysis people buy a vehicle because they like the way it fits and the way it drives and the way it makes them feel. If it was only about buying inexpensively and saving fuel and the planet and resources everyone would be in an econobox at $12000 getting 40 mpg Hwy. But it's not.
Read the title of this thread. We are trying to evaluate if hybrids and diesels are good deals or not... We are also trying to figure out if they deliver what they promise. "The way it makes me feel" - while may be the reason you buy any vehicle, it's not quantifiable and irrelevant to this discussion.
Those who like the vehicle will buy it and those who don't wont. It's the most basic buying impulse.
Then why are we having this discussion.
Anyone who pays any attention to Hollywood hype or doesnt recognize that advertising is intended to appeal to specific segments of buyers is sure to be frustrated. There are hundreds of buying reasons from mine was just t-boned to I want to keep money out of the MidEast. None are better or worse than any other.
Of course some reasons are better than others. The reasons based on false pretences and false advertising are not as good as the ones that aren't.
Saving money and hybrids are a non-issue. As you know I've said here many, many times ... do not buy a hybrid in order to save money. It's the wrong reason.
Buy it because you like it. Simple.
A lot of people buy cars for reasons other than "liking it". If that's the biggest reason people buy vehicles, there would be no minivans sold. The practical aspect of a vehicle is very important.
Can't even get out...of their own way, let alone respond to market forces!!!! To NOT build an suv, etc that can actually get 25-30 (UP) MORE IS BETTER HERE!! HELLO!! mpg is just absolutely incredulous. I mean I get EPA between 29-38 on a Honda Civic!!! (actual range has been 35 to 41)Why would I even get a Honda Civic if a utility vehicle does the job at a similar fuel mileage????
This is like a Chevy Chase movie where he drives on a vacation ASLEEP at the wheel!!!
I will leave out the dead grandma strapped to the roof rack.
As I recall, there is a good possibility that GM will be dropping the Duramax diesel into the Suburban but not until MY 2008. I learned about this when I was shopping for a new car last year. I wanted diesel and GM told me not until 2008.
I have a CRD and am happy with it. A VW was just a bit too slow for my taste, plus working on the thing appeared to be a real pain. Also, I was dependent on the dealer for oil. That really made me unhappy.
One simple reply to all your rejoinders is that there is no pure dollars and cents analysis appliied in vehicle buying. Certainly it's part of the decision but for many it is way way down the list.
The preceeding discussion was about questioning whether buying a hybrid would save fuel in order to overcome the purported 'premium'.
My point was that where the premium does exist it's of little or no concern for most hybrid buyers while on the other hand for others it is the primary concern. It is exactly the same situation as buying a luxury vehicle when a econobox gets there just as quickly. Why spend $35-45K when $12K will suffice? Dollars and cents is not a serious consideration.
You seem to be of the opinion that hyrbid buyers are being duped ( Of course some reasons are better than others. The reasons based on false pretences and false advertising are not as good as the ones that aren't. ) and that's just not the case. If you do feel that it's being done with smoke and mirrors then it goes back to my statement that some, like yourself, will not like the vehicle/concept and some will like it. Neither is right or wrong.
Neither diesels nor hybrids are duds. Both will save the driver, and indirectly all of us, about 30% in annual fuel usage ( Toyota's HSD system ).
In regards to your last statement it's rare to encounter anyone who buys a vehicle because they dont like it. Liking it is the primary buying reason in the end for most; 'I like it, I'll take it'.
I think the majors just do not want to fight the ignorance in the USA, primarily in California. Ranger diesels have been on the market for over 20 years. A contractor in CA could be using half the fuel he currently uses with just such a PU truck. CARB has put stumbling blocks in the way. I fully understand a contractor buying a full size gasser or diesel over a smaller PU truck. None of the smaller gas trucks get decent mileage.
Ford, GM & Dodge are all selling their fullsize trucks no problem. Ford F series doing better than last year. Smaller trucks are not selling worth a hoot. I would say the Colorado, Canyon and Ridgeline are all but shot down. Any one of those vehicles with a small diesel would sell like hot cakes.
In the late 80's when the domestic industry was in the throes of their last crisis as the CamCord really began to take hold ( Iacocca visiting Japan? ) there was a negotiation between Japan and Detroit ( ratified by Washington ) that in lieu of an international trade war that Detroit would allow the Asians to bring in as many low margin autos free of penalties ( suckers :P )as they wanted.
In return a 25% penalty duty would be placed on all imported trucks thereby giving the Detroiters free rein to have the US market all to itself in trucks ( and eventually SUV's ). Sidenote: when the UAW saw how much money the Big 3 were making they went ballistic and threatened to shutdown GM first then the others; ergo the Jobs Bank and full benefits to retirees forever. GM and the other two settled for no strikes in return for this humongous payoff. ( fast forward 25 yrs now ).
But in that 25 years there was no competition in trucks from overseas unless the trucks were made here; Tacoma, Tundra, Titan, etc. The Detroiters made ungodly fortunes on their truck/SUV busineses.
The reason for the 25% penalty was that in Thailand Toyota and others had set up huge compact truck facilities. The Detroiters were afraid to face the Thai truck menace so they negotiated it out of the market. But Thailand is second only to the US in the production of trucks in the world. It supplies all of SE Asia. So Ford went there.
Oh, btw, in the rest of the world as you may know Toyota, Nissan, Ford, et. al. are mainly diesel manufacturers.
Now 25 years down the road there is a Free Trade Agreement sitting on desks in Bangkok and Wash DC waiting to be signed. In it there will be no duties or penalties. Thus as soon as it is signed many of those Thai trucks ( mainly diesels ) are waiting to come here... but there is the diesel problem. So if the treaty is signed soon and ULSD is mandated and actually implemented throughout the US all those great Toyota, Ford, Nissan diesels will show up here. Along with production from Ont, MS, TX and IN switching over to diesel in some part.
You may have heard that in the Ford restructuring that the Ranger here was a dead duck for being produced in the US. Ford is well entrenched in Thailand with it's latest model. It is just waiting for the treaty and ULSD.
Myth. The real story of the 25% tariff can be discovered if you research "chicken tax". This story starts way, way before the 1980's. Circa 1963. brief article on the Chicken Tax
Sounds like the closed door dealings. I hope you are right. I do want them to be clean diesels for sure. I don't think PZEV or even SULEV is imperative. I think the holy grail of absolute clean emissions is creating more problems than it is solving. CARB is costing us billions of dollars and not solving the real pollution problems.
Let's use the same reference to weigh the clean-air benefit. In its own publications, CARB brags that "SULEVs will only emit a single pound of hydrocarbons during 100,000 miles of driving—about the same as spilling a pint of gasoline." Which means the maximum benefit of each ZEV is one pound of pollutants, actually less because of their shorter, 88,000-mile lifetimes. Calculating this way puts the cost of saving that pound at more than $20,000.
To put this in perspective, a poorly maintained car on the road now, a gross polluter, could easily emit a pound in 20 miles of driving. The owner would be delighted to sell that car for $1000, which would save perhaps 500 pounds in a year. For sure, there's lots of pollution to be saved for a fraction of EV cost. "Apparently, this regulation is about something other than clean air," says GM's Ken Stewart.
What could it be? "I'm not sure I can understand the minds of the ARB," he says with a laugh. "GM has tried to serve up many different remedies to make the air quality better. They're being ignored
I kind of understand your frustration. The article was good and has plenty of good things to say about the engine. CARB and the EPA are only a small part of the problem. The manufacturer is the biggest part of the issue.
They make more money on gassers because they are cheaper to produce and easier to clean up emissions wise. Manufacturers like Ford and GM are in a financial pickle by their own doing. I believe they see diesel as too risky to sell in this country.
I own a Jeep Liberty CRD. If DC were to drop a small diesel into a Dakota, I would purchase it in a heartbeat.
I believe they see diesel as too risky to sell in this country.
That is very true. My question is, how concerned are the powers in charge of both the EPA/CARB & manufacturing, about cutting fossil fuel consumption? Every major country outside the USA has embraced diesel and now to a lessor extent biodiesel as a way to save oil. The EPA has finally admitted their mileage tests are near worthless. It was never brought to the forefront until the hybrids came on the scene. Diesel is the simple solution. Why is it so difficult to see? Even many of the environmental opponents of diesel are re-assesing the situation and realizing we are headed down the wrong path with these overly complex hybrids. Whether people choose to believe it or not, hybrids have some serious toxic waste issues.
Me thinks your question cuts right to the heart of the matter. The powers do NOT care about cutting fossil fuel consumption. They DO care about the BUZZ depicting folks a showing they care, while they embrace 4% GROWTH over the last years' demand and consumption!!!??? Also the Kyoto Accord is totally BOGUS, especially since it is the BLUEPRINT for nations, such as China to actually be using MORE "fossilized" fuel than the USA, in the very very near future!!!????
I also think you can clearly see it the structure revealed in the since closed Edmunds.com discussion "I hate SUV's, why don't you? The mantra is infinitely "sound bite able" But what it conceals is not and is hidden in plain sight.
As a quick and dirty, the SUV segment is vilified for being horrific ally bred (invading Mongol Hordes, Killer SUV's, etc) yet after 25 years of MASSIVE growth is 12% of the passenger vehicle fleet. It is vilified for using UP TO ALL of the fossilized fuel imported for consumption in this country. Yet a simple switch, regulation, to diesel use (just for this segment) can let even the HEAVIEST of diesel light passenger trucks get 20-35 mpg!!! Some "small economy" cars don't even get this!!???
In regards to the regulatory batting average, I think they might be going for 100%. Remember MTBE? Another "certified" and approved and "scientifically" proven answer to the emissions problem. That is till they found (the CURE) was EXPOTENTIALLY even more damaging to the environment than even GASOLINE and EXPOTENTIALLY MORE expensive to remediate!!! So they will push the hybrid till they find out downstream... OPPSSSSS. Lets also not get started on ethanol from CORN when ethanol from sugar beets for example is way simplier and less consumptive of resources. Very impressive batting averages!
That is my gripe. I would forego the comfort of a larger PU truck if I was significantly rewarded with using a lot less fuel. It is simply not the case. The 1994 Toyota PU I bought for my son would barely get 15 MPG. It was a 4 cylinder manual transmission. It was cramped and rough riding. I would rather get 13 MPG with the luxury of a full sized truck capable of safely towing 7-8000 # loads when needed. Can you imagine how many barrels of oil the World would consume if they had the "Gasoline is the only fuel" mindset of the American public.
It just ticks me off that the US auto makers are whining about poor sales and going broke and Bush in a speech about lessoning our dependence on foreign oil can’t get together. Is there not a phone line between DC and Detroit? Or is it that it’s a lot of talk. I can’t believe these mental giants can’t figure this out.
It just seems to me that the present administration should be going to the big three and telling them we can give you some help, but you need to get some high mileage (diesel) cars on the lot.
Like kdhspyder indicates, maybe the diesel flood gates will open in the fall when ULSD is widely available. I hope so.
Actually there are "TOLL: booths ringing around the White House & Congress. They ring out in concentric circles for 100 miles. (Washington DC area) They are not CALLED toll takers anymore, but are have been called "lobbyists" and "legislators" and all things legal and illegal that support this effort, for a long long time. Some folks call them other things, but.... Pay to/for play is the name of this game!?
The other day I had some time to kill and stopped the local Jeep dealer to look at the Liberty CRD. Didn’t have time for a test drive, but started it up so I could listen too it and get some info.
First off the salesman told me this is the same engine they put in the VW’s, then he tells me it’s made in Germany. I corrected him on both counts, this engine is not in VW’s and it is a 2.8L made by VM Motors in Italy. When I corrected him he told me that this is what they told him in there, pointing to the office.
Now is it any wonder that a person that might be remotely interested in buying a diesel vehicle is put off or discouraged or even totally baffled at the prospect by this kind of misinformation coming from those that should know. And I wonder how many people that are looking at the Jeep Liberty are told by sales people that it is available in a diesel.
After I left I wish I had gone to the manager and asked him about the diesel to see if he was as misinformed as the salesman.
you need to get some high mileage (diesel) cars on the lot.
I think the energy bill addressed that in a backhanded sort of way. Knowing the diesels available could not meet SULEV II it was a safe offer. Mercedes Bluetec may change that and get a big tax break. That is for anyone that can afford a Mercedes. I really believe that the Big 3 could have a hit with a half ton PU that is powered by a smaller diesel. I just don't know if they can build them at a reasonable price.
A news item came through on the local news radio station I listen to.
In Virginia they allow hybrids to use the HOV lanes with a single passenger, but that may becoming to an end in the near future. There has been a study that shows that is practice is not a good idea (well duh!). Also, owners of hybrids will have to purchase special tags, at extra cost to them so they can have the privilege of driving their hybrid in a HOV lane by themselves. The newscaster stated that the funds generated by the sales of these tags would be used to catch violators driving in the HOV lanes in non-hybrid vehicles.
Is this a great country or what?!? :confuse: :confuse:
In Europe the Chevy brand has truly been revived. With strong sales last year, Chevrolet will use the Geneva stage for the world debut of the Epica. The South Korean-built Epica will go on sale in the spring with a 2.0-liter straight six or a 2.0-liter common-rail-diesel in-line four.
When EPA delayed the implementation of low sulfur fuel standards from 2001 to 2006, it effectively protected Detroit from the clean foreign diesels that need the low sulfur fuel. The oil industry is lobbying to use post-Katrina damage as an excuse for further delays.
One of the saddest articles I have ever read. Now I have absolutely no sympathy for GM or Ford. If they go [non-permissible content removed] up I hope that the government lets them die. They have handed the title of #1 automaker to the Japanese.
As to the oil industry, they are going to bring this country to its knees. :mad:
We came awfully close to having that mentality in the White house 5 years ago. And a year ago. Defies all logic. All it would do is make fines for cars that did not meet the CAFE standard and who would pay for that. Not the automaker. If they ever get serious about fuel consumption they will encourage diesel cars. Not put every possible roadblock including artificially making diesel more expensive than gas.
Ha! I haven't had that good of a laugh in a long time.
Raising the CAFE standards is exactly what's needed. Instead, they didn't. As a result, the quote the author write has proven totally incorrect: "The more fuel-efficient automobiles become, the more people want to drive."
Look closer. Those comments were written over 5 years ago. Since then, overall MPG has actually dropped. It is now lower than it was back then. And guess what, people are driving more despite that.
Both commute congestion and smog-related emissions have become worse too. So the purpose of that commentary has completely backfired.
Since then, the "full" hybrid has proven its worth by demonstrating that it not only outperforms automatic diesel efficiency under every driving condition but it is still considerably cleaner than even the cleanest system available using low-sulfur diesel. On top of that, the new advanced lithium-ion batteries are looking to improve the efficiency even more.
Of course, no matter how much people want to tie up CAFE standards with political debate, it is not stopping Prius sales & production from continuing to increase. And the availability of Camry-Hybrid will crush any last remaining doubt. So the consumer mindset is changing regardless of whether there is a law to support it or not.
overall MPG has actually dropped. It is now lower than it was back then. And guess what, people are driving more despite that.
The American driver wants more room, more luxury & more POWER. You cannot have it all ways. To build a PU truck that will tow 10,000 # and get 30 MPG even when empty is a pipe dream. Heck your "Green" Toyota cannot even build a mini PU using gas that gets an honest 20 MPG. The Tundra size with a V8 is one of the biggest gas guzzlers in it's class.
No wonder Toyota has joined the other automakers in fighting CAFE standards that are unrealistic.
Li-ion batteries are not your savior either. Face it the hybrids are an overly complex niche market. When the big expenses start to pile up on owners after 5 or 6 years with the hybrids they will go the way of the EV-1.
Hybrids have not increased the choices of high mileage cars. They have decreased them. Toyota can point to the Prius and offer higher powered cars that get less MPG.
Lastly where is the big production increase of the Prius? They only sold 6500 last month with people on waiting lists. Looks like contrived shortages to me.
"Raising the CAFE standards is exactly what's needed."
I would disagree, almost totally.
We do not need the raising of CAFE standards, we just need cars built that actually GET higher fuel mileage.
While I understand your positions, and the sentiments that probably drive it, it is PRECISELY the CAFE structure and the compliance forthwith that DRIVES the (unwanted) consequences you have seen in reality for a long long time.
The CAFE standards are PRECISELY what allows selective enforcement such as the 5 state banning of "EPA directed programs" such as alternative fuels in which precisely the cars that do get better fuel mileage are banned.
It also allows Toyota to market in far more %, volume, profit, vehicles that get FAR less mpg than the Prius. What is overlooked or ignored it is the sales and profit of THESE OTHER cars that FUELS (no pun intended but will take it just the same) the success of this Prius vehicle, and NOT the so called success of the Prius.
I would dare say the new hydrogen (Honda Civic) powered cars would be a total waste of R & D monies time and effort, etc. Why? They DO NOT meet even the current CAFE standards and more importantly the current economical standards. For example; hydrogen is 16 dollars per gal (by weight) vs the current unconscionable prices of app 2.40 per gal, it also gets 22 mpg.
Also CAFE standards do exactly the opposite of what they purport to accomplish. I bought a 1970 VW Beetle in 1971 that got between 30-34 mpg. Fuel was .27-.29 cents per gal. Fast forward to my current 2004 Honda (Civic) which during a slightly different commute gets 37 mpg (app or so). I would hardly call this great strides in progress, mpg wise app 36 years later (slightly more than a generation later) . I just barely got a vehicle that gets between 44-62 mpg due to the narrow window in the way the CAFE regulations work.
So indeed if your assertions are true that emissions are getting FAR worse, what have we been paying for for the last 36 years?? Are you really saying the switch to unleaded regular has been a complete and utter SHAM?
Again, if marketing studies are to be believed, (in the case of the Hybrid), the Prius at even 2x the current production could be sold. Again the CAFE regulations help to create this "artificial" shortage. I suspect the oem's are using the current "shortage" to truly evaluate the REAL demand. They are smart as they have been wildly successful in creating the "BUZZ". However for continued success they can not afford to believe their own marketing hype.
Comments
link title
All opinions are welcome here. You are not alone in how people feel towards hybrids. They are in my view a non-solution to a big problem. They may save fuel, but they still use a non-renewable resource. They can use E10 but if you use anything more than E10 in the vast majority of gassers, the loss in fuel economy is terrible. E85 gassers are the worst plus the cost to make ethanol is not worth the return.
Diesels are getting cleaner than gassers. I spoke with a rep from Caterpillar this afternoon. By 2010, Caterpillar will have diesels that will be cleaner than any gasser of equivalent power and performance. His statement was something to the effect that the emissions coming out will be cleaner than the air going in.
Why people continue to try put this square pet in a round hole is beyond me. People drive hybrids because it suits them and that's what they want to drive.
Saving money is the 5th or 6th reason people buy a hybrid. A buyer saves money by buying a used vehicle.
My reason: it was a better vehicle than the 2000 Camry I was driving; better also than the '97 Camry before that. In the $20-25K range there was no other choice of that met all the criteria I set out. It was an easy decision.
nvbanker, Thank you for the perfect lable. I think it's going to stick.
And I thought it was to save oil and the planet. If it is for some other reason why would a testosterone filled movie star drive one? Why all the phony green Toyota ads? Why are people so fired up about Oil depletion & PZEV ratings? I guess I missed the major reason they were even developed. To save a little OIL.... And save the owner money in the process....
In the final buying analysis people buy a vehicle because they like the way it fits and the way it drives and the way it makes them feel. If it was only about buying inexpensively and saving fuel and the planet and resources everyone would be in an econobox at $12000 getting 40 mpg Hwy. But it's not.
Those who like the vehicle will buy it and those who don't wont. It's the most basic buying impulse.
Anyone who pays any attention to Hollywood hype or doesnt recognize that advertising is intended to appeal to specific segments of buyers is sure to be frustrated. There are hundreds of buying reasons from mine was just t-boned to I want to keep money out of the MidEast. None are better or worse than any other.
Saving money and hybrids are a non-issue. As you know I've said here many, many times ... do not buy a hybrid in order to save money. It's the wrong reason.
Buy it because you like it. Simple.
quote from Ford hyrid article
Are consumers just buying a Prius to say "look at me, look at me, I'm green"? Or are they simply buying a pass for the HOV lanes?
When a hybrid does not have the unique "look at me" factor of the Prius, consumers are choosing to pass on hybrids.
HUGE savings in fuel if it happens that quickly.
Your comments resemble those of the salespeople at the local Toyota dealership.
If they need data, that I've got. If they need hand holding I can do that. If they have a mindset against ( V6's, small cars, 4c's, SUV's, fill-in-the-blank ) I am not going to change that so I just accept it and work with them.
Basic tenet of sales when I was began selling to Ford and Chrysler 30 yrs ago. The seller always loses an argument.
If you drive an Excursion diesel using hypermiler technics, they get 25 MPG. That is in an 8000 # vehicle. A 6 cylinder diesel in a Suburban should get an easy 25 MPG and low 30s if you drive conservatively. The ML diesel vs the RX400h cross country run proved you can get low 30s with a heavy SUV like the Mercedes.
ML320 BLUETEC coming in October 2006
MBUSA plans to introduce the 45 states ML320 CDI BLUETEC starting in October 2006 using the 3.0 liter OM642 DE 30 LA V6 turbodiesel with 221 SAE hp and 369 lb-ft of torque. The 50 states version with SCR and Adblue is to follow in 2 to 3 years.
Rocky
Read the title of this thread. We are trying to evaluate if hybrids and diesels are good deals or not...
We are also trying to figure out if they deliver what they promise. "The way it makes me feel" - while may be the reason you buy any vehicle, it's not quantifiable and irrelevant to this discussion.
Those who like the vehicle will buy it and those who don't wont. It's the most basic buying impulse.
Then why are we having this discussion.
Anyone who pays any attention to Hollywood hype or doesnt recognize that advertising is intended to appeal to specific segments of buyers is sure to be frustrated. There are hundreds of buying reasons from mine was just t-boned to I want to keep money out of the MidEast. None are better or worse than any other.
Of course some reasons are better than others. The reasons based on false pretences and false advertising are not as good as the ones that aren't.
Saving money and hybrids are a non-issue. As you know I've said here many, many times ... do not buy a hybrid in order to save money. It's the wrong reason.
Buy it because you like it. Simple.
A lot of people buy cars for reasons other than "liking it".
If that's the biggest reason people buy vehicles, there would be no minivans sold. The practical aspect of a vehicle is very important.
What is the MPG on the new hybrid Honda Fit ? Some are saying 50's and I heard 80's ?????
Rocky
This is like a Chevy Chase movie where he drives on a vacation ASLEEP at the wheel!!!
I will leave out the dead grandma strapped to the roof rack.
I have a CRD and am happy with it. A VW was just a bit too slow for my taste, plus working on the thing appeared to be a real pain. Also, I was dependent on the dealer for oil. That really made me unhappy.
Rocky
Rocky
The preceeding discussion was about questioning whether buying a hybrid would save fuel in order to overcome the purported 'premium'.
My point was that where the premium does exist it's of little or no concern for most hybrid buyers while on the other hand for others it is the primary concern. It is exactly the same situation as buying a luxury vehicle when a econobox gets there just as quickly. Why spend $35-45K when $12K will suffice? Dollars and cents is not a serious consideration.
You seem to be of the opinion that hyrbid buyers are being duped ( Of course some reasons are better than others. The reasons based on false pretences and false advertising are not as good as the ones that aren't. ) and that's just not the case. If you do feel that it's being done with smoke and mirrors then it goes back to my statement that some, like yourself, will not like the vehicle/concept and some will like it. Neither is right or wrong.
Neither diesels nor hybrids are duds. Both will save the driver, and indirectly all of us, about 30% in annual fuel usage ( Toyota's HSD system ).
In regards to your last statement it's rare to encounter anyone who buys a vehicle because they dont like it. Liking it is the primary buying reason in the end for most; 'I like it, I'll take it'.
Yep, a diesel Ranger
I don't get it
Nor do I.
I think the majors just do not want to fight the ignorance in the USA, primarily in California. Ranger diesels have been on the market for over 20 years. A contractor in CA could be using half the fuel he currently uses with just such a PU truck. CARB has put stumbling blocks in the way. I fully understand a contractor buying a full size gasser or diesel over a smaller PU truck. None of the smaller gas trucks get decent mileage.
Ford, GM & Dodge are all selling their fullsize trucks no problem. Ford F series doing better than last year. Smaller trucks are not selling worth a hoot. I would say the Colorado, Canyon and Ridgeline are all but shot down. Any one of those vehicles with a small diesel would sell like hot cakes.
In the late 80's when the domestic industry was in the throes of their last crisis as the CamCord really began to take hold ( Iacocca visiting Japan? ) there was a negotiation between Japan and Detroit ( ratified by Washington ) that in lieu of an international trade war that Detroit would allow the Asians to bring in as many low margin autos free of penalties ( suckers :P )as they wanted.
In return a 25% penalty duty would be placed on all imported trucks thereby giving the Detroiters free rein to have the US market all to itself in trucks ( and eventually SUV's ). Sidenote: when the UAW saw how much money the Big 3 were making they went ballistic and threatened to shutdown GM first then the others; ergo the Jobs Bank and full benefits to retirees forever. GM and the other two settled for no strikes in return for this humongous payoff. ( fast forward 25 yrs now ).
But in that 25 years there was no competition in trucks from overseas unless the trucks were made here; Tacoma, Tundra, Titan, etc. The Detroiters made ungodly fortunes on their truck/SUV busineses.
The reason for the 25% penalty was that in Thailand Toyota and others had set up huge compact truck facilities. The Detroiters were afraid to face the Thai truck menace so they negotiated it out of the market. But Thailand is second only to the US in the production of trucks in the world. It supplies all of SE Asia. So Ford went there.
Oh, btw, in the rest of the world as you may know Toyota, Nissan, Ford, et. al. are mainly diesel manufacturers.
Now 25 years down the road there is a Free Trade Agreement sitting on desks in Bangkok and Wash DC waiting to be signed. In it there will be no duties or penalties. Thus as soon as it is signed many of those Thai trucks ( mainly diesels ) are waiting to come here... but there is the diesel problem. So if the treaty is signed soon and ULSD is mandated and actually implemented throughout the US all those great Toyota, Ford, Nissan diesels will show up here. Along with production from Ont, MS, TX and IN switching over to diesel in some part.
You may have heard that in the Ford restructuring that the Ranger here was a dead duck for being produced in the US. Ford is well entrenched in Thailand with it's latest model. It is just waiting for the treaty and ULSD.
This story starts way, way before the 1980's. Circa 1963.
brief article on the Chicken Tax
Let's use the same reference to weigh the clean-air benefit. In its own publications, CARB brags that "SULEVs will only emit a single pound of hydrocarbons during 100,000 miles of driving—about the same as spilling a pint of gasoline." Which means the maximum benefit of each ZEV is one pound of pollutants, actually less because of their shorter, 88,000-mile lifetimes. Calculating this way puts the cost of saving that pound at more than $20,000.
To put this in perspective, a poorly maintained car on the road now, a gross polluter, could easily emit a pound in 20 miles of driving. The owner would be delighted to sell that car for $1000, which would save perhaps 500 pounds in a year. For sure, there's lots of pollution to be saved for a fraction of EV cost.
"Apparently, this regulation is about something other than clean air," says GM's Ken Stewart.
What could it be?
"I'm not sure I can understand the minds of the ARB," he says with a laugh. "GM has tried to serve up many different remedies to make the air quality better. They're being ignored
who needs SULEV?
They make more money on gassers because they are cheaper to produce and easier to clean up emissions wise. Manufacturers like Ford and GM are in a financial pickle by their own doing. I believe they see diesel as too risky to sell in this country.
I own a Jeep Liberty CRD. If DC were to drop a small diesel into a Dakota, I would purchase it in a heartbeat.
That is very true. My question is, how concerned are the powers in charge of both the EPA/CARB & manufacturing, about cutting fossil fuel consumption? Every major country outside the USA has embraced diesel and now to a lessor extent biodiesel as a way to save oil. The EPA has finally admitted their mileage tests are near worthless. It was never brought to the forefront until the hybrids came on the scene. Diesel is the simple solution. Why is it so difficult to see? Even many of the environmental opponents of diesel are re-assesing the situation and realizing we are headed down the wrong path with these overly complex hybrids. Whether people choose to believe it or not, hybrids have some serious toxic waste issues.
I also think you can clearly see it the structure revealed in the since closed Edmunds.com discussion "I hate SUV's, why don't you? The mantra is infinitely "sound bite able" But what it conceals is not and is hidden in plain sight.
As a quick and dirty, the SUV segment is vilified for being horrific ally bred (invading Mongol Hordes, Killer SUV's, etc) yet after 25 years of MASSIVE growth is 12% of the passenger vehicle fleet. It is vilified for using UP TO ALL of the fossilized fuel imported for consumption in this country. Yet a simple switch, regulation, to diesel use (just for this segment) can let even the HEAVIEST of diesel light passenger trucks get 20-35 mpg!!! Some "small economy" cars don't even get this!!???
In regards to the regulatory batting average, I think they might be going for 100%. Remember MTBE? Another "certified" and approved and "scientifically" proven answer to the emissions problem. That is till they found (the CURE) was EXPOTENTIALLY even more damaging to the environment than even GASOLINE and EXPOTENTIALLY MORE expensive to remediate!!! So they will push the hybrid till they find out downstream... OPPSSSSS. Lets also not get started on ethanol from CORN when ethanol from sugar beets for example is way simplier and less consumptive of resources. Very impressive batting averages!
That is my gripe. I would forego the comfort of a larger PU truck if I was significantly rewarded with using a lot less fuel. It is simply not the case. The 1994 Toyota PU I bought for my son would barely get 15 MPG. It was a 4 cylinder manual transmission. It was cramped and rough riding. I would rather get 13 MPG with the luxury of a full sized truck capable of safely towing 7-8000 # loads when needed. Can you imagine how many barrels of oil the World would consume if they had the "Gasoline is the only fuel" mindset of the American public.
It just seems to me that the present administration should be going to the big three and telling them we can give you some help, but you need to get some high mileage (diesel) cars on the lot.
Like kdhspyder indicates, maybe the diesel flood gates will open in the fall when ULSD is widely available. I hope so.
The other day I had some time to kill and stopped the local Jeep dealer to look at the Liberty CRD. Didn’t have time for a test drive, but started it up so I could listen too it and get some info.
First off the salesman told me this is the same engine they put in the VW’s, then he tells me it’s made in Germany. I corrected him on both counts, this engine is not in VW’s and it is a 2.8L made by VM Motors in Italy. When I corrected him he told me that this is what they told him in there, pointing to the office.
Now is it any wonder that a person that might be remotely interested in buying a diesel vehicle is put off or discouraged or even totally baffled at the prospect by this kind of misinformation coming from those that should know. And I wonder how many people that are looking at the Jeep Liberty are told by sales people that it is available in a diesel.
After I left I wish I had gone to the manager and asked him about the diesel to see if he was as misinformed as the salesman.
I think the energy bill addressed that in a backhanded sort of way. Knowing the diesels available could not meet SULEV II it was a safe offer. Mercedes Bluetec may change that and get a big tax break. That is for anyone that can afford a Mercedes. I really believe that the Big 3 could have a hit with a half ton PU that is powered by a smaller diesel. I just don't know if they can build them at a reasonable price.
Article about the Jetta TDi.
I looked at a 2007 Camry last night and I really like it.
Very interested to see how the Camry Hybrid is priced and to compare it to the Jetta TDi.
In Virginia they allow hybrids to use the HOV lanes with a single passenger, but that may becoming to an end in the near future. There has been a study that shows that is practice is not a good idea (well duh!). Also, owners of hybrids will have to purchase special tags, at extra cost to them so they can have the privilege of driving their hybrid in a HOV lane by themselves. The newscaster stated that the funds generated by the sales of these tags would be used to catch violators driving in the HOV lanes in non-hybrid vehicles.
Is this a great country or what?!? :confuse: :confuse:
http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/Car_Shows/Geneva_Motor_Show/2006_Genev- a_Show_Preview_Part_II.S288.A10047.html
When EPA delayed the implementation of low sulfur fuel standards from 2001 to 2006, it effectively protected Detroit from the clean foreign diesels that need the low sulfur fuel. The oil industry is lobbying to use post-Katrina damage as an excuse for further delays.
As to the oil industry, they are going to bring this country to its knees. :mad:
All I can do is roll my eyes. Time to sit down and write my congress person.
Raising the CAFE standards is exactly what's needed. Instead, they didn't. As a result, the quote the author write has proven totally incorrect: "The more fuel-efficient automobiles become, the more people want to drive."
Look closer. Those comments were written over 5 years ago. Since then, overall MPG has actually dropped. It is now lower than it was back then. And guess what, people are driving more despite that.
Both commute congestion and smog-related emissions have become worse too. So the purpose of that commentary has completely backfired.
Since then, the "full" hybrid has proven its worth by demonstrating that it not only outperforms automatic diesel efficiency under every driving condition but it is still considerably cleaner than even the cleanest system available using low-sulfur diesel. On top of that, the new advanced lithium-ion batteries are looking to improve the efficiency even more.
Of course, no matter how much people want to tie up CAFE standards with political debate, it is not stopping Prius sales & production from continuing to increase. And the availability of Camry-Hybrid will crush any last remaining doubt. So the consumer mindset is changing regardless of whether there is a law to support it or not.
JOHN
The American driver wants more room, more luxury & more POWER. You cannot have it all ways. To build a PU truck that will tow 10,000 # and get 30 MPG even when empty is a pipe dream. Heck your "Green" Toyota cannot even build a mini PU using gas that gets an honest 20 MPG. The Tundra size with a V8 is one of the biggest gas guzzlers in it's class.
No wonder Toyota has joined the other automakers in fighting CAFE standards that are unrealistic.
Li-ion batteries are not your savior either. Face it the hybrids are an overly complex niche market. When the big expenses start to pile up on owners after 5 or 6 years with the hybrids they will go the way of the EV-1.
Hybrids have not increased the choices of high mileage cars. They have decreased them. Toyota can point to the Prius and offer higher powered cars that get less MPG.
Lastly where is the big production increase of the Prius? They only sold 6500 last month with people on waiting lists. Looks like contrived shortages to me.
I would disagree, almost totally.
We do not need the raising of CAFE standards, we just need cars built that actually GET higher fuel mileage.
While I understand your positions, and the sentiments that probably drive it, it is PRECISELY the CAFE structure and the compliance forthwith that DRIVES the (unwanted) consequences you have seen in reality for a long long time.
The CAFE standards are PRECISELY what allows selective enforcement such as the 5 state banning of "EPA directed programs" such as alternative fuels in which precisely the cars that do get better fuel mileage are banned.
It also allows Toyota to market in far more %, volume, profit, vehicles that get FAR less mpg than the Prius. What is overlooked or ignored it is the sales and profit of THESE OTHER cars that FUELS (no pun intended but will take it just the same) the success of this Prius vehicle, and NOT the so called success of the Prius.
I would dare say the new hydrogen (Honda Civic) powered cars would be a total waste of R & D monies time and effort, etc. Why? They DO NOT meet even the current CAFE standards and more importantly the current economical standards. For example; hydrogen is 16 dollars per gal (by weight) vs the current unconscionable prices of app 2.40 per gal, it also gets 22 mpg.
Also CAFE standards do exactly the opposite of what they purport to accomplish. I bought a 1970 VW Beetle in 1971 that got between 30-34 mpg. Fuel was .27-.29 cents per gal.
So indeed if your assertions are true that emissions are getting FAR worse, what have we been paying for for the last 36 years?? Are you really saying the switch to unleaded regular has been a complete and utter SHAM?
Again, if marketing studies are to be believed, (in the case of the Hybrid), the Prius at even 2x the current production could be sold. Again the CAFE regulations help to create this "artificial" shortage. I suspect the oem's are using the current "shortage" to truly evaluate the REAL demand. They are smart as they have been wildly successful in creating the "BUZZ". However for continued success they can not afford to believe their own marketing hype.