Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
Sometimes we get a little carried away but most of the time we are pretty civil.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
1. Buy a Prius.
2. Buy a turbo-charger (I think I can beat Mercedes price of $40k)
3. Plant like a 1000 trees. :surprise:
Tag
It's friendliness is relative. 10% better gas is 10% better. If I want a S600, I have to give up AWD and have to go back to 5-speed transmissions? I thought the S600 was about having it all?
What does it have in the glovebox? An 8-track player? Beta?
The $104k 600h impresses me more than the $144k S600, which is not as good as the S63 in many ways.
The LS600 will cause people to rethink their prioities.
DrFill
Show me where, ANYWHERE, I have "denigrated" hybrids? ABSOLUTELY nowhere. I feel that Lexus could've developed their hybrid better with the resources Toyota allows on their own cars In a post before the one you picked out to axe me on, I praised hybrid technology. It's just that when used in an incredibly stupid way only to create hyperbole and publicity, then I have a problem. And for that, that is the one major problem I have with Lexus hybrids.
Sorry that you feel that way, but as they say here where I'm from, 'ah well.
Yes the LS600 starts at 104, but even comfortably equipped, it needs to be $125k. So the car that has everything standard, why does it have "needed" options?
Most people buying these cars arent't in it for the mileage.
Oh the horror. If that's the only reason you've got against the S600, then just as I thought, you have nothing at all.
I sold my S600 to buy the superb LS600hL. Oh, sorry, it was all a dream. I spent 30k on the Camry Hybrid and put the rest into a diesel-hybrid jumpstart company.(dream too, trust me) :P
And yes, hopefully the LS6 will make people rethink they're choices. Saturn should sell the rights to their latest rethink ideas to Lexus. Rethink the countless ways they could've made the LS greener and stop chasing the hopeless dreaming of catching MB. Rethink the reason the should sell only 200 LS6's here, not 2000. Rethink the whole darn thing.
Driving the HUMMER of the super-HELC isn't anything to boase about. Getting 2 mpg better want stop Al Gore's crusade for global...... OH WAIT! He's on the waiting list for the all-new LS600hL. Just perfect. He can park it next to his 12/16 mpg Cadillac Escalade ESV and send the rented Prius back, or get it out of the pound for his son..
The LS600 will be QUIETER (electric motor), more efficient, and lower emissions.
And it won't be played-out, shown-up, by a sibling either.
One car represents the past. One the future.
I see the future. The Academy Awards. And it will be littered with 600hLs. For players only. :shades:
DrFill
Here she is, completely uncovered.
Shot 1
Shot 2
Shot 3
Shot 4
And the coupe:
Shot 1
Shot 2
As before, the coupe is the better looking of the two, but they are both 10,000% better looking than the old one, which was supposed to look like a Cheetah or something (yeah, right) as well as the Camry/Solara and Altima sedan and coupe. It looks like Honda is going to show everybody how its done once again, and the Accord will continue to defend its "most 10-best awards of any car" title.
I wonder if that is an all new platform, etc.? If so, does that mean the RL platform is outdated?
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
The 4 cylinder diesel Accord will be the one to wait for. 50 mpg combined is music to my ears.
1) Gee, do you think anybody will notice that despite paying a $3000 premium for the hybrid, the trunk room at 7.5 cu ft is half the size of our normal sedan?
2) It is doubtful that folks will be able to figure out that for the $3000 premium, most of them will never be able to recoup their gasoline savings. Americans stink at math anyway!
3) They will be soooo happy to accelerate like a golf cart, hardly anybody will be thinking about 1) and 2).
I hope a diesel MDX will be released by August 2008, but I doubt it.
Heh heh... that's a good one.
Also, it makes one wonders why established diesel makers are on the hybrid wagon, if they already have the winning strategy?
I for sure believe that when something sounds too good to be true ...(you can fill in the blank)
DrFill
Going by the E class numbers (E class having been on the market long enough to have real numbers to look back on), the gap between 50% residual and 26% real life resale is a whopping 24% of MSRP! In other words, out of that $1.2bil socalled "revenue" that you mentioned, roughly $300 million will have to be backed out of the books some day. That's assuming S class has comparable real life depreciation to E class. In reality, S class (and 7 and LS) have faster depreciation than their midsize stablemates.
The vehicle is ugly, too. And the new one even uglier.
The 911 is a disaster! What's with that 93" wheelbase jumping on every road imperfection? How much of THAT can anyone stand! It's nasty.
The vehicle is childish, too. And the topless ones are even more childish.
(tongue firmly in cheek :-)
I think Americans will be very impressed with Audi's 2.7 and 3.0TDi engines, and especially BMW's big diesels. The 535d is more fuel efficient than the 523i, and much faster.
Good question. The new Camry's platform is a heavily revised version of the old one, and not a from-scratch redesign, Honda may have gone that route as well. I guess we'll just have to wait until the car launches to find out.
However, I find it palatable because the overall shape is pleasing, the components blend and they didn't throw in any oddball shapes that scream for attention. It's a piece of bread. I guess that's what the Accord is supposed to be.
I'd take it over the Camry groundhog. Not sure about the Altima though. I think the styling of latter is pretty buttoned up.
DrFill
If diesels were really clean, I'd have no problem with them, but they are not . . . not even the upcoming "clean diesel." Like "bluetec," the term "clean diesel" is a marketing moniker, not necessarily having anything to do with reality on the ground.
I'm actually fond of the idea of biodiesel, as an ace up the sleeve in survial mode. However, the latest push towards "clean diesel" IMHO is a push to eliminate biodiesel as a competitive alternative to diesel fuel produced offered by the petroleum companies. The high sulfer content from biodiesel that does not go through very expensive de-sulfication process is going to disable the emission control system on these "clean diesel" cars and engine management to shut down the car.
Knowing the physics and chemistry involved, I can not endorse "clean diesel."
6 MPG is not worth saving, to some people. :confuse:
DrFill
It would be supreme folly indeed for someone to bash the clunky original microprocessors, and boast how quickly they could do with paper spreadsheets and wooden tallies. Looking back that is. Plenty well established accountants did just that at the time :-) Today, "clean diesel" is like finding better paper stock for wider spreadsheet, and finer pen for filling them . . . whereas the real future resides with a much more fundamental change in methods.
There will always be pros and cons and there will always be better technology coming on down the road. For too many years the USA has been energy complacent. At least now there is some movement in the right direction.
Your statement is not correct:
There are standards for three different varieties of biodiesel, which are made of different oils:
RME (rapeseed methyl ester, according to DIN E 51606)
PME (vegetable methyl ester, purely vegetable products, according to DIN E 51606)
FME (fat methyl ester, vegetable and animal products, according to DIN V 51606)
The standards ensure that the following important factors in the fuel production process are satisfied:
Complete reaction.
Removal of glycerin.
Removal of catalyst.
Removal of alcohol.
Absence of free fatty acids.
Low sulfur content.
Please note Low Sulpher content.
Bio-diesel would only be used blended with ULSD in a commercial application, for instance Willie Nelson's 'Bio-Willie' stores use B20.
MB would never support 100% bio-diesel, no manufacturer does.
DrFill
The sulfer removal process would entail very expensive and vast economy of scale . . . that means the petroleum companies will get to control it through their refineries. To me at least, biodiesel's primary appeal is indepdence from the petroleum monopolies, and make each household "independent" when things come to a pinch. "Clean diesel" cars put a real damper on that.
Other, including incentives, business, etc.: 42%
Higher fuel economy: 36%
Distinctive styling: 33%
Lower Emissions: 25%
New technology: 7%
Reasons for buying a Prius
1. Biodiesel contains no sulphur,
and that any sulphur dioxide emissions will have originated from the engine
lubricating oil.
From a study on Rapeseed oil http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/reportsdatabase/reports/gen/19940401_gen-294.pdf
2. Sulphur is another emission from fossil fuels that is particularly damaging to the
environment, especially as it contributes to destruction of the ozone layer. Since vegetable oils contain virtually no sulphur, the level in biodiesel after transesterification has been measured
at less than 0.005 percent (by weight) of the fuel, while that for diesel is 0.29 percent (Auld and
Peterson; Adamsak). Thus, the sulphur content in biodiesel is dramatically less than in
petroleum-based diesel. From the Tennessee Valley Authority study http://biodiesel.org/resources/reportsdatabase/reports/gen/19921031_gen-239.pdf
3. Whereas the sulphur content of lowsulphur
diesel fuel is reduced in the
refinery in a high-energy process with
additional CO2 emission and a loss of
the intrinsic lubricating capability,
biodiesel is naturally almost free of
sulphur (max. 0.001 percent and
thereby at the limit of its detectability).
http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/reportsdatabase/reports/gen/20040101_gen-331.pdf
NOTE- this is less than the sulphur content of ULSD.
4. The fuel is
essentially sulphur free and so produces no sulphur dioxide in combustion and thus potentially coulc
reduce the acid rain problem. The fuel is
biodegradable and has less severe consequences than
does petroleum based fuels vhen they are spilled into
the environment.
From a University of Idaho study.
There is absolutely no evidence for your statement.
1. Biodiesel has very low/ unmeasureable levels of sulphur in application? (i.e. when it GOES IN THE GAS TANK)
True or False.
2. Brightness is applying his personal chemistry knowledge (which may be phd level or beyond) and inferring an answer?
True or False.
What goes in the tank depends what is allowed to be put in the tank . . . and that is the problem with "clean diesel." It makes the requirement even further removed from straight application of farm produced diesel . . . very much contrary to what Rudolf (Diesel) invented when he put peanut oil in to power the first diesel engine in the world. What that means is that, "clean diesel" will further consolidate the petroleum industry's hold on our vehicular fuel supply.