Are you a current Michigan-based car shopper? A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/2 for details.
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.
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..
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.
Let me go on record as saying hybrid technology has been misused. It's not that I hate it outright. It was brought to market too soon, before the "kinks" were thoroughly thought through like:
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.
I am not anti-diesel or for hybrid. If diesel vehicles are as good and cheap as some fans here think, then I believe they will be smashing successes. 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)
That's the point I was trying to make. If it works by conserving energy, is reasonably "green", and doesn't rip off consumers, I am for it. At this time, hybrid technology doesn't qualify. Perhaps it will, some day.
You have to dig up lease vs. sales numbers to come up with the real revenue numbers . I can underwrite a Corolla lease at "sale price" of $100k, $95k residual . . . the monthly payment will still be $200/mo or less. What's the real revenue generation in that transaction? $100,000 or $200x36 = 7,000??
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.
Once again, you are comparing future products to competitors' current product. That's the same sort of mistake that GM and Ford made for the last three decades. We all know what that kind of laggard thinking leads to.
The Highlander is a disaster! What's with that horrible grinding noise at every stop at every red light or stop sign? How much of THAT can anyone stand! It's nasty.
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.
Exactly! There have been quite a few reports from World Health Organization on the rising lung cancer rate in Europe. That's why many European cities and governments are starting to ban diesels from their cities, or at least make it so restrictive as to severely impact diesels sales in Europe soon. That's why the manufacturers are desperately looking for new markets.
I am not anti-diesel or for hybrid. If diesel vehicles are as good and cheap as some fans here think, then I believe they will be smashing successes.
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.
It's not even close. "Particulate traps" are dealing with solids, which by their physical nature are much harder to neutralize than catalytic conversion of gases. If you are really into analogies, "particulate traps" are more like horse diapers that were in use before the age of automobiles; sure, they made horses hold onto their own excrements until the bags were full, but droppings were still everywhere in the streets.
I wonder if that is an all new platform, etc.? If so, does that mean the RL platform is outdated?
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.
Just don't plan on using oil from the palm seeds to run the Bluetec diesel . . . it will kill the fancy-schmancy Nox catalysts and result in a repair bill that runs into thousdands of dollars in order to make the car emission legal again.
In case it's not obvious, those ratings are not done by rating agencies, but by the buying public. Let's, hmm, not put the cart in front of the horse here.
Bio-diesel and the upcoming "clean diesel" are not compatible with each other. The sulfer content in bio-diesel will kill the Bluetec emission control components.
The BlueTec market moniker is already used on the E320bluetec sedan. It is banned in 5 states that have some of the highest luxury car sales due to horrible emission.
Not surprising. Some of us have been arguing for some time now that BMW has been cooking/dressing-up numbers in preparation for sale of the company itself.
Looks like it went through Hyundai and Saturn design studios. Then they said, wait, let's use the TL pinball slot as the character line because we don't know what else to do with it, then throw in some Bangle scar tissue on the bonnet for good measure so we don't get left behind. IMO it's got "me too" written all over it.
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.
The LEV standard iss more than 30 years old. Most gasoline cars on the market today are more than an order of magnitude cleaner than the baseline LEV standard requirement. The original LEV standard did not even address the particulate issue, the most detrimental aspect of diesel, so yeah, it should be easy for diesel to beat that original standard, with no consideration given to the most carcigenous aspect of diesel engines at all. Compared to today's gasoline cars, even the upcoming "clean diesels" are still very dirty. That's why the "clean diesels" are struggling to meet the new emission standard, whereas most modern gasoline cars surpass that standard by a wide margin.
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."
The prusuit of perfection is a poor excuse for eschewing what's good. Choosing an LS600hL over an S600 saves far more fuel in a 12k mile year than choosing a Prius over a C class would.
Yes. Easy to miss. The vehicle models discussed here are obviously listed by Edmunds, up top and off to the left side, in terms of overall satisfaction; with BMW, of course, listed first.
Every technology has to be brought to market before it is ready for the average consumer. The investors on the ground floor need money from the earlier adopters to help fund further reasearch. If Intel waited for Core2Duo before going public with microprocessors, we'd have been using wooden tallies all these past three decades. 8088 in the original PC, despite its clunkiness was good enough to help fund the research for future generations of micropcessors. Heck even 4004 of the early 1970's was good enough for embedded controllers.
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.
"A much more fundamental change in methods." Being that we aren't there yet, we have to do what we can at present and right now that involves conservation along with the intelligent introduction of hybrid and diesel technologies. I, myself, have been putting much fewer miles on the 545i than I did with my 325i's.
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.
Bio-diesel and the upcoming "clean diesel" are not compatible with each other. The sulfer content in bio-diesel will kill the Bluetec emission control components.
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.
The term "low sulfer content" in that context is like "Low Emission Vehicle" in 1970's emission standards . . . namely, compared to what? Biodiesel starts off with a stock that is much higher in sulfer content than petroleum diesel (lipids and cell membranes all have very high sulpher content).
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.
Whether you like the shift to low sulfur diesel or not, at least the mindset in the USA is changing away from petroleum dependency-should have been done 30 years ago.
Makes a statement about me: 57% Other, including incentives, business, etc.: 42% Higher fuel economy: 36% Distinctive styling: 33% Lower Emissions: 25% New technology: 7%
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).
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.
They are comparing fuels that have gone through very different steps of refining already . . . in other words apples to oranges. Ask yourself this: where did the sulphur in lipids and cell membranes go? Write out molecular formalae for lipids and fat, see the sulphur at the head of those chains for yourself.
Not surprising at all. The top reason is very much behind why Accord hybrid doesn't do nearly as well as Prius. By extension, also why the various diesel variants of existing car models will face a relatively dim market demand. That's also why Toyota insists on a Prius line of products in the future despite all models in the entire Toyota line up having hybrid variants in them soon. Toyota is no dummy when it comes to marketting :-)
The conundrum comes from the various definitions of "biodiesel." IMHO, unless biodiesel means oil that can be scrounged from the kitchen or the farm, and used almost directly, the cost of refining to the same degree is going to be higher for bio-based diesel than for petroleum-based diesel. That's just reality. Making ULSD a requirement further increases the relative cost of bio-based diesel making compared to petroleum-sourced diesel because the bio-based feed stock has higher sulphur content than petroleum.
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.
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.