Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Hybrid Vehicles Hybrid Vehicles - Archived Discussions Hybrids in the News 
5290 messages, Last post on Oct 25, 2006 at 8:37 AM
You are in the Hybrid Vehicles - Archived Discussions Forum. Your Host is pf_flyer
This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Lost? Ask the Hybrids Host for directions! discussion.
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: tpe (Sep 27, 2006 2:56 pm) Even when I post agreeing with you, tpe, you still come back with an argument to a tongue-in-cheek post! 
|
|
|
Replying to: tpe (Sep 27, 2006 2:56 pm) 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: john500 (Sep 27, 2006 4:50 pm) 
|
|
|
Replying to: john500 (Sep 27, 2006 4:50 pm) 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. |
|
|
Replying to: tpe (Sep 28, 2006 3:58 am) 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. |
|
|
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. 
|
|
|
Replying to: tpe (Sep 28, 2006 3:58 am) 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? |
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Sep 28, 2006 6:31 am) 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.
|
|
|
Replying to: rorr (Sep 28, 2006 6:43 am) 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.
|
|
|
Replying to: rorr (Sep 28, 2006 6:43 am) 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.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Hybrid Vehicles Hybrid Vehicles - Archived Discussions Hybrids in the News
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
