Sign In Join 



Hybrids in the News - READ ONLY

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.

What is this discussion about? Hybrid Cars


Messages Page 524 of 530
1
...
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
...
530
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#5226 of 5290
a sad story by larsb
Sep 28, 2006 (6:31 am)
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.
#5227 of 5290
Re: Too many CA legislators still driving SUV HOGS [tpe] by rorr
Sep 28, 2006 (6:43 am)

Replying to: tpe (Sep 28, 2006 3:58 am)

"My conclusion was that its not politically popular to make individuals responsible and accountable."
 
Bingo. It is NEVER politically popular, regardless of the issue, to make individuals responsible. Remember, to a politician, we are but sheep with no minds of our own, wandering aimlessly until Madison Avenue tells us where to go.
 
"If all the vehicles on the road in CA were getting 40 mpg would you still sue the auto manufacturers? These cars are still emitting CO2 and causing environmental damage."
 
Are they?
 
We all emit CO2 just breathing - and we do it 24/7. Are we causing environmental damage?
 
"Oh c'mon", you'll say. "The amount of CO2 exhaled by a human is insignificant compared to what is emitted by a 40mpg fuel sipper, let alone a 15mpg SUV".
 
TRUE. But then the question becomes: Where is that magic line in the sand? At what point to does 'environmental damage' occur? Just how much CO2 is TOO much? Is the lawsuit saying that the 'damage' inflicted by a 40mpg car OK but the 'damage' inflicted by a 15mpg SUV is not? Now trying PROVING that point in a court of law.
 
Another point, all these manufacturers make fuel efficient automobiles. As individual consumers, WE chose whether or not to conserve fuel. Are the manufacturers being sued for giving the consumer a CHOICE? Or are the Califorinia politicos saying that the general public is just too stupid to make the 'right' choice therefor, as our esteemed intellectual betters, they must step in and protect us from ourselves?
#5228 of 5290
Re: a sad story [larsb] by gagrice
Sep 28, 2006 (7:29 am)

Replying to: larsb (Sep 28, 2006 6:31 am)

My dream car is a 5-passenger diesel/electric car that gets 70+ MPG on the EPA combined and costs less than $35K.
 
DCX built just such a car, the Intrepid ESX-3, in 1999. It was shot down by Chrysler because they did not believe anyone was crazy enough to pay the hybrid premium that Toyota is currently getting for their hybrids.
 
Much better looking than any of the Toyota hybrids IMO.
#5229 of 5290
Re: Too many CA legislators still driving SUV HOGS [rorr] by tpe
Sep 28, 2006 (7:34 am)

Replying to: rorr (Sep 28, 2006 6:43 am)

I really have no idea what the politicians are trying to accomplish other than make headlines. It would make far more sense to simply ban vehicles that got less than 20 mpg. But then people would claim that they were being denied choices. But when over 50% of the people choose these inefficient vehicles its the auto makers fault. It's lunacy but somehow it makes sense to the masses because I think the overall reception to this proposed lawsuit is positive.
 
I'm not sure what we can do about our producing CO2 when we breath. Its possible that people with certain metabolisms produce more CO2 than others. There are probably medical test that can identify these people and then they need to be sued also.
#5230 of 5290
Re: Too many CA legislators still driving SUV HOGS [rorr] by gagrice
Sep 28, 2006 (7:38 am)

Replying to: rorr (Sep 28, 2006 6:43 am)

Or are the Califorinia politicos saying that the general public is just too stupid to make the 'right' choice
 
That is exactly how the elitist in our government act. Maybe we are stupid. We keep re-electing the same people to serve us. Most make their views clear during the campaigns. They are going to give us more than the other guy. Right, they will give us our own money back as they see fit.
#5231 of 5290
Re: Too many CA legislators still driving SUV HOGS [tpe] by rorr
Sep 28, 2006 (7:51 am)

Replying to: tpe (Sep 28, 2006 7:34 am)

"It would make far more sense to simply ban vehicles that got less than 20 mpg."
 
Or simply institute gas rationing. He who owns a more economical vehicle gets to drive more. It all comes down to just which choices you want the politicos to deny. After all, what's the consumption difference between someone driving a 20mpg vehicle who drives 10k miles a year and a person driving a 40mpg vehicle driving 20k miles a year?
 
"There are probably medical test that can identify these people and then they need to be sued also."
 
Abso-stinkin'-lutely. And it's a well-know scientific fact that healthy/skinny folks generally have higher metabolisms and exchange more O2 for CO2 than the more, uh um caloric-challenged amoung us.
 
Let's sue skinny people!
#5232 of 5290
Re: Too many CA legislators still driving SUV HOGS [gagrice] by rorr
Sep 28, 2006 (8:00 am)

Replying to: gagrice (Sep 28, 2006 7:38 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."
 
Ah, a fellow cynic. And completely correct.
#5233 of 5290
Re: a sad story [gagrice] by larsb
Sep 28, 2006 (9:07 am)

Replying to: gagrice (Sep 28, 2006 7:29 am)

WELL, SORTA.
 
They had a CONCEPT car, and an estimated production price.
 
And at the time, battery technology was SUCKY and diesel was WAY WAY DIRTY.
 
So, no, they did not build my dream car - they built a CONCEPT of what such a future car might be similar to.
 
They do have a good head start if they wanted to try the same car now.
#5234 of 5290
Re: Too many CA legislators still driving SUV HOGS [gagrice] by terry92270
Sep 28, 2006 (9:30 am)

Replying to: gagrice (Sep 28, 2006 7:38 am)

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

 
Yes, they are.
 
So long as voters blindly support one party or another, and elect people based on their "feelings", people who are telling them what they want to hear, that will be the case.
 
Don't hate the player, hate the game.
#5235 of 5290
Re: a sad story [larsb] by texases
Sep 28, 2006 (9:34 am)

Replying to: larsb (Sep 28, 2006 6:31 am)

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

Messages Page 524 of 530
1
...
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
...
530
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

New? Join Now!

Forum Tools

Please sign in.
Email Address:

Password:

Forgot Password?

Search Forums

Enter Keyword(s)

Advanced Search

Browse by Vehicle



View All Vehicles
Advertisement
Ask the Community
See What People Are Asking

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic


View All Topics

Today's Chats

Advertisement