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
Automotive News & Views Hybrids & Diesels - Deals or Duds? 
5196 messages, Last post on Oct 16, 2006 at 6:55 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: larsb (Oct 14, 2006 5:32 pm) And also the 1.9L diesel engine is MORE complex than the 1.5 L gasser engine that is the other part of the gasser/hybrid Prius? If your post is true, it kind of makes me wonder why there is the hybrid upcharge, which while I was seriously looking at the 2004 Prius was 2x the price of the Honda Civic? |
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Oct 14, 2006 5:32 pm) I have heard this cost cutting on the HSD system since hybrids hit this board. Is there any data to substantiate any costs that have been cut. They did put a smaller battery in the TCH than the Prius that probably saved Toyota a couple hundred bucks. The cost of emissions control is not worth the gain in recent years. I would like to compare my 1990 Lexus LS400 emissions to a 2004 LS430 and see just what the added expense has done in 15 years. I would bet zip, nada.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Oct 14, 2006 7:43 pm) In other words, you haven't noticed just how many people are suffering from breathing-related health problems. Yet, you keep pointing out how tiny the quantity of hybrids are so far. The facts, they contradict your claim. SULEV was brand new when Prius was first introduced. It took quite a bit of repetition to make people finally acknowledge that the drop of smog-related emissions between that current clean standard (ULEV) and the new one (SULEV) was a major difference. It's 72.4 percent. That's quite significant! And with so few vehicles having that rating on the road still to this day, how could they have possibly made an observable difference yet? To further discredit your remark, note that the SULEV rating duration is an additional 20,000 miles. The later in the life of a vehicle, the harder it is to remain clean. So the additional 50,000 miles that PZEV adds to ULEV is undeniably another big step forward. But since so few of vehicles have that rating, what difference could that have made from 10 years ago yet? Clean is a problem only now being addressed. Low-Sulfur gas availability nationwide happened just this January. Low-Sulfur diesel available nationwide begins today! That means the rollout of emission cleansing devices is still in the very early stages, since they all required fuel that is low-sulfur. So drawing a "red herring" conclusion already is far too premature. JOHN
|
|
|
Replying to: john1701a (Oct 15, 2006 6:10 am) 74.2% of nothing is still nothing. As you can see from the smog test on our 1990 Mazda 626, the amount allowed is astronomical compared to what a maintained vehicle actually puts out. NO measured 12 PPM. They allow up to 807 PPM and the average is 237 PPM. You can throw figures out to justify the acceptance of the hybrid technology all you like. It is just not worth the $$$cost.  To further discredit your remark, note that the SULEV rating duration is an additional 20,000 miles. The later in the life of a vehicle, the harder it is to remain clean. So the additional 50,000 miles that PZEV adds to ULEV is undeniably another big step forward. My answer to that is "HOGWASH". The state that has the most hybrids CA does not test or verity emissions on them. So how do we know they are cleaner than the older less COMPLEX vehicles? We don't, we just have to TRUST some yahoo in a white smock that they are enough cleaner to justify a $5k to $15k premium on the vehicle. Trust but verify?
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Oct 15, 2006 6:35 am) The other thing is even though SO CA has probably the greatest concentration of hybrids (quite literally in the world) both volumne and percentage, there is absolutely no statistical evidence that it has made ANY measurable difference since it has been on the road, let alone any statistically correlated study of the data (true scientific gibberish for): NO MEASURABLE DIFFERENCE IN THE REAL WORLD. NO WAY NO HOW!!!! Indeed as you point out, there is ABSOLUTELY NO REQUIREMENT FOR ANY VERIFICATION AT ANY POINT IN THE HYBRID'S SERVICE LIFE !!!!!! Does this strike anyone but Gagrice and me as being completely and UTTERLY disingenuous??? Or is it really, it makes not an iota of difference in the real world (and we dont really want any verification )!!???   Any scientist who makes a pronouncement with absolutely no testing or verification, such as what hybrids are in effect allowed to do) is literally thought of as a "loony" and not long remaining in the scientific community. I can also post the results of my State of California "SMOG CHECK TEST ONLY" (station) SMOG CHECK VEHICLE INSPECTION REPORT, 10 year (116,000 miles) (10/04) on a 1994 TLC or Toyota Landcruiser, you know the hated gross polluters of the known world if not the planet, Dr. Jeykylish at the end of the meager warranty period, etc, etc.. RPMs are 631/2596 % C02 are 14.6/14.5 % 02 are .1/.3 HC(PPM) are MAX 100/180 AVE 26/11 MEAS 1/2 C0 (%) are MAX 1.00/1.10 AVE .00/.10 MEAS .00/.00 Result Pass/Pass Verified? Obviously!!! Given the results, THEY should have PAID ME the 100 dollars to have taken the TEST!! It was a complete and utter WASTE OF TIME, energy (had to drive 600 miles becaused they REFUSED to do the test where it was garaged at the time) money because they didnt do it free and resources for it was a trip I really wanted/HAD to make!! The second 10 year "mandatory" test and I am guessing at the 225,000 mile mark should be SOS DD (same old stuff different day) I am also sure it did not go unnoticed but this SUV has better numbers than the "heralded" small cars the government wants all of us to get into????
|
|
|
Replying to: ruking1 (Oct 15, 2006 6:45 am)  When India catches up with the demand in Japan and the UK they may sell a few to US.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Oct 15, 2006 7:13 am) All along, clean advocates have been saying "X" is the highest level of pollutant the body can tolerate. Efforts were made to reduce from "XXXX" to "XXX" in an affordable way. That milestone, which took many years to accomplish, was celebrated. Then the next phase began. Reduction from "XXX" to "XX" was achieved many years later. They celebrated again. The ultimate goal still hadn't be met yet, but it was an undeniable step forward. Then the greenwashers chime in, saying the next step is in vain. Going from "XXXX" to "XX" didn't help, so why bother? Duh! Since emissions are still beyond tolerance, of course new cases of asthma, sinus allergies, and worse breathing problems continue to emerge. We still haven't dropped below the threshold to prevent that. They want you to believe we've come far enough. They want you to believe that final step isn't worth it. They want you to lose hope. That's sad. JOHN |
|
|
Replying to: john1701a (Oct 15, 2006 7:19 am) I think you are beating the wrong dog. Those ailments Have been proven to be caused by excessive planting of crops in areas that were once void of all that pollen. AZ was the place for asthma victims until they irrigated the state and made it uninhabitable for those with allergies. No doubt in my mind you are dead wrong on the cause of asthma and allergies. If what you are saying is correct why do allergies only crop up during seasons of high pollen count? PS I don't have to use someone else's algorithm to figure out the truth. It is called common sense.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Oct 15, 2006 7:28 am)
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Hybrids & Diesels - Deals or Duds?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
