Last post on Sep 02, 2008 at 10:40 AM
You are in the Smart Shopper
What is this discussion about?
#45 of 94 Re: It just occured to me [nippononly]
Jun 24, 2008 (8:08 am)
Yes, that's true...in almost everything but cars and houses!
Well, if you measure by the square foot or by the pound, it might still play out in cars and houses. Especially now with fuel prices so high, economy cars are in demand and bigger cars are softening. So if you really NEED a bigger car, it could be a really good deal right now. Of course, once you buy it you still have to feed it, so that's going to cut into your savings.
With houses, often much of the cost is tied up in the land, permits, etc, plus simply the cost to break ground, in new construction. It doesn't matter whether it's a 1000 square foot rambler, or a 2000 square foot colonial, the costs to run the water, sewer, and electric lines, and to break ground for the foundation, are going to be about the same. And that 2000 square foot house won't use twice the material. It's still only going to have one foundation, one kitchen, one HVAC system (unless you get dual zone, I guess), and one roof.
As for existing construction, the main thing you're paying for is location. Doesn't matter how big it is, how nice it is, or how many bedrooms or bathrooms it has, if nobody wants to live there. Other factors will come into play, such as condition and age of the structure, but I don't think there's really a direct correlation between square footage and price. But again, when you buy that bigger house, you have a lot more to maintain. So it might look like a bargain when you first get into it, but later may find out you bit off more than you could chew.
#46 of 94 Back on topic?
Jun 24, 2008 (8:57 am)
It seems this discussion has derailed off the topic of downsizing vehicles into alterate fuels and technology after post #23 or so, or is it just me?
#47 of 94 Re: It just occured to me [nippononly]
Jun 24, 2008 (9:28 am)
Actually, I was thinking it may even be more true in those cases than it appears at first.
#48 of 94 Re: Hydrogen still Pie in the Sky [gagrice]
Jun 24, 2008 (6:16 pm)
That is assumption based on a biased source of information. The use of hydrogen is well documented. From what I can find the bulk is used in fertilizer to grow corn for ethanol.
Please use links as I am tired of reading so much stuff to disprove your wild claims and assertions.
But hydrogen is produced to refine oil as well. What did the GM exec say, that 135 million hydrogen cell cars could be fueled each day by the hydrogen the oil industry presently produces to refine oil???
Also see this statement below:
The most common method for the production of hydrogen today is through steam methane reformation,yes mentioned this earlier, you are correct. Additionally, nuclear energy* can produce high quality hydrogen in large quantities at a relatively low cost without any air emissions using conventional electrolysis, and hydrogen can be produced using anaerobic bacteria from waste water – a process that actually cleans the water while creating hydrogen for energy uses.
We see everyday the tangible steps that are being taken to move toward a hydrogen-based economy, which will have a positive impact on the environment by cutting carbon emissions, reduce foreign energy imports and improve our national security.
While each form of alternative technologies is explored, each has its own benefits and drawbacks. However, hydrogen holds the most promise because using certain hydrogen technologies will either cut or virtually eliminate emissions.
To learn more about how hydrogen is generated, electrolysis and hydrogen technologies in use, please visit the National Hydrogen Association link title, the premier source for information about hydrogen and hydrogen technologies.
The hydrogen extracted from a gallon of water using a hydrogen generator could drive a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle as far as gasoline vehicles travel today on a gallon of gasoline. I wonder how efficient it is to produce hydrogen versus gasoline today. Is it cheaper or more expensive? And the end result, will a hydrogen cell car be more efficient than a gas car if you look at the total process to produce hydrogen versus gas? What does it cost to produce a Kg of hydrogen versus a gallon equivalent of gas? I bet the figures will be surprising. Couple that with a green efficient electricity producing plant like a solar/wind plant, it may be viable. And the kicker, no emissions from a FCEV car, but lots of CO2 from a regular gas car, hmm, seems to be a compelling argument for hydrogen to me. I wonder how that solar/wind power plant will do in Germany.
#49 of 94 Toyota to build long range hydrogen cell car
Jun 24, 2008 (6:24 pm)
TOKYO (Reuters) - Toyota Motor Corp said on Friday it has developed an advanced fuel-cell vehicle that can run for 830 km (516 miles) on a single tank of hydrogen and in temperatures as low as 30 degrees Celsius below freezing (-22 F).
The zero-emission FCHV-adv will be leased to government agencies, among other possible users, in Japan starting later this year, a spokeswoman said.
The new version of the fuel-cell car, which runs on hydrogen and emits only water, increased fuel efficiency by 25 percent with an improved fuel cell unit and other changes to its brake system and elsewhere.
Combined with a slightly bigger fuel tank and a doubling of the maximum storage pressure, the FCHV-adv extended the cruising range from the previous FCHV's 330 km (205 miles), Toyota said in a statement. It has a maximum speed of 155 km per hour (97 mph).
Fuel-cell vehicles are widely considered the ultimate longer-term alternative to today's conventional cars as they run on an inexhaustible and cheaper source of fuel -- hydrogen -- have no harmful tail-pipe emissions, and do not compromise driving performance. The main hurdles for their proliferation are a lack of fuelling stations and the high cost of development.
Toyota and domestic rival Honda Motor Co became the world's first two automakers to put a fuel-cell vehicle on the road in December 2002, and have since been in a tight race to prepare them for mass-commercialization.
Honda's latest FCX Clarity, a sporty-looking fuel-cell sedan, can run 620 km (385 miles) on a single fuelling as measured under Japan's fuel efficiency test method. It can go as fast as 160 km per hour (99 mph), uses a lithium-ion battery and can withstand temperatures from -30 to 95 degrees Celsius (-22F to 203F).
Honda plans to begin leasing the car in the United States starting next month and in Japan later this year. It is targeting lease sales of about 200 FCX Clarity cars in the first three years in the two countries combined.
Toyota's FCHV-adv, which uses a nickel-metal hydride battery, will be showcased as a test-ride vehicle at the Group of Eight rich nations' summit in Toyako, northern Japan, next month. It will also provide more than 70 hybrid cars and hydrogen-fuelled buses for use by summit participants.
#50 of 94 Au Contraire
Jun 25, 2008 (5:02 am)
I don't think as many people are downsizing now as would LIKE to downsize, because they're upside-down in their SUVs. Even if they've owned them for a while, dealers are offering peanuts for gas guzzler trade-ins.
In another forum, a Honda salesman posted a story about a lady who wanted to trade in her Cadillac Escalade 2 months ago. She wanted a smaller car, but refused what she thought was a low-ball offer on her SUV.
Six weeks later, she returned. Same Caddy, same idea to downsize, only this time a little more desperate with gas at $4. The dealer offered her $6,000 less than the previous amount!
She didn't accept that, either. According to the dealer, she just left shaking her head. Talk about 'woulda/coulda/shoulda!'
#51 of 94 Re: Au Contraire [1stpik]
Jun 25, 2008 (5:52 am)
'She didn't accept that, either. According to the dealer, she just left shaking her head. Talk about 'woulda/coulda/shoulda!
A couple things. If she could afford an Escalade, she should be able to just buy a small commuter car if needed. Taking a big hit on an SUV as a trade-in on a small car when gas is expensive falls in the category of STUPID. If you take even a $4000 below BB hit you could buy 1000 gallons of gas which should be a years worth even with an Escalade. If you buy an Escalade to commute a long distance to work you got rocks for brains to start with. I would have bought a year old Escalade when I got this Sequoia. My wife hates the looks. I don't like the new style, only the 2006 and older in white diamond color. Nice cars.
For those people that are upside down in a big rig. Bite the bullet and buy the gas or just park it and ride the bus.
#52 of 94 Re: Au Contraire [gagrice]
Jun 25, 2008 (6:19 am)
Heck, she could've even gone my route - buy a smaller hoopty for cash and keep the Escalade. Heck, that beater Park Ave has turned out to be one of the smartest purchases I made. I originally got it as a winter beater 3 years ago, but it's really come in handy in these days of psychopathic pump prices. I still drive my new DTS on nicer days and for special occassions.
#53 of 94 NY Times Article
Jun 25, 2008 (6:37 am)
Today's NY Times has an article about folks who live in the exurbs:
NY Times Article
This is the town my wife works in. What she's told me is that she knows of many families who are either:
A) Trading in the truck or SUV for a smaller car
B) Buying a smaller car and leaving the truck or SUV at home
C) Swapping cars with the spouse so as to decrease fuel usage
There are lots of ranches out there and they all seem to have large diesel tanks, so there are a lot of VW diesels being bought. Another popular model is the Suzuki SX4 - the small wagon that gets decent mileage but still has the AWD for those days when the weather gets really nasty.
#54 of 94 Re: NY Times Article [michaell]
Jun 25, 2008 (7:01 am)
I read that article earlier this morning. Very interesting.