Slashdot Mirror

I thought Ford was the only one who didn't take a bailout? GM and Chrysler got billions shoveled at them, but Ford didn't take any of the 2008 money...

Ford tried to make a commercial on that. It was their pointlessly hypocritical appeal to American pride. Truth was more complicated.

But go ahead, stroke your piston, and think the bowtie brigade was a bunch of winners.

They ended that campaign early. It was just needless antagonism leading people to point out their deceit.

Here are a few examples of glowing manifolds/headers/etc in various automobiles. Not as amazing, but still, they work!

http://media.photobucket.com/image/glowing%20hot%20manifold/boardinscotland/euro4dyno.jpg
http://car-news.roadfly.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/glowing-bmw-m-v8-headers.jpg
http://image.automotive.com/f/tech/14916119+pheader/turp_0902_01_z+shot_peening_wpc_treatment+glowing_exhaust_manifold.jpg
http://badger-5.com/bin/glowing-turbo.jpg

Let's pick another car. The Jetta TDI isn't as efficient as the Prius, and hence it doesn't score as well, but it still beats most cars.

It's all about operating costs.

Accord. Prius.

The Prius depreciates a lot as soon as you drive it off the lot, but less than half as much each year after that -- despite being a more expensive vehicle.

Efficiency = low depreciation for the long run.

Accord. Prius.

The Prius depreciates a lot as soon as you drive it off the lot, but less than half as much each year after that -- despite being a more expensive vehicle.

Efficiency = low depreciation for the long run.

My mother owned a Jaguar X-type from 2002 or so. I once read a review of it (this one, I think) and they made exactly this point:

There was a time not long ago when Jaguars were stunningly beautiful, fantastic driving cars that were known to be fragile and unreliable. Jaguars were sexy but leaked oil. Jaguars were luxurious and emotional, but their windows often failed to go up or down. Jaguars were invigorating to drive but could leave you stranded on a cold morning.

This Jaguar, the X-Type, is the opposite of those great Jags of the past. This car trades those wonderful qualities that made Jaguars cars to lust after and has replaced them with the bland reliability that makes Toyotas cars to lust after....

Maybe we'd like it better if it leaked.

and the ascendancy of Toyota to the #1 manufacturer.

You mean the Toyota that builds cars where the power windows may shatter, flinging glass in the drivers face, when you put them up or down? (Which, incidentally, also affects certain Pontiac vehicles that were manufactured in part by Toyota...)
http://www.automotive.com/2004/49/toyota/corolla/recalls/77773.html

Or the Toyota that builds cars where the wheels might fall of when you're driving, due to crappy rims?
http://www.automotive.com/2004/49/toyota/corolla/recalls/66552.html

Or maybe the Toyota that builds cars where that nice safety feature called an air bag just plain doesn't work?
http://www.automotive.com/2007/49/toyota/camry/recalls/50400.html

and the ascendancy of Toyota to the #1 manufacturer.

You mean the Toyota that builds cars where the power windows may shatter, flinging glass in the drivers face, when you put them up or down? (Which, incidentally, also affects certain Pontiac vehicles that were manufactured in part by Toyota...)
http://www.automotive.com/2004/49/toyota/corolla/recalls/77773.html

Or the Toyota that builds cars where the wheels might fall of when you're driving, due to crappy rims?
http://www.automotive.com/2004/49/toyota/corolla/recalls/66552.html

Or maybe the Toyota that builds cars where that nice safety feature called an air bag just plain doesn't work?
http://www.automotive.com/2007/49/toyota/camry/recalls/50400.html

and the ascendancy of Toyota to the #1 manufacturer.

You mean the Toyota that builds cars where the power windows may shatter, flinging glass in the drivers face, when you put them up or down? (Which, incidentally, also affects certain Pontiac vehicles that were manufactured in part by Toyota...)
http://www.automotive.com/2004/49/toyota/corolla/recalls/77773.html

Or the Toyota that builds cars where the wheels might fall of when you're driving, due to crappy rims?
http://www.automotive.com/2004/49/toyota/corolla/recalls/66552.html

Or maybe the Toyota that builds cars where that nice safety feature called an air bag just plain doesn't work?
http://www.automotive.com/2007/49/toyota/camry/recalls/50400.html

• Unrealistic lifetime estimates. Modern vehicles last much longer than 100k miles. The study that showed the hummer beating out the Prius also shows it breaking even at 300,000 miles. The Prius is not going to last 300,000 miles. A Diesel-powered hummer MIGHT, and it can run on currently-available biofuels.
• Comparing fuel economy of diesel and gasoline, when diesel has more energy and higher CO2 emissions per gallon. Uh, no, see, the former's an argument in favor of diesels while the latter is an argument in favor of biofuels. Also, the only thing a modern diesel produces much more of than a gasoline vehicle is NOx.
• Comparing a mid-sized hybrid (usually the Prius) with a considerably smaller diesel-powered vehicle (e.g. the Golf). Pure fucking bullshit. The only place the golf falls down considerably is rear legroom; Here I give numbers with the prius/golf, in cubic inches or cubic feet as appropriate: Headroom 39.1/39.3, Rear Headroom 37.1/38.5, Front legroom 41.9/41.2, Rear leg 38.6/35.3, Shoulder Front 55/54.7, Shoulder rear 52.9/54.6, Seating 5/5, cargo 16/15, volume 96.2/94. In other words, the Prius has 2 cubic feet more interior room and 1 cubic foot more cargo space than the golf. They are both small cars, and you are a fucking liar since the golf has more shoulder room and the prius has more rear leg room, but the cars are otherwise practically identical in size. Lying liars and the lies they tell. Incidentally, a Passat is even bigger and still gets about the mileage of the Prius.
• Comparing fuel economy using different standards. Well, I'm not doing that. The simple truth is that the ONLY way to get a Prius (which gets real-world mileage of about 42 mpg in NORMAL driving) up to the mileage of a Golf (which gets about the same, with the caveat that freeway driving is typically over 45 mpg in the real world) up to the mileage of a Golf is to drive it like a total dick, slowing down dramatically up every hill, and ruining the mileage of everyone else on the road trying to keep momentum up hills. Sorry, but I'm not interested in mileage estimates, only in real-world reports.
• Comparing fuel economy numbers in US and UK gallons. I'm not doing this either, but thanks.
• Comparing lower-performance vehicles to higher-performance hybrids. The TDI Golf fucking cooks and also, I could give one tenth of one shit anyway because we're talking about cost and environmental benefit here, not performance. The Prius has shitty performasnce compared to my 1982 Mercedes 300SD; it allegedly only has 120bhp and 170ft-lb (also crank) but makes 30 mpg on the freeway and instead of buying a new car I bought a used car. That means that I saved 100% of the energy production cost of buying a new vehicle, which makes up for a lot of "reduced" mileage — I'm still way ahead of most people on the road. And since I can run biofuels, I can run carbon-neutral. Since there's still no biofuels available for a Prius (nobody is making butanol yet) you don't actually have that option.

Your post consists of lies, and damn lies. Oddly enough, I was able to debunk it with statistics. Please don't post on this subject again until you are willing to say something relevant.

I'm all for getting the smoke-belching older cars off the road, but have you seen what kind of (new or used) car you can get for $4,500?

Looks like more than enough to get a 1996 honda accord.

I disagree. I think it looks cool.

See?

Speaking as someone who drives an SUV, no vehicle with a rigid chassis (as most SUVs have) is going to be anything like as safe in a head-on collision as something with proper crumple zones.

I'm not an SUV cheerleader by any means, but to suggest that all SUVs have poor crash ratings is mere conjecture. I found some crash ratings that contradict your assertion in 30 seconds.

Sure we accept this in cars. That's why there are recalls and TSBs. Heck, there are already recalls for 2007 Toyotas. Anytime you have a complicated system that's supposed to run continuously, you're going to have some bugs unless you either:

1. Create a truckload of redundant systems and have them check against each other.

2. Spend a lot of time and money on the problem, with the idea that you'd rather have reliability than state-of-the-art. Note that I said time AND money - money is no substitute for time here.

Consider this, if a Lotus only put you back $35,000, EVERYONE would have one.

Don't worry, you'll have one in your hands if you want one bad enough

7. Trade the VW Beetle (or other bad-in-a-crash car) for a Volvo (or other good-safety-record-for-its-driver vehicle).

Ok, where exactly did you here that the Beetle is bad in a crash? Since when is Four stars considered "bad"?

And let's not forget that (1) crash avoidance is more important than trying to be a "bubble", and if we're going to toss around marketroid allegations as truth I'd rather a distinctive (i.e., visible) beetle over a "safe" volvo, or (2) the more important measure of a "by the numbers" car is (fuel and non-fuel) economy, and both cars have a fair bit of credibility in that status. (To say nothing of the rather significant non-fuel economies you get with a slightly used or american-made car.)

Anyway...

This is the Ask Slashdot section. It's where someone asks a question, and they get an answer. In fact, this is a great question for Ask Slashdot, because there were already two great responses ("build a faraday cage" and "get a meter to test") already. It's the equivalent of a "letters to the editor" page, if you really want to stretch a newspaper paradigm to fit /.

(And I'd change your "eat less meat / more vegetables" to a much more intelligent "see your doctor, ask him for diet advice, and follow it" line. Eating no meat and nothing but raw vegtebles is bad for you in entirely different ways than the inverse, but it's still bad for you.)

For everyone's information (not sure why I didn't do this earlier):

Crown Victoria Rear Legroom: 39.6
Toyota Prius Rear Legroom: 38.6 ...we're NOT talking about much here either.

http://www.automotive.com/2005/12/ford/crown-victo ria/compare/
http://www.automotive.com/2005/12/toyota/prius/com pare/

As for driving in the city, car ownership in the city is a hassle, so typically people won't own a car. We're not talking people who own one and don't use it in favor of taking the cab.

For everyone's information (not sure why I didn't do this earlier):

Crown Victoria Rear Legroom: 39.6
Toyota Prius Rear Legroom: 38.6 ...we're NOT talking about much here either.

http://www.automotive.com/2005/12/ford/crown-victo ria/compare/
http://www.automotive.com/2005/12/toyota/prius/com pare/

As for driving in the city, car ownership in the city is a hassle, so typically people won't own a car. We're not talking people who own one and don't use it in favor of taking the cab.

This means that it can take the work that electrical engines don't like, low speed high torque work.

On the contrary, that is exactly the kind of work that electrical motors handle well. Many electric motors - particularly the kind used in industrial applications - offer something close to 100% of peak torque at 0 (zero) RPM.

From the article here that describes the 2005 Toyota Prius:

Thanks to the electric motor's 295 pound-feet of torque at 0 rpm from the engine, the Prius launches without hesitation.

On this page we see the description of a dynamometer used to test electric motors. This excerpt describes the units suitable for testing:

The I-300E electric motor dynamometer is rated at (200 H.R - 149 K.W.) at 1160 RPM, (300 H.P. 224 KW at 3600 RPM), 1050 Ft. lbs. torque - 1425 NM) at 0-1000 RPM. This unit comes standard with a balanced high speed driveline and shield and enables full horsepower-kilowatt testing in the 1800-3600 RPM range. A shear pin release is built into the unit for protection from harmonic vibration and possible torque overload. The unit has a maximum torque rating of 1050 ft. lbs. which occurs at 0 RPM - 1000 RPM. This enables the unit to check torque load of the new high torque/low RPM motors.

Well, you made me stop and think long enough to do the math.

With 12.5 % of a population of 295,000,000 at the poverty level, or 36,875,000. Following the previous poster's chart of $250 billion donated, that means that each person at the poverty level in the United States could receive $6779.66. (No links, you can do your own math.) I'd say giving each impoverished American a newer used Volvo is pretty generous. Of course, if it was donated more wisely instead of more freely, it might actually get where it is needed.

Also, if you'd care to check around on your 'American' spirit you leftist commie pinko America hating Michael Moore wannabe moron, on such sites as The World Food Programme, you might see that America normally gives more to humanitarian causes than the rest of the world combined.

If you wanted to start a "save the world" thread on slashdot, it would have probably been more beneficial and more 'interesting' to suggest we all visit thehungersite.com.

I'd also be more inclined to suggest that the author possibly donate his old PC to the local library after he upgrades or something that seems maybe a little less forceful than "screw your wants and needs, give your hard earned money away".

Btw, to the author, since you seem to be interested in SFF, the Asus S-presso has a nice look to me.