Slashdot Mirror
Hybrid/Electric Vehicles: Should I Buy?
nissin writes "I'm ready to buy my first vehicle, and would like to hear your experiences with either hybrid or electric vehicles. Are they a good alternative to conventional vehicles, or just a geek toy? Do they perform well in the city? How about on long road trips? I am also interested in hearing about other alternative, yet practical, forms of transportation that I may have missed."
Personally, I am going to give the technology a few years to mature. I remember reading recently about GM dropping a line of Hybrid cars because the EPA in California banned a particular type of appliance required for re-charging the vehicle. I think it will soon take hold, but I am giving it a bit of time for many of these details to be sorted out.
Wait a few more years, you will be grateful. The advantages of having new technology early are many, but so are the drawbacks. I understand that this is not a "new" technology in the strictest sense, but it is not a mature one. I am waiting, and I would advise you to do so also.
Considering a hybrid is something like $40,000 canadian, and I just bought a 1987 Honda Civic for $900 that gets 40+mpg and runs perfect, I would spend my money elsewhere. But I'm cheap.
and what good would that do in this era? Have you noticed the cost of natural gas lately? Did you know that it is going WAY up?
.02
Buy a smaller car that gets great gas mileage (ie Saturns are a good example) that doesn't cost much money (Saturn SL-series cars (before the ugly Ion's) were under 12k).
That's my worthless
If you like getting 55 MPG, that is. :)
Alternative fuels are necessary for national security, in my opinion.
1) The US defeated Japan and Germany chiefly by starving them of oil. The Japanese and Germans had jet fighter planes sitting on the tarmac, ready to pulverize the best we had in the air, but they had no oil to fly them. One day the same thing could happen to America.
2) The environmental impact of fossil fuels, of course, is horrible.
3) With alternative fuels, we wouldn't need to be in the Middle East at all.
Alternative, renewable fuel resources will take us a long way towards national and personal independence.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Hybrid vehicles are great, but a more easily adoptable alternative is E85 cars. These run on 85% ethanol, and I am sure you guys all know the benefits of ethanol. The infrastucture for distribution already exists everywhere, and it would take almost no modification of current manufacturing techniques to produce E85 compatible cars. they already exist, but are not common. Yet.
You could just get a motorcycle or a scooter. Easier to park, decent fuel economy, cheaper than a car.
I'd personally take my bike over any scooter, but scooters have more storage capacity in a smaller package (I've heard good things about the new Suzuki burgman 650 - good power and lots of storage space).
Being more maneuverable and closer to the ground, compact cars are generally safer for people inside _and_ outside the car.
People who believe that SPUTES are safer really need to get a grip on reality.
Forget diamonds, copyright is forever.
Pet Peeve #843288: People who assume that the only reason someone bought an SUV is for enlarging their ego.
I purchased my SUV for several reasons: Montana winters (4-wheel drive), cargo capacity for musical gear, room for additional passengers (though admittedly, I frequently drive in it alone), and easier access in and out (I am rather tall). At the time of purchase, there were really no hybrid equivalents that were capable of doing the things I needed my vehicle to do. If they can come out with a hybrid SUV with 4-wheel drive and good cargo capacity and power to carry the weight of my musical gear, then believe me, I will be one of the first in line to check it out!
Not every SUV driver is out to earn status points. Some of us actually purchased the vehicle out of a need for its capabilities. I reserve the right to complain about the price of gas. Afterall, complaining is the great American national pastime!
I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!
I considered hybrid back in the summer of 2002. I went shopping for a Honda Civic. For $5,000 more I could have gotten the hybrid version. I did a math projection for 5 years, and I simply did not save $5,000 in gas. (It's worth noting that I only drive 10 miles a day.) My memory's fuzzy on the details of my math, but I remember thinking gas prices would have to at least double in order to break even. There are probably other ways to justify that cost, but that's what stood out for me and why I didn't go hybrid.
Also, here in Oregon, there were complaints that with higher fuel efficiency, there is fewer tax dollars coming from gas to repair roads with. So they cranked up the registration fees of hybrids. That's another cost I would have to have endured.
You should take some time to do some math. How much does gas cost now? How much is it likely to go up for the period you plan on having your car?What's the cost difference in buying it today? Is there any real benefit?
Short of some disaster that destroys or cuts off our oil supply, I can't think of a reason not to go with a traditional gas guzzler.
"Derp de derp."
I've had a Civic Hybrid for about 18 months now and it's been a great little car. I've put about 33,000 miles on it driving from Portland, OR to Helena, MT and back and also from Portland, OR to San Diego, CA several times. It's great to go about 450 miles - sometimes more - on a single tank of gas that costs about $22. It has no problems going over mountain passes and has plenty of power - unless your into racing or something. I get more mpg in the city then on the highway, but even in the worst case situations I've still gotten better then 41 or 42mpg. Usually getting around 45 to 47mpg.
I take it that you've ignored the reports on the rollover problems that plague SUVs.
Also, people seem to have forgotten basic physics, i.e. F=ma. So if more people bought smaller, lighter vehicles, they would less dangerous because there would be less chance of a weight difference between two colliding vehicles.
Of course, the best option is just not to drive and take transit, bike or walk instead.
Yeah, as soon as those tonka toys get enough power to pull my trailers and haul my family at the same time, I'll be able to get rid of that gas guzzler. My pet peeve is people who think they understand my motive behind owning an SUV!
Electric Vehicles are usually fairly enviormentally unfriendly. When you consider how the electricity is generated, and the amount of lead in current electric vehicles. Hybrids are better, but if you factor in the amount of resources utilized in it's creation, there is only one reasonable alternative. BUY A USED CAR. Reduce - Reuse - recycle. These are much more powerful words when it comes to resource utilization. The money saved on the vehicle (probably 10's of thousands of dollars) can be spent on EFF, OSS, GAS, or all the twinkies you can eat. And the amount of resources saved by not building *you* a new car, is much more "enviromentally" friendly the how much petrol you will be burning.
Whenever you switch from one car to another, you
have to get used to the new car.
Compared to most other vehicles, the Toyota Prius'
brakes can seem a little "grabby." After a short
time driving, you get used to it.
Heck, I'd rather have "grabby" brakes compared to
"mushy" brakes any day, for safety reasons!
-mrv
> partial zero emissions
:)
What the hell is a 'partial zero'?
Who says that's not their intended purpose?
Pardon me for sounding ignorant, but don't you have a representative government over across the pond?
You should be complaining about the price too!...and even louder than we do. Better yet, you should being doing more than complaining. Go make that parliment you have over there work for you. IT's not easy, but it's worth doing.
There's no reason why the demand should be so high for gasoline that it needs to be taxed to hell and priced at such a crippling level.
I contemplated replacing my '92 Ford Bronco V8 (11 mpg) with a gas/electric hybrid starting about a year ago. My daily commute was a little longer than when I bought the car, and I wasn't doing as much hauling/camping either, so I figured I go for something a little more fuel-efficient for my commuting vehicle.
In March, I bought a 2003 Beetle with the TDI (diesel) engine. It gets about 45 mpg with 50/50 city/highway driving, and it's got great pickup. The engine only produces 90 hp, but it creates 155 ft-lb of torque. More importantly, the basic diesel engine design is over 100 years old, whereas the electric hybrids are very new developments, and would require mainentance to be performed by the dealer. I prefer to have the option of having my car serviced where I choose, so that factored into my choice.
In addition, about 2/3 of the fuel I put into my car is derived from virgin soy oil, aka: biodiesel. Fueling my car supports my local farmers, keeping my fuel dollars in my local economy instead of adding to the ~100 billion dollars of annual trade deficit just from petroleum imports. In addition, the carbon released into the atmosphere from "burning the bean" releases no new carbon into the air, as that carbon was used by the soy plant during its growth (i.e. biodiesel is "carbon-neutral"). Contrast to burning petroleum, which releases excess carbon from its storage deep inn the earth's crust into the air. In fact, the original demonstration of the diesel engine, ran on peanut oil. Rudolf Diesel's plan was that farmers could grow their own fuel for tractors powered by his engine.
Now, if a Beetle isn't exactly your thing, take a look at the Jetta or Golf with the TDI engines. Take one for a test drive, I dare you. Their fuel economy is just as good as the Beetle, and they have a little more room for hauling, or working under the hood. Now when Jeep releases the Liberty with the diesel engine in 2005, even my SUV can be environmentally conscious =).
In any case, I commend you for checking out more efficient and environmentally friendly options for your vehiclular needs. Good Luck with whatever car you get.
How's my programming? Call 1-800-DEV-NULL
Ah, the slight trueness. It is true that some SUV drivers actually need a superior vehicle. And sometimes a pick up truck wont do. Like when you want extra passengers instead of a big flat bed. However, in most cases (including yours, sorry), the SUV is purchased for ego.
4 wheel drive doesn't help you as much as you'd like to believe in Montana winters. A Volvo with all wheel drive is actually superior in that respect. And for carrying just musical gear a minivan or full sized van would be just as quality. You chose the SUV over the minivan probably because of style. Any minivan would suit your needs, drive more like a car and less like a truck, and save you a crapload of money on gas. But you chose the SUV.
So yeah, that guy who tows his boat, or his RV while he's got 4 kids in the back and his wife in shotgun. That guy needs the SUV. Most, do not. And it is most often the ones who don't need it that complain the most about the gas price.
$0.02
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
I just puchased a '87 Subaru 4wd wagon for $1400 for most of the reasons you just mentioned:
1. Montana winters
2. Room for passangers
3. Room for cargo
4. Doing my part to NOT FUND OIL WARS
What I really hate about all of the "super trucks" is trying to see past them at intersections.
SUVS: Safer for the owners, more dangerous for everyone else on the road.
Competition Good, Monopoly Bad.
Pet Peeve #843290 The fact that all NON-SUV owners have a canned speech to rationalize the fact that becuase they don't need one, no one else does either.
--Keeping the flame wars alive, one post at a time
Oh for $DEITY's sake don't buy a motorcycle as a first vehicle. Drive a car around for a few years and get used to the road without worrying about gravel, oil on the road, cell phone yapping soccer moms, and old people unable to see anything smaller than a Mac Truck. THEN get a motorcycle. Plus after dealing with the crappy gas milage and acceleration of a car, you will really appreciate the bike :)
Finkployd
Conventional wisdom says that cars you intend to keep for a long time you should buy; cars you intend to keep for a short time and replace, you should lease. Following that line of reasoning, any type of car that's founded on quickly changing technology is a car you're going to want to replace in a short time, and therefore you should lease, not buy.
I hope that after I die the one word people use to describe me is "resurrected."
Crippling??? Puh-lease... I get so sick of hearing people complain about the price of gas. Over the labor day weekend, one of the generic TV anchors here in Indy made a comment like, "yeah, with prices this high I'm staying home this weekend."
I'm sorry, but the price of gas has very little to do with the total cost of going on a trip. Let's say you've got a car that gets 20 mpg, and you want to head to the beach for the weekend (say, 800 mile round trip). You're looking at 40 gallons of gas, so if the price jumped 50 cents a gallon, you're out a whopping $20. Will that make or break your vacation plans? Hardly.
For all the moaning and groaning, the bottom line is that people's habits haven't really changed much. Look at fuel economy standards, which haven't really gone anywhere in the last 15 years. I say, creep up the gas tax until habits change and people actually start focusing on fuel economy. There are plenty of good things that money could go towards (reducing budget deficits, improving & investing in civil infrastructure, etc.).
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
How's that again? You must have taken a very different econ class from any I ever did.
The "supply" of oil is a function of the price. Higher prices mean more oil becomes economically recoverable. If the demand for oil drops, the oil that is cheapest to pump gets pumped. The rest sits in the ground.
Of course, the problem is that the cheapest oil to pump isn't governed by free market forces, it is price controlled (OPEC), so requiring less isn't necessarily going to mean much downward pressure on the price, but it certainly won't cause the price to go up.
Maybe you are thinking of economies of scale, but oil production is so far beyond the point where that is changing.
I think that this makes a lot of sense. Taxing gasoline at a rate that pays for road maintenence and construction would make the automobile compete on a more level playing field. Conservatives seem to complain an awful lot about the subsidization of Amtrac or passenger rail service(at least in America,) but the subsidization of the automobile costs a lot more. In a free market the cost of externalities (hidden factors) would be decreased so they could compete on a purely economic basis. Right now taxpayers (some of whom don't drive) pay a lot of money that doesn't show up in the cost of operating a car. I could even go as far as to say that the cost of the war in Iraq should be passed on almost entirely in the form of gasoline taxes. I know, I know freedom and WMD and all that kind of crap. Yada yada yada. It's just kind of odd that everytime a Texas oil millionaire becomes president we go invade Iraq. Maybe I'm just being paranoid.
"Petrol" is two letters shorter than "gasoline" and is less ambiguous than "gas".
Will I retire or break 10K?
Got the same car. Love it. Not too long ago I read some article (in Ars Technica) about how driving the HCH changes the way you drive. It's absolutely true. I'm from a country where people drive with intent to kill. Stop signs are taken as suggestions. Always drove fast, recklessly and (my wife would argue) stupidly. I was brought up that way, sorry. Anyway, since I got the HCH my only goal while driving is to maximize the mileage. This model comes with an instantaneous mileage reading and a cumulative one. So now I rarely go over 68 mph. I'm getting 57~58 mpg on the road, and around 48 in the city (I have the manual shift one - another cultural hangup). There's just one thing that I started doing that is definitely moronic. I tend to lock on big semis and tailgate them to improve the mileage even more. Feel like Lance Armstrong. Except he's not retarded, I think. Anyway the technology on these guys is pretty awesome. You get to a stop sign, and the engine stops. Start rolling again and the engine starts as you press the accelerator. A thing of beauty. Plus it's really quiet, and if you choose to ignore it, you would never know that you are not driving just a regular Civic. Finally, you get an obnoxious smug feeling when the idiots on the SUV zoom by you. (Though you could hit 100 mph if you were not so compulsively trying to break the barrier of 60 mpg).
I did about a 100 mile round trip highway, and got 53 mpg. Damn nice on the wallet.
But...
1) How much more did you pay than you would have if you purchased a conventional car?
2) How many miles do you plan on putting on the car?
3) Is the difference in up front cost more than the amount that you are saving?
Life is the leading cause of death in America.
..and if you ride that bike like that long enough, everyone will get to watch the EMTs scrape what little is left of you off of the freeway, as well.
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
I've had the 2003 Civic Hybrid since Feb. and I've been happy with it as well.
The AutoStop feature is exactly as advertised. When the conditions are right and you're coasting towards a red light with your breaks on, the engine cuts. When you lift your foot off the brake, it restarts in the time it takes to get your foot to the gas pedal. Everyone else is burning 0 MPG gas, you're running the radio and fan off of the battery. (BTW... The standard-issue radio sounds great when you totally lose the engine background, not that the engine ever gets loud in the first place.)
This isn't an high-speed acceleration car, but it will get you up to highway speed fast enough to keep up with the crowds.
The gas savings in cash isn't quite enough to make up for the addition to your car payment over the standard Civic, but you can get the warm fuzzy feeling that your overpayment is going to Japan rather than the oil barrons...
You say that as if it's a bad thing, but is it? The UK is a small country with, from what I hear, a pretty good rail network [1] and decent public transportation in most cities. From what I've read, getting by without a car is a viable option for lots of people in the UK, particularly city dwellers (doesn't something like half the population live in or near London?).
That's not at all the case here. Only the biggest cities have decent public transit systems, and for most mid-sized cities the options are weak or absent. The country is big, most of it is spread out (yay strip malls! yay wal-mart! *ugh*), and for the vast majority of Americans, even those living in the suburbs of the big cities, getting by without a car just isn't an option.
If gasoline taxes contribute in any way to the development of alternative means of transportation (alternative fuels, infrastructure, etc), then I think the price is worth it. Society would probably be better off in the long run if we could establish viable alternatives to petroleum based fuels now, before stocks start inevitably start running dry in coming decades.
If the price of operating a car bothers you, consider the possibilities of a bicycle -- in many cases, they're a perfect solution to the problem :-)
----
[1] I realize that there have been issues with privatization of the rail system in recent years, but somehow I think the situation can't be half as bad as Amtrak is over here -- at least rail travel is viable for inter-city travel there, which really isn't the case in most of the USA.
DO NOT LEAVE IT IS NOT REAL
>>i thought extoic sports cars are for people with penis envy.
No No.. you got it all wrong... the Mazda Miata is for the 40 year old guy who is going through a mid life crisis. The useless SUV (BMW, Acura, Mercedes, etc..) is for the guy who is insecure and wants to feel like a "Big Man"...
"The dash gauges are a pretty informative mix of what's going on. It has a instant mpg bar that goes up n down as you drive, as well as displaying the overall mpg for a trip mileage. (2 of these). One I have on total vehicle mileage so I can see what I'm getting as I continue driving. The other I use for various trips to see what different types of driving produce fuel economy wise."
:)
:)
My parent's 1988 Ford Aerostar had all that. My dad's 95 VW Jetta had that, as does my brother's 2000 Jetta. I'm sort of amused that most people haven't had this kind of thing for years.
I think you missed a key point - he's not talking about mileage, he's talking about a REALTIME miles-per-gallon display. That is the instantaneous mpg your vehicle is traveling at a moment in time. I have a 2000 Jetta with every option, and unless he added it afterwards, your brother does NOT have this option.
On a different note on this feature, the only cars I've seen with a real-time mpg display before the hybrids started coming out was all the BMWs (that I've driven) for the last decade or so. It is a very handy feature that I think more cars SHOULD have. It's amazing to see how little changing your highway speed in a BMW M3, for example, makes the different between a constant 20mpg on the highway and between a constant 25-30mpg.
It's also very amusing to watch your realtime mpg when you're jaunting around a racetrack. If you want to see how hard you're really driving the car, it's alot more telling to watch the mpg instead of the speedometer or even the tach. I still get a thrill everytime I blip the throttle to downshift to third at turn 11 at Thunderhill and watch the mpg dial spike from 20 to almost zero in an instant.
"This is Zombo Com, and welcome to you who have come to Zombo Com" - www.zombo.com
Hybrid electrics are NOT a joke. What makes you think that you could make an even better hybrid if you had a little TDI engine in it?
Check out the Volkswagon Lupo. 90 MPG, without hybrid. Now, imagine cutting the size of that engine in half, and making it a hybrid. That'd probably push it over the 100 MPG mark, while cutting emissions. Pretty decent.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
I would disagree. A hybrid car can save money in some other ways too:
I will still be tooling around in the most practical vehicle I have ever owned...
my motorcycle
Yeah, my motorcycles were the most practical vehicles I'd ever owned, too. Until I started having to cart around band gear. And my girlfriend didn't feel safe on a bike. And I needed to go shopping for enough groceries for a four-person flat for a week.
And then I got hit by someone who just didn't see me...drove her car straight into me, put me in the hospital with a leg broken in three places including a compound fracture.
By the way, have you ever seen the photos of motorcyclists who were lane-splitting and rode into a car door being opened by an oblivious car driver who was getting out of his car to see what was causing the jam? I have -- and it's really not pretty.
On the same line, please tell me you at least wear a full-face helmet (the best you can afford -- a Shoei or an Arai, say), full leathers, leather boots, and leather gloves -- at all times, all kinds of weather. I still can't stand to see motorcyclists here in PA riding in shorts and tee-shirts. Because I know what happened to me, and there wasn't a darned thing I could do to stop that lady from hitting me. (Way to go, governor Rendell, passing that repeal-mandatory-motorcycle-helmets law just as your buddy Mayor Street is gearing up for a re-election battle. I truly loathe corrupt Philadelphia politics.)
Point being, motorcycles are great fun, and, for me, they used to be worth the risk (when I didn't have a family to worry about). But they're in no way practical, and the mileage you quote is really rather comparable to that of a hybrid car.
I for one think a good start to the SUV problem is regulation. Hear me out:
Now the upshot of the truck/passenger vehicle classification dualism is that SUV's are exempt from having to meet milage and emissions standards for passenger vehicles. Therefore most SUVs have more horsepower for a comparable displacement. Yet since they're licensed as a passenger vehicle, the SUV gets cheap car plates and registration. This simply must stop! Either it's a car, or it's a truck. They can't have it both ways.
Secondly and perhaps more controversially, I believe that a new license class should be created for large SUVs. There are simply too many people unqualified to handle a 7000+ pound vehicle treating these things like big sports car! When I wanted to ride a motorcycle, I had to get a special certification on my license, and so should it be for large SUVs.
FYI, changing your oil every 5000 is about the interval recommended for cars nowadays, hybrid or not. The only ones pushing you to change your oil every 3000 miles are the oil change shops.
> I think hybrids are great for environment and a cool techno gadget, but hopes of saving on gas - forget about it.
Going to the junk yard, and bringing back a dead vehicle from parts will cost the environment much less over the life of the vehicle, than manufacturing a new car, and through trickle down - parking, or pushing another car into the land fill. (assuming you keep it tuned up and maintained.)
now as far as the air in your city, since the cars are manufactured in other countrys, some of that environmental impact of the hybrid only kills the rain forrests, not the local air...
You're kidding, right? The reality is that we essentially burn subsidized fuel in this country. In other countries, the tax man adds a bit to the cost of fuel. Go figure, Western Europe and Scandinavia seem to put more focus on population health and a clean environment than profits in the auto and oil industries. Charging extra for the fuel does a couple things, it is a disincentive to waste fuel. It helps pay for some of the hidden costs associated with burning fossil fuels.
The US is not serious about reducing emissions. We are also not charged the true cost of fuel. By that I mean that we, as consumers, do not pay for the cleanup costs, or the healthcare costs that petroleum based fuels cause.
This URL explains, a little bit, about how the cost of gasoline effetively hasn't changed in the US in the last 30 years. If you only go back 25 years, its arguable that the cost has dropped, and significantly. The price per gallon in the US first hit a dollar in the late 70s. As long as I've been driving (17 years), its barely changed. Compare that to the changes in wages. Or the change in real estate values. Or the cost of the vehicles we're driving. Gas is CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP.
"In 10 years he will pay $5k more. Person who bought hybrid already paid ~$4k more when he bought the car, and will pay at least ~$1k more for more expensive service."
Factor in the effect of T.W.A.T on oil prices over the next decade as big oil 'investment' goes up in smoke - the savings look far sweeter.
Also factor in the fact hat whatever % of your drive time is dead slow or sat still if you city drive - which still burns gas as you chug at the lights - mileage is not the best starting point.
And here is what people dont get - ITS NOT ABOUT THE MONEY!
You cant put a price on our childrens future.
This perpetual motion machine Lisa made is a joke, it just keeps getting faster and faster. - Homer
Me, I have to scope my vehicle for the worst case scenario (seven passengers and a trailer) and then live with the surplus capacity the rest of the time.
Wow, I know what you mean. I'm still making payments on the personal jet. Gotta visit Europe sometimes, after all.
Seriously, you're over 25, right? Price out rentals, and see how it adds up against the purchase price and gas prices of the SUV. Try out hotwire.com, and/or sign up with the various rental agencies to get their cheapest online prices. If your vacation every year is to spend a month on the road with you, the spouse, and your 5 kids, what you're saying could make sense.
If you usually *fly* somewhere for your vacations, though, it doesn't make sense. If you only need the trailer twice a year, to schlep your kid's stuff to college and back, it doesn't make sense.
I obviously don't know your personal situation... but there are actually surprisingly few people out there for whom an SUV is really logical. But how many people really have the self-awareness to just skip the rationalizations and say, "it is worth $xxxxx, angry stares from the tree-huggers, and a greater risk of killing someone to me to avoid driving a station wagon or minivan, and/or to feel bigger than anyone else on the road."
There are only 10 types of people: those who understand decimal, those who don't, and, uh, 8 other types I forget.
That's one of the things that has bugged me about the hype over hybrids. I remember nearly 20 years ago the Honda CRX HF was rated for 54MPG on the sticker. After 20 years of progress, we've achieved a slightly larger car, for 3 times the cost, which has about the same mileage.
Thank you. Drive through.
"I hate to break it to you, but cars for a great many people are a discretionary expense"
Wow. Posted by someone who has obviously never been poor. The only time a car IS a discretionary expense is when affordable housing is near primary places of employment. Being a poor person myself I can tell you that no car = no job.
Just a note on 0W20 oil... If you're always looking for "0W20", that's why you're not finding it. Look for 'SAE 20'. It's the same thing, and more companies market it that way.
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
Well, let's examine this whole "SUV - penis envy" meme rationally.
Mom and Dad and the 2.7 kids go out to buy a car. 1.7 of those kids are still in carseats, so the sedan goes out the window. Is it possible? Yes, but not desirable. So we're looking at something that has more space.
They all walk past the minivans because of the enormous stigma built up against them by young men, reluctant to be labeled as married with children. Ditto x 10 station wagons. So we're looking at Explorers, Envoys, etc.
A quick look at shows that the fuel economies of a 2002 Ford Winstar are roughly the same as an Explorer (17/23 vs. 17/21) (there may be some wide divergence between other models, this is Slashdot quality research). Even the Expedition is only a few mpg lower. So why are minivans spared the ire?
I think really what all this is about is culture. There are two cultures in America, the urban and the rural. Urban culturites find themselves immeasurably superior to the rurals. This is somehow hard coded into the human genome, because you can find it all the way back to Ancient Greece.
Sure, a couple of arguments get pitched up about fuel efficiency, traffic, parking spaces, but when you feel that bitterness, that resentment about seeing an SUV, what you're really resenting is the declared culture of the driver.
It works both ways by the way. I'm a rural, and it makes me sick to see a Hummer decked out with leather interior. It's as much a cultural violation to me.
Anyway, this whole penis envy thing comes from the culture clash. You see similar attitudes towards other rural tokens such as guns, pickup trucks, etc. I think it comes from a feeling that rurals are closer to a level of basic survival ~ basic masculinity, and a resentment of that. So when you see a rural token, AND see that token as a false one, you make this whole pocket Freudian association.
Don't own an SUV: can't afford one. I would own a Hummvee if I could. Only the H1, though; the H2s look like school buses to me.
If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
That's why Los Angeles is so polluted, you insensitive clod. ;)
The answer to problems like smog in LA (and also Toronto, ON, Canada) is to move away from gasoline-powered vehicles, but no...
(1) People will stick to their gas-guzzling SUVs because they think SUVs are 1337.
(2) The oil companies hate to lose revenue.
(3) The populace fears change.
(4) The populace associates alternative-powered vehicles with dinky subcompact cars that can only go 20mph for half an hour before needing a recharge.
FUD, plain and simple.
-uso.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
Believe me, "pretty good" is not how I'd describe it. At the moment, services between the two biggest UK cities (London and Birmingham) are seriously disrupted because one of the train operators has pulled almost all of it's trains out of service over safety issues, presumably caused by skimping on maintenance. Calls are being made to do the same on the London Underground Central line, also for safety concerns over old and decrepid trains. Just another week really and it's not suprising any more. During the hot weather in the summer trains were speed-restricted over fears that the poor-quality tracks everywhere would expand and buckle in the heat - while our European neighbours enjoy 200mph trains that operate in all weathers.
Trains into London are mainly used by commuters because the city's so overcrowded there's barely anywhere to park if you did drive. And of course, if you go into Central London by car during the day, you get charged 5ukp for the priviledge.
While travel between major cities via train can be quite a pleasant experience, you often need to start and end your journey elsewhere. Buses sometimes work, taxis are expensive and walking only viable if you have plenty of time spare and aren't carrying much.
Maybe a bike is a solution for the "last mile" at each end? Well, no, not really; none of the train operators are obligated to carry them and while you may get lucky, it's not guarunteed. Going through London, taking them on buses or the Underground is a no-no as well.
As an example, I live south-east of London, about 35 miles from the centre. I sometimes visit a friend who lives in the outskirts of Birmingham. Both fairly well connected as places go, and near to large cities. By car it's 160 miles door-to-door and will cost me around 15ukp in fuel (30 return). Even with the awful M25 motorway, it takes around 3 hours, and rarely takes more than 4 hours, even at peak times.
If I want to use public transport for this (and I have done, several times), I have to:
So well over 4 hours (assuming no delays or waiting time, of which there's plenty) and 50ukp to make the same trip. Go somewhere more obscure and you're really stuffed. Car ownership in some form is essential for most people, and highly desirable for the rest.
Oh, and of our massive taxation on fuel (as well as road tax, car insurance tax and the like), barely any of it is spent on transport - it's used to make up shortfalls in other areas of government spending.
Britain is *not* a good example of a country where a decent public transport system makes car ownership unneccessary.
is often an argument for not getting one, when calculated at list price. However, all you need to get is a $2000 tax credit (doable in many states, and will be doable in the entire U.S. if negotiations go right on the energy bill) or negotiate the price down $2000 (I did) to have the Honda Civic Hybrid cost the same as the Honda Civic EX. Therefore, this argument is only valid if you're actually going to get something that's around $4000 cheaper (Honda Civic DX with AM radio?)...
Often, though, after people disqualify a hybrid with the argument using list price, they go out and buy a mid-size Accord ($25,000, or $3K more) or an SUV ($35,000, or $15K more!) out of vanity for "how it makes them look."
If you'd like an argument for how something makes one look, compare the price of an SUV (~5 year depreciating asset) versus, say, a hybrid and plastic surgery. They're about the same cost, and I think one would make out better with the latter...
"It remains to be seen if the human brain is powerful enough to solve the problems it has created." Dr. Richard Wallace
plus it's socially responsible, and high ground level ozone levels leads to more asthma hospitalizations.
Not that anyone seems to give a rat's ass about the air we breathe, all the arguments here are about horsepower and saving money.
After dinner tonight, inspired by this story, I went back up to my local Honda dealership and test drove a 2003 Civic Hybrid with a manual transmission. My girlfriend has the CVT, I want the stick-shift. :-)
During the test drive, I mentioned the idea to the saleswoman that I disliked the rims and would also want to replace the tires with Falkens as mentioned in my post.
According to her, this isn't a good idea.
The rims are designed to keep drag down while still being somewhat interesting to look at. They have no spokes and very few distortions that would cause unnecessary wind resistence. Furthermore, one of the reasons the diameter of the rims on hybrids are so low, is because they have less rotational inertia. The greater the dimeter, the more weight you have father from the axis which requires more power to get turning.
As for the tires, they are specially chosen as well. Many other people have mentioned in various threads (including an Ars Technical article) that the Honda Insight has really hard tires with high PSI that do not have a great deal of grip. The situation with the Civic Hybrid is not unlike this. While the tires are fit the norm more closely, they are a little harder than most. Replacing them with softer tires like Falkens (that have different drag characteristics because of their uni-directional treads) will impact fuel economy significantly.
To summarize, the saleswoman mentioned something that should be obvious to most Slashdot geeks: the hybrids are engineered with everything in mind. It's all "hand-in-hand". Screw something up, and the impact might be greater than you'd think.
I realized previously that replacing the rims or tires would change the dynamics, but now I am wondering if the potential draw-backs are worth it.
So, do not merely take my advice and go replacing the tires on your shiny new hybrid. Check with the Honda dealership. They aren't engineers, but they might have cheat sheets that can tell them (and you) what will get fucked up when you start fiddling with things.
Join Tor today!
Driving non-agressively in my 1997 2.2L standard .34 CD (not spectacular at all).
2-door Dodge Neon I get 41 highway and 33 city -- and the car was very cheap to buy, there are no modifications and the car has 132hp and a
In the end, the Prius, for example, can only do at most 10% better then that so it does not justify twice the cost. I bet if I made my Neon as aerodynamic as the Prius (.26 CD) and put on the same tires (less rolling resistance) I could get near the same gas mileage as the Prius.
Gas mileage is also *heavily* dependant on driving style due to the laws of conservation of energy -- the top things overall that I found increase it are:
1) Standard transmission -- almost all cars with a
standard get better gas mileage then an
automatic.
2) Drive 55 -- Going from 75mph on the highways to
55 increased gas mileage by 26%!
3) Anticipate lights (let the car roll to slow
down when you see a red light ahead of time
rather then breaking at the last minute) saves
a lot, too.
4) Coast down hills
5) Accelerate slowly
If you follow these rules and buy a compact car you'll get near the hybrid's gas mileage with no fancy technology.
While I agree that there are definitely too many poor people with children, the solution is not to make things worse for them. Stupid and/or Immature people have been getting knocked up/knocking people up (takes two to tango though) and then popping out babies for as long as there have been people, presumably. Whether or not they have cars, they'll still be having kids.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Question to mods:
Was the parent modded down because:
(a) it implies that all Slashdot readers are American or
(b) it disparages alternative energy sources or
(c) it sarcastically disparages Americans over-consumptive ways?
http://yetanotherpoliticalrant.blogspot.com