Slashdot Mirror


Ford Launches First American Hybrid

Ford has finally rolled out their Escape hybrid SUV. Ford's website has more information. Ford will use Toyota's first-generation hybrid technology in the SUV (the 2004 Prius is Toyota's second generation technology). Best of all, the Escape is street-legal in residential areas. Update: 08/06 22:31 GMT by M : A reader points out that GM will be selling a hybrid pickup soon, but it isn't available for sale to the public yet, so Ford is still the first.

635 comments

  1. First! Nice job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First gen? I hear it doesnt even get much better than standard escape.

  2. Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by valisk · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Bravo to Ford for having the balls to introduce a hybrid car, even if it is an old generation lacking the refinements of newer systems.

    Perhaps now the trend of ever increasing oil use in the USA and elsewhere can be reversed.

    --

    Economic Left/Right: -0.62
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
    1. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps now the trend of ever increasing oil use in the USA and elsewhere can be reversed.

      Awesome! I can't wait to turn exhaust in the air into oil :)

    2. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by epiphani · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Its not a car, its an SUV. This is something that I just dont understand.

      Why release a hybrid SUV? I am willing to bet that most people that would be interested in a hybrid vehicle would not want something that big. If I wanted a fuel-efficient hybrid car, I'd want something that didnt have to heave around 3000lbs of weight. It just seems like the "hybrid" and the "SUV" just cancel each other out.

      --
      .
    3. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yes - but what is more important is perhaps the infrastructure (widespread charging points, qualified mechanics) etc... Mass use should automatically follow given convenience.

      Jabba the Lawyer

    4. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, this is NOT an old generation. It's all new. I love when Slashdot gets it totally wrong (Ford ISN'T using a Toyota design), and then readers spin it even more: Ford using a design that is "lacking the refinements of newer systems?" Oh, come on.

    5. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by Jonny+Ringo · · Score: 1

      "pu**y"

      puiny?

    6. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's a question of perception. Many people - particularly Americans it seems - equate the size, weight and inverse of performance with desirability in a car.

      The rest of us think you look absolutely risible perched up in a 3 ton hunk of shit trying to negotiate a supermarket parking space. We stop laughing when you run over your dog/cat/child/grandmother because you can't fucking see out, though we perk up again when it snows and you slither into a ditch because you "off-road" vehicle is left standing by a 4WD Fiat fucking Panda.

    7. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Why release a hybrid SUV?

      Because there is a demand for it! Some of us really like the utility of our sport utility vehicles, but would like better fuel economy. Maybe you forgot to read the article where it mentioned that dealerships are setting up waiting lists?

    8. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by microwave_EE · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Why release a hybrid SUV?"

      I'd venture that some folks--like myself--that would be interested in a hybrid vehicle, might live in places that *nearly* require a four wheel drive vehicle during certain (seemingly endless) times of year.
      Right now, I'm forced by my financial situation to drive a light, front-wheel drive car. Once winter hits, I loathe the thought of even having to cross this town (which NEVER plows their *#$@! streets) with my wife and infant in a puny front-wheel drive vehicle... Let alone drive the 300 miles to the grandparents' house!

      --
      I'll take you to the ball, Barbara Manitee!!!
    9. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by malfunct · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because its a 15% fuel effciency gain which is not bad at all. Heck why not get the crazy people that drive military grade vehicles to commute to work to use less gas? Better than building some little thing that rarely anyone will drive. If noone drives the effcient cars then what does it matter that they get 75mpg when people would rather drive 15mpg monsters. At least if those monsters get 19mpg (thats aboutw what they should be at if I remember) we still save that 4mpg and since maybe more people would drive them its more savings than the non driven models.

      --

      "You can now flame me, I am full of love,"

    10. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get some fucking snow tyres you stupid cunt.

    11. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Have you seen the Escape? It's a little bigger than a Suzuki Samurai, but not much.

      It's a small, poorly designed, uncomfortable vehicle. I'll take a WRX any day.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    12. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a Brit. What the hell do you know about snow or shitty conditions? Your chief concern is spinning out in all the puke strewn about by people trying to stomach what you laughingly refer to as "food".

    13. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by GedConk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd say the SUV is probably one of the best market to implement a hybrid system.

      1-SUV are gaz guzzlers.
      2-Americans (and Canadians and many others for that matter) buy lots of SUV. Those customers are unlikely to switch to a prius or a civic, at least in the short term. SUV are more popular than ever.
      3-30% better fuel economy in a SUV results in bigger fuel savings than in a small car on an absolute scale.
      4-The added weight and size of the batteries matter less in a SUV than in a car because the SUV is bigger and heavier.
      5-The price premium of the hybrid system is less of a deterrent to SUV buyers because they save more fuel (in absolute terms) and because SUV are tipically more expensive vehicules.

      So, I'm not saying everyone should go out and buy a Hummer, I'm saying that people will not realistically give up their SUV any time soon. Since they won't mind as much paying the premium for an hybrid system, then they are a very good market.

      Also, it pays for the R&D, which in turn will improve the performance of the hybrid systems and hopefully reduce the price.

      To me, a hybrid SUV is a great short term compromise.

    14. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by Frizzle+Fry · · Score: 1

      The major drawback of SUVs is poor fuel efficiency. That's certainly the main reason I wouldn't t buy one. This will help mitigate that problem. Thus, people who previousl wouldn't have bought an SUV because of gas mileage may now consider it. How is this idea confusing? Doesn't improving your product in the area where it is weakest (compared to the alternativeS) seem like a sensible thing to do?

      --
      I'd rather be lucky than good.
    15. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We stop laughing when you run over your dog/cat/child/grandmother because you can't fucking see out, though we perk up again when it snows and you slither into a ditch because you "off-road" vehicle is left standing by a 4WD Fiat fucking Panda.

      I own two vehicles, My first is a 1986 Camaro. It gets really shitty gas mileage, but when I bought it, that didn't really matter. The cost per gallon of gasoline was less than $1.00/gallon. Things changed a few years ago. That's why I bought my second vehicle, a 1993 GMC S-15 Jimmy. It's a 4WD SUV, and it gets better MPG than my Camaro. It goes great in the snow. It doesn't always stop that well, but what vehicle does on a sheet of ice?

      I'm not likely to trade either vehicle for a hybrid, a big part of the reason is because I can fix them both myself. Fuel or combustion problem? No problem, I can fix that. Suspension problem? No problem I can fix that. In a decade or so when the parts are more readily available for the hybrids, I'll probably switch to one, but until then I'm happy with what I have.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    16. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Every time I see one of these articles about alternate feul sources for cars, or ways to make cars more efficient as a way to reduce our dependency on fossil feuls, I can't help but think that we're really missing the point. The depletion of our natural resources is just one symptom of the much larger problem of a society built for cars, and it's time we stopped looking for a way to make cars more efficient, and started looking for a way to reduce our dependency on cars in general.

      Currently, suburban sprawl, ridiculous zoning laws, and poor city planning have created an American society that cannot function without cars. In most cities, suburbs, and towns, the places where people live, work, and shop are so far from each other that walking or biking are not options. Even if people did want to bike or walk, and lived close enough to do so, many suburban streets are designed in such a way that it is dangerous or difficult, due to traffic moving at extremely high speeds, intersections that are 6 lanes wide, or freeways that act as virtually uncrossable barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists, in a sense dividing the town into two separate parts. Mass transit systems are virtually non-existent, or so inefficient that it doesn't make sense for most people to use them. In many places that have mass transit systems, the stops are so far from where most people live that they have to drive just to get to the stations. Malls are intentionally built on the outskirts of town where land is cheap, far from the places where people live or work. In my town, even the nearest market is a few miles from my house, meaning that even something as simple as picking up a quart of milk requires me to take a trip in my car.

      The costs of this car-centric design for cities are astounding. Not only are we burning through our natural resources at an alarming rate, polluting the air we breathe, and doing extreme harm to our environment, but we are building a society that's unfit for people, and designing ourselves into a corner that may require a complete demolition of our cities to repair. As all transportation is dependent on cars, the freeways become more congested, causing unbelievable traffic jams. Widening freeways and installing carpool lanes are stop-gap solutions that do nothing but delay the problem, but the problem will come back, and we will reach a point where freeways can't get any wider. Even traffic on surface streets can be unbelievable at times. Many people spend over an hour per day in their cars, just commuting to work and back. Sitting on the Interstate in bumper to bumper traffic every day is a horrible way to spend your time, and yet, we willingly do it every day, because there is no alternative.

      In addition, the cost of building and maintaining streets, freeways, traffic signals, etc. are a huge burden on the taxpayers. The constant roadwork that is being done to support our car infrastructure is an endless drain on federal, state, and local government funds, and one that is never going away as long as we depend on those roads to get around. Early in the automobile's history, the car companies lobbied for the government to build the road system, while privately run mass transit companies had to build and maintain their tracks themselves. As a result, most privately run mass transit could not remain profitable and couldn't compete with cars, and therefore went out of business, making cars the only way to get around, creating an ever-increasing need for roads, which our tax dollars still pay an exteremely high price for. Had the car companies had to pay for the roads, there is no way they could have competed with the more efficient mass transit systems at the time. Even today, building a quality mass transit system would likely be cheaper than all of the roads we have to maintain.

      Besides the cost to taxpayers for the roads, individuals must incur the cost of owning and operating a personal vehicle. The cost of owning a vehicle is extremely high for an individual to pay. Everyth

    17. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by Kenja · · Score: 2, Funny

      But if we start conserving, the environmentalists win!

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    18. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're happy driving two hunks of crap then why should we fucking care?

      Sensible people aspire to own high quality cars. That's why American cars don't sell outside the 'states.

    19. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3-30% better fuel economy in a SUV results in bigger fuel savings than in a small car on an absolute scale.

      Ummm, damn I hate being dumb (English Major here) but if you get 30mpg (average medium sized car) * 1.3 = 39mpg and you get 15mpg (average large SUV) * 1.3 = 19.5mpg doesn't the car still have bigger fuel savings "on an absolute scale"?

    20. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike the majority of Americans, we tend to have PASSPORTS and have experienced a little of the world beyond the local drive-thru McDonalds.

    21. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by SnapShot · · Score: 1

      It's a shame you posted anonymously. Stand up for a better tomorrow. Let the Bushies mod you down, you are still right.

      --
      Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
    22. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by proj_2501 · · Score: 1

      apparently the hbrid toyota highlander performs better than the v6 version.

      plenty of japanese sports cars going to be hybrids as well

    23. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by GedConk · · Score: 1

      Ok, say you want to travel 100 miles using your numbers.

      In a 30mpg car, it takes 3.333 gallons.
      The same car with the hybrid system needs 2.56 gallons

      net economy : around 0.77 gallons

      In a 15mpg SUV, the same 100 miles will require 6.6666 gallons.
      Equip the SUV with a hybrid system (that does 19.5mpg) and it will need 5.12 gallons

      net economy : around 1.54 gallons

      Using a hybrid system in a SUV thus makes a bigger difference.

    24. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      If you're happy driving two hunks of crap then why should we fucking care?

      My SUV will go places that your hybrid can not. My Camaro will out accelerate you, out corner you, and has a higher top speed than your hybrid.

      Sensible people aspire to own high quality cars. That's why American cars don't sell outside the 'states.

      Intellectual honest people aspire to have honest discussions. That's why they don't post anonymously.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    25. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Unlike the majority of Americans, we tend to have PASSPORTS and have experienced a little of the world beyond the local drive-thru McDonalds

      Switzerland has better roads than the USA, EU boy.

    26. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coke has more sugar in it than tap water, Slash boy.

    27. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by antirename · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, the main drawback is that they don't handle worth a damn. They won't turn (they can't due to CG problems; if the tires don't skid they roll) and they don't stop too well either (heavy, crap tires). SUVs, in general, are jacked up station wagons that are bought by people who are too stupid or naive to know the difference. Don't believe me? Take a look UNDER a typical so-called SUV some time. See those shock mounts hanging down under the rear axle? See those little vaccuum lines hanging in space that engage the "four-wheel drive"? Stump bait. Never mind that even if a stump or rock doesn't rip that tiny rubber hose off, the typical SUV is two or one wheel drive as soon as it get slippery. Most of them don't come with locking differentials. I haven't seen one marketed to yuppies in a LONG time with manual locking front hubs. These are truly useless vehicles. And no, I'm not an environmentalist; I've never owned a "practical" car in my life. And I have owned trucks. But at least I bought the damn things for a reason (Corners well, fast in a straight line, hauls lots of stuff, I can jump it and not bend some cheesy little unbody, whatever other feature I really need... things like that). Every time I get behind one in traffic and I can't see what color the light is because my windshield is filled with a Suburban tailgate with a soccer ball sticker on it I want to beat somebody with a cluebat.

    28. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by Morphine007 · · Score: 1

      My Camaro will out accelerate you, out corner you, and has a higher top speed than your hybrid.

      not fucking likely... though to be fair, they never actually turned this into a production vehicle.... pity... I'd sell my soul

    29. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by Frizzle+Fry · · Score: 1

      You might be right. Due to the horrendous gas mileage (and the fact that I'm just one person and have no need for a vehicle that big), I never put a moment of serious thought into buying an SUV, so I have never driven one and don't know much about them. Had I researched it and test-driven one, I probably would have discovered all the things you list above and then not bought it anyway. But still, for me gas mileage was a big enough reason alone not to rule out this class of vehicle, they'll get some people like me to at least look at SUV's who wouldn't have otherwise, which should translate into at least a few more suckers buying them.

      --
      I'd rather be lucky than good.
    30. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Let me quote myself for you, this time I'll make it easier to read.

      My Camaro will out accelerate you, out corner you, and has a higher top speed than your hybrid.

      Unless you happen to own such a concept car, my statement stands.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    31. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of us are Canadians and know a lot about snow and shitty conditions. The grandparent is exactly right. Snow tires are much more important than 4wd (and cheaper too).

    32. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by KhanAFur · · Score: 1

      The reason they choose to do this on the Escape is that that small SUV platform is more sutable for the technology. You will see more improvements in the SUV than you would seen in a small car.

      The original poster makes it sound like Ford is just using Toyota's old technology. Ford licensed the SOME of the technology (only about 20 patents) from Toyota has improved and specialized the technology to work with the Escape. On the other hand Ford has about 100 patents of it's own on the Escape hybrid system. The reason Ford licensed these patents was not to gain access to the easy technology but to prevent the chance of patent infringement. It is not just some out of date technology.

      Also being a "first to market" brings attention, usually in a good way and there already is a hybrid car available here but no one has a hybrid vehicle capable of 4 wheel drive with the high ground clearence of the Escape. It is also "cool" to have the best of something, the hybrid Eacape has the best fuel economy of any SUV.

    33. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by bugmenot · · Score: 1

      You speak the truth, and this is very promising for gasoline consumption in the US.

      However I think ideally we'd (we being those that choose not to drive SUVs) want these people to switch to hybrid sedans and coupes to lower it even further. This is why I think it's good that you can get a tax credit for buying a hybrid car.

      The next step is letting them in the carpool lane (they already do this in California).
      Because of all this, my next car is going to be a hybrid.

      --
      This account has been seized by the GNAA. That is all.
    34. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by jlanthripp · · Score: 1
      (Blowing the mod point I spent earlier to mod up another post in this discussion)

      I'm a Bushie (sort of - I disagree with about half of what he's done since he took office, but I'll vote for him because I disagree with well over half of what Kerry wants to do). And I agree wholeheartedly with the post to which you replied, at least in regards to cities and towns. Rural areas will still need personal transport because of the impracticality of having train services in those areas, but for cities and towns, sure, let's build railroads and trains instead! I'd like to see rail stations on the outskirts of every city larger than, say, 150,000 people, where the rural folks can park their cars and ride the train on into the city. Put cameras in place and have security patrols there so as to discourage auto theft, whatever you have to do to make it attractive for Joe Farmer to park his car at the station and ride the commuter trains on into town. Build nice wide sidewalks. Bring back the street trolleys.

      Most cities, even the ones with no commuter rail service, have bus service. It helps, but not much. Most folks who otherwise would ride buses don't do so because of fear and/or the stigma that's attached to them. Everyone thinks that only the homeless, the destitute, drunks, and drug addicts ride the bus. To a certain small extent, this is true - at least where I live. I don't know how to address this problem, other than to say maybe if regular Joes were to begin riding the buses again, they'd eventually run off the panhandlers and "seedy" types. (Note that I don't think the homeless and destitute are all seedy, most aren't - they tend to be destitute and homeless through no fault of their own - but a significant minority of them are people I wouldn't want to ride in a bus with).

      If we could bring back the mom and pop corner stores, put one in every neighborhood, build sidewalks for short trips and railroads for long trips, put in bicycle-only lanes on the roads for the in-between distances, and make it easier for Joe Farmer to park his truck at the train station and ride on into town for his weekend nights of high-stepping, that'd be great.

      Having said all that, I'm an auto enthusiast of sorts. I own 2 motor vehicles (car and pickup truck), watch NASCAR racing every Sunday, and think there's nothing more beautiful than a 1986 Chevy 3/4-ton 4x4 pickup with 4" suspension lift, 38" mud tires, chrome double-tube roll/light bar, and billet grille. By all means, enjoy autos if that's your thing - there will still be situations where they're the best transportation solution. But dammit, the way it is now, most folks hop in a 10 mile-per-gallon behemoth to drive half a mile down the road for a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread! That's just not right! The human body is made for walking, not sitting on its ass using its right foot to press a pedal.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    35. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by davidfromoz · · Score: 1

      Case in point: I live about 2 miles from work. Its impossible for me to safely walk to work due to a freeway thats almost impassable on foot. Its even pretty dangerous to ride a bycycle on that road. If I could walk past the freeway then there are no sidewalks (American English check please) in the development where my office is anyway. All the development supports people in cars. The really intersting (and for me depressing) thing about it is that almost nobody I know, locally, sees this as a problem.

    36. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by netglen · · Score: 1

      >>Switzerland has better roads than the USA

      Right, it was kept that way to support the dreaded Swiss heavy bicycle brigades. Too bad they finalyl retired that unit. Maybe the roads will go to hell now?

    37. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by RWerp · · Score: 1

      I'll make you feel miserable: I don't own a car, I go to work by bus, the nearest grocery is 50 m from my apartment, the nearest park is 100 m away, and when I buy furniture, refrigerator, washing maschine, they bring it to me for little or no charge. But I don't live in the USA.

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    38. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by NuShrike · · Score: 1

      If you're a Bushie, you should be driving his awesome hydrogen SUVs, and other, vehicles then.

      You wouldn't want to near a leftist hybrid vehicle that Bush has never really supported at all...

    39. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by jlanthripp · · Score: 1
      Hey, this part of the discussion is about reducing dependency on the automobile itself - not making them more efficient. But to stray back to the topic at hand, one of the things I disagree with Bush on is that he slashed funding for hybrid research. Taking that further, hybrids are a great idea, but hydrogen fuel cells will be better. Unfortunately, they're at least 10 years away, no matter how much tax money we throw at them, because research funding doesn't speed up the research on a linear scale - once you reach a certain level, you get into diminishing returns, where twice the money won't make an idea come to market twice as fast. I'll grant, however, that the current level of funding is way too low, and that if we built a few less cruise missiles and put that money into hydrogen power research, we'd all be driving hydrogen-powered cars by the year 2030.

      The point of my post and the two which preceded it, however, was that these ideas are all short-sighted stopgap measures that don't address the root problem. That problem is dependence on expensive, wasteful personal vehicles themselves. Why spend hundreds of millions on more efficient cars, billions on roads, and billions on related infrastructure, when we could redirect some of that money into building better cities and eliminate or greatly reduce the need for those things in the first place?

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    40. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      My Camaro will out accelerate you, out corner you, and has a higher top speed than your hybrid.

      As long as you don't have to drive the Camaro in any bad weather.

    41. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by hb253 · · Score: 1

      You poor thing. You have been brainwashed to enjoy living in a small world in close, unhealthy proximity to other people not to mention noisy city streets, man made nature (a park? ha), and dependency on others to do things for you.

      --
      Self awareness - try it!
    42. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      In bad weather, I'd drive my SUV.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    43. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd log in but I'm lazy like that.

      But have you ever heard of Lyndonn LaRouche?
      He'd be your hero. That guy says the exact same thing. Unfortunately, everybody thinks he's insane, as do I.

      People can talk about the utopain society all they want, but once you start thinking like that, and working like that, you lose your competetive edge and lose ground to people like the Japanese and Europeans.

      I just say that the American perspective on cars has to change. Get rid of that ideal of bigger is better. The other day I heard a radio ad targeting scocer moms and how they need a Ford Expedition. For god sakes, the last thing I need is another bitchy soccer mom who can't drive and would probably run me off the road.

    44. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
      I wouldn't exactly call the Escape a SUV. It's more like a car with extra headroom and higher ground clearance. All and all though the whole point of a hybrid is to ditch weight and increase efficiency and power. Sure it's not going to get 60 miles to the gallon, if I wanted 60miles to the gallon I'd buy a motorcycle. But if every light truck and utility vehicle suddenly got 30-35mpg instead of 18-24 you'd see a noticeable drop in demand for oil.

    45. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by arivanov · · Score: 1

      Repeat after me: there is no need for a car to be an SUV to be a 4x4. In fact an SUV is disadvantaged compared to a 4x4 conventional car. In order to make it sellable its ground clearance is relatively low compared to a real offroader like Fourtrack, County, Santana, etc. It is often (Honda H1) lower then the clearance on many normal cars. In fact there are whole generations of french cars (Citroen GSA, Xantia, 5) which at the highest setting of the suspension pressure (you can vary it on the fly) exceed the ground clearance on nearly any SUV on the market.

      Coming back to the 4x4. If you really need 4x4 (mountains, snow, shite city cervices like in the UK, etc) there are plenty of real cars that have a 4x4 option. It is just that many of them are not advertised very widely:

      Golf - starts a 4x4 this autumn
      Volvo (conventional, not the penis extender) has had a 4x4 starting from around 340
      Daihatsu - always has at least one 4x4 conventional car model. These are also the only 4x4 can do up to 60+ MPG
      Fiat - Panda, there are also 4x4 models for other vehicles
      Seat - had a 4x4 in the 90-es
      GM/Subaru/Suzuki - 4x4 variants for many cars, some built only in 4x4 versions
      Hyundai - H1 which has larger boot and seating space then any SUV on the market.

      So on, so fourth. In other words if you need a 4x4 which has the same (or better) off/badroad capabilities as an SUV there are plenty of normal vehicles to chose from. You buy an SUV only to extend your p***
      and it has about the same effect as spamverized pills.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    46. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by Datafage · · Score: 1

      Great. Most of these cars are unavailable in the US. We have the Golf but the only AWD is the expensive R32. Volvos have AWD as an option on the high-end trims of their models; a 4x4 Volvo will cost almost $30,000. We had Daihatsu in 1991 and 1992 but only the Charade and the Rocky. Only the Rocky was AWD and I've never even seen a picture of one. Fiat and SEAT we don't have at all. The only GM/Subaru/Suzuki car with AWD in America is the Subaru lineup, which is not to many people's taste. We also lack the Hyundai H1.
      The hybrid Escape is not primarily targetted at Europeans, it is targeted at getting us Americans somewhat off the oil teat. Seriously, this is a good thing. Also, believe me, try taking four adults on a week-long vacation in Winter in just about any sedan on the American market.

      --

      Nicotine free Amish .sig.

    47. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by RWerp · · Score: 1

      I don't depend on a car. It takes me about two hours two reach my mother's house in the country. Probably the same time it takes you to leave the suburbs.

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    48. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Snow Tires & real comparisons.
      I'm from a family of 4 adults all over 6'1" 1/2 over 6'5" and you wouldn't find me ever choosing to take a long trip in ANY SUV. SUVs may look like they have more interior space but that is simply because they are jacked up so fricken high. The height and seeting in these vehicles is atrocious as there isn't enough room to sit without focusing most of your body weight onto your ass. So you think that small cars are horrible and designed for inferior euros [ :-D ]? We have a TDI golf which we often fit all 4 of us into for trips less than an hour. For longer trips we use the 300M and before the Golf a Concorde. The 300 easily swallows 5 adults and keeps them comfortable for 8hr drives. The car is front wheel drive and with correct tires handles snow like a champ. Also the trend in the REAL north is to have a cheap light front or 4wd car for the winter. The winter car phenom is just economics speaking since who can afford to have a nice car on salted roads? So what would really result in better cars would be the revoking of the tax and fuel exemptions on SUVs and also realistic fuel prices. Fuel prices that take into account the amount spent to keep our prices down through our foriegn policy. If we did this then it would quickly become clear that SUVs are dumb and then Ford could bring its european line over here.

    49. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      You don't own a Maikonics Citroen CX, do you? Suspension that Rolls-Royce licenced (and got wrong) for their own cars, turbocharger the size of a helicopter engine, and less drag than a Camaro flattened to an inch thick. It's fast, it's fun, it's practical (25mpg or so even when you're caning it), and it's incredibly comfortable.

    50. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Every time I get behind one in traffic and I can't see what color the light is because my windshield is filled with a Suburban tailgate with a soccer ball sticker on it I want to beat somebody with a cluebat.

      Dude: try not tailgating.

    51. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have the Mazda Tribute which is their spin on the original Ford Escape. This is not a large SUV, in fact it is smaller and consumes less gas than some gas guzzling station wagons and most minivans out there. Making the Ford Escape a Hybrid is great for people who live in areas with bad winters, terrible rain storms, and those who live and work a little off the beaten path. Now they can get the gas mileage of a car in a package that you can still parallel park on the street.

      Everyone talks about even the smallest SUV like it is a giant angry Gorilla when that just is not true. There are Caddies and Lincolns that take up more space than the Escape and use more fuel, but you never hear people whining about them.

    52. Re:Nice to see a few less gallons consumed by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      The Citroen CX beats both of my vehicles hands down on MPG.

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  3. wow a hybrid that doesn't look like it by Cat_Byte · · Score: 2, Insightful

    At least it doesn't look weird like those hybrid cars with half the rear wheels covered by the outer body.

    --
    Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
    1. Re:wow a hybrid that doesn't look like it by nsuccorso · · Score: 0

      Like the Honda Civic that looks just like any other Civic?

      This is insightful?!

    2. Re:wow a hybrid that doesn't look like it by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1
      At least it doesn't look weird like those hybrid cars with half the rear wheels covered by the outer body.

      My '78 Chrysler Newport doesn't appreciate that insult.

    3. Re:wow a hybrid that doesn't look like it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In America, it actually IS considered insightful.

      But then again, those fuckers believe the crap on Fox News, so anything's possible.

    4. Re:wow a hybrid that doesn't look like it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey my white '92 caprice looked that way (as well as looking like a cop car)!

    5. Re:wow a hybrid that doesn't look like it by qintar · · Score: 1

      Like the Honda Civic that looks just like any other Civic?

      But... But... The Hybrid looks completely different. I mean... it's got that center-mount antenna... and... it says "Hybrid" on the back...

      Oh yeah, and the dash shows the charging system.

    6. Re:wow a hybrid that doesn't look like it by Cat_Byte · · Score: 1
      But then again, those fuckers believe the crap on Fox News, so anything's possible.

      I'm American...I think Fox News is total crap. I find it ironic you believe all Americans believe something when you yourself are being subjected to media stating how "Americans" are and believing its true that we're all the same.

      --
      Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one the bus load of girls just went down.
  4. Increased production would be a good idea by lothar97 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My mom needed a new car, and being an enviromentalist in a snowy area, she wanted the Escape. The only problem is that the waiting list for any Escape was 9 months- not counting customized options. Would be nice if they improved their production, because it looks like people want big cars that do not require $80 to fill the gas tank.

    --

    1. Re:Increased production would be a good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Combine it with a vacation and buy it down here in Florida. I'm sure you won't have much of a problem finding one, or the 98% similar Mazda Tribute, on a lot ready for you to drive home. You should still be able to get it serviced, warranty etc at a local dealer.

    2. Re:Increased production would be a good idea by gphinch · · Score: 1

      I don't think the gas tank is much smaller, you just fill it less often.

      --
      in bed.
    3. Re:Increased production would be a good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It only takes $50 to fill the gas tank on my Chevrolet Suburban you insensitive clod!

    4. Re:Increased production would be a good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell her to get a Subaru for chrissakes! The only cars with 1) nice interior trim 2) decent AWD drivetrain and 3) an economical 4cyl engine. Most manufacturers use 4cyls for the cheap, crappy cars. Subaru realizes that wanting AWD doesn't necessarily go hand in hand with massive engines or vehicular weight.

    5. Re:Increased production would be a good idea by jbash · · Score: 2, Informative
      How often do you *really* need an SUV, even in snowy areas? Being realistic, not likely more than a few days a year. The obvious solution here is to borrow somebody else's truck, or rent one for a day. I think our culture has an impact here. People don't seem to be as willing to just borrow cars (or anything else). We want to have one ourselves. Nobody shares resources anymore.

      There's also the idea of "delivery." Didn't more things used to just get delivered than they are today? now we have this model where we buy large things from warehouses and are assumed to truck them home ourselves.

    6. Re:Increased production would be a good idea by 0racle · · Score: 1

      Come to Canada and find out. It can snow heavily here anytime after the middle of August and its not strange to get a full 2-3 feet of heavy wet snow overnight. It can definitely come in handy and more often then a few days a year. The only problem is people thing their indestructible in an SUV and drive like complete idiots.

      As far as renting, that might work fine in a city, but what if you lived several hours from the nearest city? The places that need a SUV because of the weather are rural areas.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    7. Re:Increased production would be a good idea by shepd · · Score: 1

      >The obvious solution here is to borrow somebody else's truck, or rent one for a day.

      I can pretty much assume the answer from the guy down the street with a truck will be "No, I have to go to work today, sucker. You can tag along, but, well, your job is on the other side of town. Sorry."

      Now, as far as renting goes, how does one get to the rental place to rent the vehicle?

      Don't say buses. Most places that have snow that bad have buses leaving every 6 - 8 hours or so during winter snowstorms.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    8. Re:Increased production would be a good idea by lothar97 · · Score: 1

      Since I didn't want to bog down my original post with details, my parents have their house on a large tract of land that doesn't have a paved driveway (.5 mile long). In winter, ice & snow build up since it cannot be completely plowed (otherwise the dirt would be chewed up), and yes, a large 4WD or AWD vehicle is much easier to drive on it Oct-Apr.

      --

    9. Re:Increased production would be a good idea by antirename · · Score: 1

      No, those rural people don't need SUVs, they need TRUCKS! Big difference. How many Explorers does Ford sell with winches on the front?

    10. Re:Increased production would be a good idea by 0racle · · Score: 1

      How many trucks sell with a standard winches on the front? Its an extra that can be mounted on a SUV just as well as a Truck. Farmers have families too you know.

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    11. Re:Increased production would be a good idea by mercenaryCoder · · Score: 1

      With the addition of one word you will magically never have enough space again: kids! Driving to visit nearby relatives for a day or two will make you appreciate every cubic foot of cargo room you have.

      The key word in SUV is "Utility". They are just useful even if you aren't luky enough to have the time to drag them out in the woods more than a few times a year. Being more efficient than 20mpg is tremendous.

    12. Re:Increased production would be a good idea by kramer · · Score: 3, Funny

      With the addition of one word you will magically never have enough space again: kids! Driving to visit nearby relatives for a day or two will make you appreciate every cubic foot of cargo room you have.

      That's what trunks are for! If you really like the kids, you might even poke some holes in the lid of the trunk to let them breathe.

    13. Re:Increased production would be a good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      so your mom is an environmentalist that is suckered by the 4wD myth.

      I lived in northern michigan a place that got 4-6 feet of snow easy and drove a Kia Sephia on days that SUV's were stuck in the ditches.

      4WD does nothing for you if you are not trained how to use it, and 99% of the time it is certianly not needed.

      By the time your mom realizes she needs 4WD to drive it will be too late and she will have buried the car. Plus 4WD engaged makes breaking more HAZARDOUS in icy roads as it makes you think you have more traction than you really have.

      people that buy 4WD are silly and dumb. they think they are getting something when in reality they are only lowering their fuel economy for something they will not need.

    14. Re:Increased production would be a good idea by barzok · · Score: 1

      Trucks (I assume you mean pickups, which many SUVs are still based upon) handle snow a lot worse than many SUVs. With no weight to speak of over the rear wheels, traction does become a problem.

    15. Re:Increased production would be a good idea by HermanAB · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Buy your mom a diesel VW Golf. Better value for money and much better mileage than the expensive hybrids.

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    16. Re:Increased production would be a good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I was in the military, I drove a lot of miles. Trips back and forth to different duty stations, 5 to 6 trips a year to "home" of roughly 1500 miles round trip, I drove clear across the county three times and had everything we needed to last a few weeks or months each time. Basically, drove 100K miles in about 3 years. This was with my wife and two toddlers in a Mustang GT, no overhead DVD player, no VCR's between the seats, no gameboys or PS2's.. An SUV was not something that was needed. The Mustang was packed full but adequate. Funny thing is now I have several cars to choose from ranging from the same Mustang, a mid sized Hyundai, a 7 passenger minivan and a Geo Metro and the kids are much older (no strollers, swings and diaper bags needed). Whatever vehicle we take now is still always packed full. The more space you have, the more you take.
      A co worker of mine has a wife and two kids and drives a big huge ass Suburban. On his recent weekend trip to the beach, he needed to borrow my car top hauler (which was never on my Mustang). That is insane. The problem is not that a larger car is needed, you need to take less.

    17. Re:Increased production would be a good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Snowy area? I dunno... where I grew up in New York where we had a lot of lake-effect snow. For many decades we all survivied quite well with rear wheel drive cars.

      Why, all of a sudden, is there a huge demand for four-wheel drive, heavy SUVs?

      Well, the roads are certainly plowed better now. Tires are better now. The snow isn't quite a severe. And we have front wheel drive and anti-lock brakes and traction control.

      I guess the reason is that people just feel better driving in a bigger, less cool, inherently less-stable vehicles! Vehicles that don't even meet automobile safety standards!

      Crazy I say!

    18. Re:Increased production would be a good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, she probably wouldn't buy a diesel if she's concerned about the environment. She could get a 4 cylinder front wheel drive and get pretty good mileage, though.

    19. Re:Increased production would be a good idea by apuku · · Score: 2, Informative

      We live in rural Montana, about 6000ft altitude, at the end of 3-1/2 miles of steep dirt road. The nearest city is Billings, which is 90 miles away. I chose a Jeep Grand Cherokee because it has reasonable ground clearance, a good 4WD system (Quadradrive) for the plenty of snow that we get, and it performs well on the freeway (I telecommute, but my wife goes to Billings once of twice a month). For 7 months per year we have winter tires installed and Spikes Spider chains ready to go. IMHO, the Jeep SUV is the best choice for our (admittedly unusual) situation.

      Even in the Summer, the Jeep's relatively high ground clearance and skid plates are useful - several vehicles have been badly damaged by rocks on our road. One 8-passenger van - that I happened to be driving :( - hit a rock, broke a 4" x 3" chunk out of the low-hanging cast aluminum sump, and dumped all its oil in about 3 seconds.

      When the weather gets bad, I have a Unimog 406 with a large V-plow and a Schmidt VF3C snowcutter.

      --
      Look, it's trying to think - Albert Rosenfield
    20. Re:Increased production would be a good idea by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If she cares so much about the environment, she can probably fill up with biodiesel. A lot of fuel companies have it available these days. It's not any cheaper than diesel but it's a lot cleaner and it's actually better for your engine, unless you have an old vehicle with rubber lines and seals, like an ancient diesel mercedes.

      The only vehicle I know of besides a hybrid that gets the mileage of a TDI VW is the CRX HF, but A> they don't make them any more, B> they have a tiny engine, and C> the CRX is a deathtrap.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  5. Why a Ford at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why not just get a Toyota to begin with. Chances are it's cheaper and doesn't fall apart after 6 years...

    1. Re:Why a Ford at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people want to buy "American." I'm with you about the relative reliability of Ford vs Toyota, but up to now, for many Americans gas-saving cars was a concept exclusive to "foreigners" and therefore not to be trusted. If Ford makes a hybrid car, more people will use hybrid cars and humans will be one step closer to cleaning their act.

    2. Re:Why a Ford at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One but i hate to break it too you: American cars are just as well engineered as Japanese cars, citing faults of a particular model or manufacturing line fir leading to recalls or problems does not make your generalization any more true.

      Also you forget about the relative price to fix *some* foreign cars due to tariffs on importing their parts. Although I believe Toyota has a plant in the US.

      "clean their act [sic]", priceless. Too bad you're the only enlightened one.

    3. Re:Why a Ford at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Toyota dealership near me is run by a bunch of dickheads, and it's the largest dealership in the state. My experiences there alone were enough to put me off Toyota for life.

      They tried to sell me an Echo. I got behind the wheel, and I said the slope of the hood makes it hard to see where the front of the car is, and it's one of the ugliest cars I've ever seen. His response was "you'll get used to it".

      This was when the new models were coming out, and their great deal on the test drive cars was 7 cents off per mile it had on it...So a one year old used car with 10,000 miles on it driven by thousands of people who all wanted to push it to see what it could do...and I get a whole $700 off on $20,000...and they acted like they were doing me a huge favour by making the offer. Keep in mind that's off sticker price, no negotiation.

      If that isn't enough it annoys me to look under the hood and see Japanese writing all over the place, and they don't even consider a radio to be a standard feature.

    4. Re:Why a Ford at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's why you buy a german engineered vehicle, also ford did have to license the technology from toyota and probably made an agreement that toyota not sell a suv type before ford in the U.S.

    5. Re:Why a Ford at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He/she said she lived in a snowy area implies they wanted to purchase an suv.

    6. Re:Why a Ford at all? by abigor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "One but i hate to break it too you: American cars are just as well engineered as Japanese cars"

      No way. Read the "Lemon Aid" books sometime, especially regarding trucks and SUVs (I bought a Pathfinder a little while ago). Overwhelmingly, the Not Recommended vehicles are American, while the Recommended ones tend to be Japanese. This is on the basis of safety, reliability, and performance, all backed up by lots and lots of recall records and so forth.

    7. Re:Why a Ford at all? by Frizzle+Fry · · Score: 2, Funny

      Some people like to perfer domestic products. When applying that heuristic to car selection, they sometimes get mocked by know-it-alls, but I'm not sure why. I've found that domestic cars are reliable, well-made and attractive... IN JAPAN!

      --
      I'd rather be lucky than good.
    8. Re:Why a Ford at all? by upsidedown_duck · · Score: 1

      Why not just get a Toyota to begin with.

      While this makes perfect sense, you are already ahead of many many people out there. This is why there are so many brands out there that market quality and sell trash, because so many people will willingly buy the marketing, complain about the trash later, somehow through a feat of human ingenuity forget their complaints about the trash, and then turn around and buy the marketing all over again. You would be amazed of stories I've heard, like one about a guy who, every year, would fall for a dealership's story about how he needed new fuel injectors. Fuel injectors last for years, but some people are just that stupid. This is also why those quick-lube shops take people aside and say you need XYZ and QRS replaced, because they know two-thirds of people will say "Okay. I'd love for you to charge me another $45. Money grows on trees, right?"

      --
      -- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
    9. Re:Why a Ford at all? by shepd · · Score: 1

      >American cars are just as well engineered as Japanese cars,

      That's because the Americans gave up making cars and just use OEM Japanese cars now. (ok, ok, that's overboard, but it happens)

      example: GEO Prism is an OEM Toyota Corolla.

      When American companies do that, yeah, quality tends to be the same as the Japanese cars, assuming the American companies don't ask for "Special" OEM versions made of second grade parts.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    10. Re:Why a Ford at all? by Skater · · Score: 1

      First, maybe they aren't buying a Toyota or Honda because they just sell hybrid cars, as opposed to SUVs.

      Now, for my personal experience: I bought a 1999 Mercury Cougar new in June, 1999. I've had a number of problems with it. I paid about $17,000 for it, new. The comparable Toyota vehicle is the Celica, which - for the most comparable performance - retails for about $23,000. I haven't put anywhere near $6,000 in repairs to my car (not even counting interest on the loan), so I've still saved money. And my Cougar offered quite a few convenience features that weren't even available on the Celica.

      --RJ

    11. Re:Why a Ford at all? by Mattintosh · · Score: 1

      Most of the time, people will choose a Ford instead of a Toyota because Ford has designers that don't consistently produce cars that make you understand exactly why the term "Butt Ugly" was invented.

      Seriously, does anyone think those things are attractive? At best they're the style equivalent of a 1985 K-car. More commonly, they look more like a rolling pile of dog crap.

      Honda at least has some designers that aren't blind. Get one of those instead and spare my poor eyes.

    12. Re:Why a Ford at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hold any Tacoma against a Ford Explorer SporTrac. One looks like a truck, the other one like an oversize Tonka toy...

    13. Re:Why a Ford at all? by resin8 · · Score: 1

      But what about the resale value? The Blue Book trade in value of a 99 Cougar is $4000, and an identically equipped Celica is $7,375.

    14. Re:Why a Ford at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a 1998 Ford Escort ZX2 with 70K miles on it. I've never had a single problem with it. I've also owned a 1987 Nissan Sentra. By the time it got to 70K, I had replaced two clutches and four CV joints, had AC problems and a bad blower switch. I know there's a decade difference in possible build quality, but it does provide anecdotal evidence that American companies can do something right.

      Incidentally, I really dig the new Cougar. I wish it had come out before I bought the ZX2.

    15. Re:Why a Ford at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      example: GEO Prism is an OEM Toyota Corolla.

      But both of those suck.

    16. Re:Why a Ford at all? by lucabrasi999 · · Score: 1
      Most of the time, people will choose a Ford instead of a Toyota because Ford has designers that don't consistently produce cars that make you understand exactly why the term "Butt Ugly" was invented.

      While I disagree with the idea that people buy Ford's because they look better than Toyota, I must completely agree with the idea of Toyota being a company that lacks style.

      People don't buy Toyota's for their looks. In fact, one of the reason's that Toyota released the Scion brand was becaue many people look at Toyota as being a boring brand.

      Don't get me wrong. I think the quality of a Toyota is pretty much unsurpassed (OK, maybe Honda is better, I don't know). But, they are pretty boring automobiles (at least here in the US).

      That $60,000 Lexus? It looks OK, but it lacks a soul. Very boring looks for a sports car.

    17. Re:Why a Ford at all? by Brandybuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And the funny hting is, the Japanese cars are built in the US, and the US cars are built anywhere else. The moral of the story is that if you want safetly, reliability and performance, buy a car built in the US...

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    18. Re:Why a Ford at all? by upsidedown_duck · · Score: 1


      There is still the factor of having to take time off work, getting rental cars when needed, etc. Some people don't mind this, and this is fine. However, with more and more time constraints in day-to-day living seemingly cropping up, a reliable car is just more necessary now than ever before. This is where resources like Consumer Reports comes in--their red/black circle charts are very telling.

      --
      -- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
    19. Re:Why a Ford at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >But both of those suck.

      That's why your car falls apart every time you buy it -- you need to read things called "reviews" rather than going by the teenager gut feeling of "It doesn't look nice".

    20. Re:Why a Ford at all? by Skater · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the Cougar's resale value is in the trash. Part of that is because Ford cancelled the model after only 4 years.

      However, I'd always intended to keep the car for 10 years, so resale meant nothing to me. :)

      --RJ

    21. Re:Why a Ford at all? by Skater · · Score: 1

      I hate Consumer Reports - if we went by everything they recommended, we'd all be driving Toyota Camrys, using the same stereo, listening to the same music, going to the same places on vacation, using the same computers, playing the same games, living in the same area, etc.

      Variety is the spice of life.

      --RJ

    22. Re:Why a Ford at all? by Skater · · Score: 1

      FWIW, my 1986 Escorts (I had two) ran very reliably for years...

      However, the Cougar was built to be a cheap sports car. To get all the features it has, Ford had to cut corners somewhere: quality. As someone once put it, "Hyundai owners don't complain about the quality of their cars" - because they're among the cheapest cars in the US. To offer the same number of features with Toyota quality, Ford probably would've had to sell the Cougar at $25,000 or more, which means a lot of us (including me) wouldn't have been able to afford them.

      Enjoy the new Cougar while it lasts - they stopped making them after the 2002 model year. :( Used ones are available cheap, though.

      --RJ

    23. Re:Why a Ford at all? by upsidedown_duck · · Score: 1

      ...if we went by everything they recommended, we'd all be driving Toyota Camrys...

      I disagree. For example, I got a Saturn after reading CR (price was a factor), a Roper fridge (just a de-featured Whirlpool), a Craftsman lawnmower (hard to beat features/price ratio), etc. Toyota Camries are very nice, but there is still a way to balance price and quality/reliability with other brands, just less often they are American brands. It's interesting, however, that the three I mentioned above happen to be US companies, so it is still quite possible to buy "Made in USA" for some things.

      --
      -- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
  6. Alright! by cephyn · · Score: 4, Funny

    A new car with old technology from another manufacturer! Sweet! I can't wait!

    What's the damn point? I could just buy a used prius.

    --
    Moo.
    1. Re:Alright! by Alkaiser · · Score: 4, Funny

      Because this is an SUV. It has the power to kill the driver of a normal sized car, something you can't say for the Prius.

      Plus you get to not see stuff in your rearview mirror accurately and totally run into other cars in the parking lot.

      --
      Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga
    2. Re:Alright! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be a horrible driver.

    3. Re:Alright! by foetusinc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The point is to have a hybrid that isn't fugly. And has AWD for those of us that want to go skiing without borrowing our friends Subaru.

    4. Re:Alright! by psetzer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The Insight can hold a grand total of two people, and it's still pretty small. The Prius is bigger, but it is still a fairly small car. What I'd like to see is a Crown Victoria with hybrid and reasonable performance, so all the Taxis and Police can switch over. I don't doubt that such an act would really reduce air pollution and would save a good bit of money. Perhaps Ford's next plan is to offer fleet vehicles set up like that.

      --
      "Anyone who attempts to generate random numbers by deterministic means is living in a state of sin." -- John von Neumann
    5. Re:Alright! by 0biJon · · Score: 4, Informative

      Most Crown Vitorias used by taxis and police are hybrids... that is, natural gas conversions. They are capable of running on gasoline and cleaner natural gas. It would be nice to see gas-electric hybrids though.

      --
      ?Who controls the past now, controls the future.
      Who controls the present now controls the past.?
    6. Re:Alright! by Shao+Ke · · Score: 1

      Uh, that was just a couple of months ago, I don't think they'd have built it in that much time.
      This most likely Ford's own design.

    7. Re:Alright! by Alkaiser · · Score: 1

      No, I drive a normal sized car. I've had people back into my car and tell me, "Man, my car's so big, I totally couldn't see you in any of my mirrors."

      Now, you're supposed to actually, you know...look the hell behind you when you reverse...but that wasn't apparently on the SUV drivers' who hit me to-do list.

      --
      Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga
    8. Re:Alright! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The term is "Bi-Fuel" generally, not hybrid. Same power source - the internal combustion engine (ICE), unlike a hybrid which has 2power sources (electric motor, and ICE)

    9. Re:Alright! by Naffer · · Score: 1

      Police officer vehicles are exempt from emissions laws in California. At least in Sacramento, the police cars don't even have catalytic converters.

    10. Re:Alright! by ejaw5 · · Score: 1

      Honda will be releasing a hybrid Accord v6 in 2005. (http://www.autosite.com/Previews/2005-honda-accor d-hybrid.asp)

      It features a 240hp output, and its a reasonably sized car. However its estimated to start selling at near $30k. Toyota's also planning a Camry Hybrid, in 2006. Options just in time seeing I'll be buying a car within the next 2 years, although I was hoping by then the midsize hybrids would be in 2nd or 3rd generations with any 'beta' problems already worked out.

      --

      $cat /dev/random > Sig
    11. Re:Alright! by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

      It comes down to the size.

      It's hard to fit 4 adults in a Prius. If you put a baby seat in the back seat, the back seat is very uncomfortable.

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    12. Re:Alright! by Moofie · · Score: 1, Troll

      Not all SUVs are body-on-frame murdermobiles.

      I don't happen to like SUVs, but in my opinion only the large truck-based ones pose a substantial danger to other road users.

      The Escape arguably less capable (in terms of ground clearance, 4wd cleverness, and suspension goodness) than your average Subaru station wagon. It is sold to people who think sitting high up in the air is a good idea when driving a small vehicle.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    13. Re:Alright! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Because this is an SUV. It has the power to kill the driver of a normal sized car, something you can't say for the Prius.

      Plus you get to not see stuff in your rearview mirror accurately and totally run into other cars in the parking lot.


      This actually happened to me. I wasn't in my car, and I was parked away from all the other cars, in the OfficeMax lot, and an Avalanche backs right into my hood. $3500 and a couple of weeks later, it's fixed, but there should be a visibility and safety bumper requirement for large vehicles. Heck, tax 'em more if they cause more accident damage -- you should be able to drive what you want, but nobody says it has to be at everybody else's expense.

    14. Re:Alright! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Got it...no, wait, I lost it. Now, why is this particular to an SUV again?

    15. Re:Alright! by upsidedown_duck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Heck, tax 'em more if they cause more accident damage...

      I would bet insurance companies have already beat the government to it. SUVs cause more damage in accidents (higher liability insurance rates), and they cost more to repair (higher comprehensive insurance rates). Seriously, more people should consider Subarus or just the plain ol' family sedan, and, then, rent a darn truck when they need an SUV. They'd save a ton of money (and probably a ton of gas, too, literally).

      --
      -- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
    16. Re:Alright! by Duhavid · · Score: 1
      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    17. Re:Alright! by DrCode · · Score: 1

      Get a pair of Spike Spiders for $300. Gets my cheepie FWD car to the ski areas with no problem (on the extremely rare occasions when the roads aren't plowed).

    18. Re:Alright! by York+the+Mysterious · · Score: 1

      Uh...Where? CNG cars have the badge on the back and I have never seen a Crown Vic with that badging in the CA Bay Area. If anywhere CNG vehicles would be used around this area. There are plenty of CNG vehicles in my town, but most of them are city owned Rav 4s.

      --

      Tim Smith - Ramblings from Nerd Land
    19. Re:Alright! by shepd · · Score: 1

      Plenty of them in my town. I guess it depends on how many stations are selling alternate fuel (In the case of my town, they're mostly Propane and Gas).

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    20. Re:Alright! by York+the+Mysterious · · Score: 1

      Seriously though: Where do you live? I have never seen a gas station that sells CNG. Our town has a special station for the city vehicles, but that's it.

      --

      Tim Smith - Ramblings from Nerd Land
    21. Re:Alright! by antirename · · Score: 1

      Hear hear! Darwinism at work!

    22. Re:Alright! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Current technology doesn't appear to favour a large vehicle to be converted to hybrid. If you look at the GM link in the /. blurb, the 1500-Series truck sees a 10% increase in fuel mileage. For the record, 1500-series GM trucks typically get 12 mpg in the city. One can see that adding a hybrid-drive to a large city car would not be worthwhile.

      Now the CNG Crown Vic is a step in the right direction!

    23. Re:Alright! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I've had people back into my car and tell me, "Man, my car's so big, I totally couldn't see you in any of my mirrors."

      I've got one better than that: The back bumper of my car was destroyed in my office parking garage by a cowboy poseur marketing executive. He clipped it with the bigass extension fenders of the 6-wheel dually longbed crew-cab F-350 that he used as a suburban commuter car.

    24. Re:Alright! by aggiefalcon01 · · Score: 1

      DHL (major shipper, opposite FedEx & UPS ... think "flying vans") is testing a program to use hybrid or all-electric delivery vans for its fleet vehicles in two large cities already. This does look like trend that'll continue.

      --
      Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.
    25. Re:Alright! by iBran · · Score: 0

      Mod parent DOWN. I don't know what city he lives in, but the Crown Victorias/Police Interceptors are most certainly NOT capable of running CNG in MOST of the United States.

    26. Re:Alright! by Mike+Bridge · · Score: 1

      well, its a focus chassis with an SUV body on it. be careful "offroading", 'cause it ain't the WRC focus chassis they're using...

    27. Re:Alright! by shepd · · Score: 1

      From memory, I know there's more than this for a propane vehicle, but here's a map of places selling Natural Gas for cars in my area (Kitchener is on that map, which is where I am right now), specifically.

      It's definitely not the world's most *convenient* gas, but you can certainly drive all over the area I live without running dry (besides, most people keep their old gas tank just in case).

      You can find a list of Propane enabled Sunocos in my Province using this tool. Heck, the gas station beside my store sells propane (I'd probably go as far to say about 25% of the gas stations here sell propane). :-D

      Not that there's all that many propane cars -- most of the propane ends up in BBQ tanks.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    28. Re:Alright! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most Crown Vitorias used by taxis and police are hybrids... that is, natural gas conversions. They are capable of running on gasoline and cleaner natural gas. It would be nice to see gas-electric hybrids though.

      Bullshit, you moron! Speaking out your ass again? How many taxicabs do you see that are new enough to be hybrid? Read the fucking article, follow the links. First AMERICAN HYBRID! How do you figure that the Crown Vic is a hybrid? Did they just slip the Crown Vic by the rest of us? So the article is wrong?
      There's nothing worse than people who can't read or don't know what they're talking about.

      You might be confusing your pretty little head with propane-powered fleet vehicles, but they're few and far between.

    29. Re:Alright! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just don't get it mate. This isn't about what's being carried or needed. SUVs are used to compensate for the driver's (or driver's husband's) small penis, literally.

    30. Re:Alright! by inkydoo · · Score: 1

      The original Priuses are a smaller car, but the 2004 fits four easily and comfortably (OK, as long as the people in the back seat aren't too many inches above average height). In fact, everybody who's ridden in mine makes the comment about how they didn't expect it to be so roomy. True nerds even joke about how Toyota must have licensed Tardis technology, because the inside is deceptively large compared to how it looks from the outside.

    31. Re:Alright! by dubiousmike · · Score: 1

      i would buy a suburu, but then I would regularly be mistaken for a lesbian

    32. Re:Alright! by upsidedown_duck · · Score: 1


      The GT sedans aren't all that bad. Not all Subarus are sporty station wagons that appeal to both a person's feminine and masculine sides (either real or imagined).

      --
      -- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
    33. Re:Alright! by dubiousmike · · Score: 1

      the WRTs actually aren't that bad either.

    34. Re:Alright! by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Yeah, cop cars are made for performance, period. The piddly ICE that usually accompanies the electric motor in a hybrid wouldn't do too well in a chase situation (or just getting ot highway speed to pull over a speeder), and those cars are HEAVY. An electric motor in addition to the large ICE for tooling around the city might be a good idea, but with such a large, heavy vehicle the battery charge may not last too long.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    35. Re:Alright! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhmmm CNG Vics are extremely rare. A CNG taxi would be not be very desireable because of the considerable loss of trunk space.

      CNG police cruzers are also very rare because of additional expense and less desirable resale (where do you think the Taxis come from?). The majority of old cruizers get sold to taxi fleets.

    36. Re:Alright! by cultobill · · Score: 1

      All I have to say is, WRX. Not quite a lesbian car, though you may be mistaken for a street racer.

      --
      -- Bill "Houdini" Weiss
    37. Re:Alright! by dubiousmike · · Score: 1

      naw, I will give you that the WRX is the exception to the subaru-lesbian rule, but for the money, I would still buy something else.

      don't get me wrong, I love lesbians, especially when they are making out

  7. Let's hope it's price isn't too steep... by zoloto · · Score: 2, Insightful

    .. because I'd love to buy one of these. The only thing americans wont buy this for in many cases is the higher price.

    1. Re:Let's hope it's price isn't too steep... by Atario · · Score: 1, Funny
      The only thing americans wont buy this for in many cases is the higher price.
      Are you kidding? Half the draw of SUVs (to the idiots who buy them) is the bragging rights: "Yeah, I ponied up $48K for this monster. Worth every penny, though, every time I intimidate the compact in front of me on the highway into moving over to the next lane. All it takes is to follow them closely enough that you can't get a ping-pong ball between the bumpers." The more expensive it is, the more they'll like it. Sick bastards.

      I just hope that when they inevitably roll it over, the battery pack breaks loose and squashes them flat, just before rupturing acid all over their Starbuck's Super Duper Huge Size Fancily-Named Coffee(tm).
      --
      "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
    2. Re:Let's hope it's price isn't too steep... by RalphBNumbers · · Score: 1

      I don't know about the Escape, but the Toyota Prius isn't much more expensive than a similar non-hybrid toyota, especially once you take out the $2000 tax credit for owning a low-emission vehicle (although I heard they might have changed the relevant tax law, does anyone have more info on that? If they did, it seems sort of asinine.)

      I actually would have gotten a Prius last year, but they were completely sold out in the Chicagoland area. There wasn't a single new Prius to be had for 6-8 months. That's what kept me from having one.

      If they started actually advertising their hybrids by more than word-of-mouth, and made sure dealers had at least a demo model to show off, they would sell *a lot* more imho.

      --
      "The worst tyrannies were the ones where a governance required its own logic on every embedded node." - Vernor Vinge
    3. Re:Let's hope it's price isn't too steep... by rmorenc · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, the tax break is $1500 this year, and will be going down by $500/yr until it doesn't exist anymore. (at least that's what the toyota financial guy said last week when I picked up my new prius)

    4. Re:Let's hope it's price isn't too steep... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too expensive, huh? Sounds like sour grapes to me. It's one thing to complain about gas usage, visibility, etc., but how someone else spends their money?

      Actually, most people I know driving SUVs haul more than a wireless router and zit cream, so that could be the disconnect. Sometimes those of us that own houses actually buy things that don't fit inside our pockets, so we take the SUV.

      I drive a Toyota 4Runner which is pretty reasonable for most things we buy, build, and haul; it works well for camping, taking all 3 dogs to the inlaws place, etc. And, compared to my Acura NSX, I can actually see the road ahead instead of staring at someones bumper stickers.

    5. Re:Let's hope it's price isn't too steep... by Atario · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'm bored and feel like flaming a troll, so here goes. (Oh, if only Slashdot had a "+1, Over-the-top Troll-food" mod, I'd be rolling in it.)
      Too expensive, huh? Sounds like sour grapes to me.
      Not in the least. They're too big to fit in normal-size parking spots/garages; they roll over easily; they get lousy mileage; and they're not even that good for hauling things, as the cargo area is height-limited (and possibly occupied with seats -- not to mention that no SUV owner wants to scratch up his plush interior). In fact, you'd have to pay me to regularly use one.
      It's one thing to complain about gas usage, visibility, etc., but how someone else spends their money?
      You're right about that. I should be glad there are so many idiots willing to drop a major chunk of change on something that's only going to drop precipitously in value as time goes on. (What are those auto-manufacturer stock ticker symbols again...)
      Actually, most people I know driving SUVs haul more than a wireless router and zit cream, so that could be the disconnect.
      Ooo, wutta burn. See, 'cuz you're implying that I'm some loser teeny-bopper with no experience in the world. Doesn't matter that I'm 33, didn't need zit cream even when I was a kid, and don't care for wireless, either, thanks very much. But thanks for playing, 'cuz that was a totally sweet burn, dude.
      Sometimes those of us that own houses actually buy things that don't fit inside our pockets, so we take the SUV.
      Yeah. I could see how one might need a three-ton vehicle the size of a storage shed to carry five bags of groceries home from Albertson's. Not like that would fit in a car's trunk. And, hey, when you need to carry a refrigerator, you can always lay it down on its side and slide it in, once you've folded down the six extra seats you optioned in, assuming that's possible, right? Well, once you strip the box off the fridge, in the Circuit City parking lot. And you're buying major appliances practically every other day, am I right people? Not like you could, oh, I dunno, have it delivered? Or rent a truck for $20 when you need one? Or, $DEITY forbid, buy an old pickup truck for two grand instead of the SUV? No, see, that wouldn't impress the neighbors, nor inspire envy in them, so what's the point, right?
      I drive a Toyota 4Runner which is pretty reasonable for most things we buy, build, and haul
      Not to mention when you're completely alone and cruising down the freeway. All that extra volume and weight comes in extra-handy at those times.
      it works well for camping
      So would a station wagon, like it did when I was a kid. Oh, and by the way -- your SUV is nothing but a tall station wagon. I dare you to feel cool in it now, smarty-pants!
      taking all 3 dogs to the inlaws place
      I bet the in-laws are thrilled about that, too.
      compared to my Acura NSX, I can actually see the road ahead instead of staring at someones bumper stickers.
      Bully for you. Till someone else buys a yet taller vehicle and drives in front of you. But you'll show them, won'tcha! You'll get an even taller one! That'll fix 'em permanently! (And don't worry about those losers driving normal, human-scale cars -- they don't count. If they're not willing to pay up to stay in the vehicle-height arms race, they get what they deserve: your headlights blinding them via rearview mirror, or your tailgate blotting out the very sky. Hell, I bet they don't even buy a new vehicle of any kind every other year! Savages!)
      --
      "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
    6. Re:Let's hope it's price isn't too steep... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yikes! Someone hit a nerve.

      I hate to break it to you Atario, but all you talked about in your original post was the price. Did you actually read your post? Ah, but this is Slashdot. Who needs consistent logic...

      BTW, maybe it's time you checked into wireless. (and decaf)

    7. Re:Let's hope it's price isn't too steep... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn! This one's upset! That was a good burn :)

    8. Re:Let's hope it's price isn't too steep... by inkydoo · · Score: 1

      That's correct. It's also worth pointing out that it's not a tax credit, but rather a "reduction to income" (which is basically like a deduction), so it's actual dollar value impact depends on your tax bracket.

  8. It's about Time! by ackthpt · · Score: 1

    I've waited for this for it seems ages... now to just wait out the first model year for all the kinks to work out.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:It's about Time! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you kidding? We're talking FORD here. Better to wait out the first decade.

  9. Fansites by Dr+Caleb · · Score: 1
    If anyone wants to create a fansite like Hybrid Cars, the domains fordescapehybrid.* and escapehybrid.* are still available.

    [sound of crickets chirping]

    --
    "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
    1. Re:Fansites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      As well as the domains fordescapehybridsucks.* and escapehybridsucks.*

  10. Still waiting for the Lexus 400h by hadesan · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I would rather go for the Lexus 400h with all the trimmings and Hybrid Synergy Drive system. The HSD System will also be found in the Toyota Highlander Hyrid.

    Toyota has been in the hybrid game longer than Ford and is licensing it's technology to Ford. My take is that Toyota will know how to implement it better.

    1. Re:Still waiting for the Lexus 400h by bartyboy · · Score: 1

      Ford licences the technology, it doesn't develop it from scratch. There are probably 2 or 3 car manufacturers that are actively persuing hybrid drive systems. The rest prefer to buy results.

      While it may stifle some potential better designs, it makes the job of a car mechanic much less complicated.

    2. Re:Still waiting for the Lexus 400h by geek · · Score: 1

      Ford and toyota have a great working relationship and even share some of the same plants together i.e. their autos are often built side by side by many of the same people. This has been changing over the last few years as toyota has gotten bigger and able to work here in the states on it's own more efficiently but you would be surprised at how close they are.

    3. Re:Still waiting for the Lexus 400h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd rather go for a Bentley.
      /john-kerry-i'm-a-regular-guy-(not) mode off

    4. Re:Still waiting for the Lexus 400h by multiplexo · · Score: 1
      Or you could just buy a Mercedes E320 CDI right now, which gets 37 miles per gallon, has 201 horsepower at 4200 RPM and 369 foot pounds of torque at 1800-2600 RPM. It's low tech, a mere diesel compared to a hybrid, but it's not vaporware.

      --
      cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
    5. Re:Still waiting for the Lexus 400h by hadesan · · Score: 1
      From the website:

      **The E320 CDI Sedan does not meet the emissions requirements of California, Maine, Massachusetts, New York or Vermont and is not available in these states.

      Sweet looking vehicle though...

    6. Re:Still waiting for the Lexus 400h by York+the+Mysterious · · Score: 1

      Except if you're considering the environment, a move to a diesel vehicle in the US is worse than driving a Hummer. Current US formulated diesel (changes in '07) has a very high particulate matter content and is a major contributor to asthma. The high particulate matter keeps manufacturers from using catalytic converters which would be clogged by the high PM levels. You might feel good about the high MPG, but your producing a much higher pollution level than a traditional gasoline vehicle. That and most diesel models are not sold in California because they don't meet emissions standards here.

      --

      Tim Smith - Ramblings from Nerd Land
    7. Re:Still waiting for the Lexus 400h by Thagg · · Score: 2, Informative

      It turns out that both the Prius and Ford Escape hybrid transaxles (the heart and soul of the car) are made by the same company, Aisin.

      So, Ford actually will benefit from the years of Prius experience, to some extent.

      Ford also cross-licensed the Toyota hybrid patents.

      [disclaimer: I just bought two Priuses -- I love the car!]

      thad

      --
      I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
    8. Re:Still waiting for the Lexus 400h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're going to wait for a hybrid, wait for the 4wd 400hp Acura NSX that will replace the old one in three or four years.

      And if Ford is liscensing Toyota technology and has access to Toyota hybrids, why would there be an implementation difference? It's not rocket science once you've got the basic system.

    9. Re:Still waiting for the Lexus 400h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can anyone provide links to NSX hybrid info?

    10. Re:Still waiting for the Lexus 400h by atrus · · Score: 1

      You mean GM. Examples of Toyota-GMs include the Corolla (made in Fremont, CA) which was also the Geo Prizm, and the Pontiac Vibe/Toyota Matrix.

    11. Re:Still waiting for the Lexus 400h by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Toyota has been in the hybrid game longer than Ford and is licensing it's technology to Ford. My take is that Toyota will know how to implement it better. Geez. You need to read. You need to pull your head out of your fucking ass and read. Oh... remember what you read too! "My take is that Toyota will know how to implement it better." Bullshit. Fucking bullshit. You don't know your head from your ass. You're making a blanket statement with ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to back it up.

      When you have facts, then maybe you can make statements like that. Otherwise, you might want to pull your head out of your ass.

    12. Re:Still waiting for the Lexus 400h by Issue9mm · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Or possibly he means Mazda, which is Ford's foreign sister-company. Not sure which.

      -9mm-

    13. Re:Still waiting for the Lexus 400h by endoboy · · Score: 1

      Ford may eventually get the hybrid thing right, but it's a pretty safe truism in the automotive business that one should never buy the first model year of anything.

      It took Toyota 3 or 4 years to get the Prius right. Even with the advantage of being able to avoid some of Toyota's mistakes, Ford's got a tough road ahead in the hybrid business. You've got to be pretty brave to be buying the first ones off the production line

  11. Defeats the Purpose of an SUV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, but driving a "hybrid" SUV totally defeats the purpose. When I come rumbing down I-95 rollin' in my Escalade with the gold trim, knocking back women and running over children, people know about my manliness and THAT is a SUV boy.

  12. Headline is wrong by Bodero · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Ford did NOT "use Toyota's first-generation hybrid technology" in the Escape hybrid, as the headline points out. They merely "licensed" the patent that Toyota has on it.


    http://www.detnews.com/2004/insiders/0407/31/c01-2 15227.htm

    "Case in point: Toyota Motor Co.p. and Ford Motor Co.'s new Escape Hybrid SUV. Last March, the companies said they had concluded "licensing agreements for hybrid systems and emissions purification patents" -- lawyerly language that soon gave way to talk that the first hybrid SUV from an American automaker was actually powered by Toyota.

    Even if it wasn't. "

    1. Re:Headline is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So are you saying that instead of saving time and just buying the technology, Ford reinvented the whole thing?

    2. Re:Headline is wrong by flabbergast · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Dang, you beat me to it. I read DetNews Auto section every day and went nuts when I saw the slashdot headline. I also found this over at Bloomberg by Doron Levin (an editor over at detnews as well).

      BTW, although hybrids are the new chic-ness in cool rides (and 15 years ago those same people were all diving for SUVs, but whatever) no one's done a careful analysis of the cost to manufacture the batteries as well dispose of them properly, especially on the scales of 17 million new vehicles sold per year (in the US). To me, we're simply trading a "cleaner" car today for an expensive cleanup tomorrow. Everything seems to be a trade off. Diesel has its problems, especially with the U.S.'s sulfur rich diesel. A lot of our advances in cleaning up car emissions come at a price such as expensive and toxic metals in catalytic converters.

    3. Re:Headline is wrong by Naffer · · Score: 1

      NiMH batteries are considered mostly non-hazardous waste, one of their huge advantages over lead acid and NiCad batteries. They can be recycled to reclaim the nickel metal, sometimes used in the production of staineless steel. I'm sure it isn't feasable to recycle small batteries, but I don't think we'll have a problem dealing with these large ones a few years down the line.

    4. Re:Headline is wrong by doctor_no · · Score: 1

      You've cited an editorial, and Detroit auto news is clearly heavily biased towards, well, Detriot.

      Ford is not using "Toyota parts", however they are using the same suppliers that Toyota uses, more importantly they are using Toyota's algorithim and software for their hybrid control system which determines when gas and when electric are being used, not to mention the Atkinson cycle engine in this hybrid Escape.

      However, it's really not important who gets credit for developing the details of the technology (Sanyo Electric Co. Ltd. and Continental Teves should also get credit); Ford should given credit for actually puting a vehicle on the market that not only saves a limited resources but offers an enviromentally freindly alternative. Kudos to them.

    5. Re:Headline is wrong by daviddennis · · Score: 1

      What about the weight?

      200 pounds of batteries seems like a lot to drag around.

      How much lighter can the engine be thanks to the batteries?

      D

    6. Re:Headline is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work for Ford and there's licensing both ways. Toyota is licensing our brake regenerating tecnhology too.

    7. Re:Headline is wrong by ljavelin · · Score: 1

      You said it!

      Most people carry three or four spare tires around their waste too. A couple hundred extra pounds of body weight isn't that uncommon.

    8. Re:Headline is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cars already have pretty large, nasty lead-acid batteries. In addition, cars are made up of 30%+ "fluff" that is impossible to recycle.

      What does the auto industry do now in terms of the batteries and "fluff"? Does recycling a hybrid result in more or less "fluff" versus a conventional car? How much is air polution reduced with a hybrid... many 1000 lbs per year? More? Less?

  13. Really energy efficient by navegan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you really want an energy-efficient sports utility vehicle, try a bicycle.

    --
    ----- Vegans don't send SPAM.
    1. Re:Really energy efficient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      If you really want an energy-efficient sports utility vehicle, try a bicycle.

      But then you have to breathe in all the pollution caused by the cars passing you.

    2. Re:Really energy efficient by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Insightful
      If you really want an energy-efficient sports utility vehicle, try a bicycle.

      60 miles per bowl of cereal and two water bottles, but you need a shower/change and a secure place to keep your bike. If I worked within 10 miles of home I'd probably ride every day.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    3. Re:Really energy efficient by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      How much does a bowl of cereal cost in your area?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    4. Re:Really energy efficient by ImpTech · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they're great when it snows. And when it rains. Lots of fun on the freeway too. Plus your boss will just love it when you show up to work dripping with sweat.

    5. Re:Really energy efficient by navegan · · Score: 1

      Oh, yes, I'm incredibly aggressive about my viewpoints. I'm especially fond of raving and telling others to shut the hell up.

      (If this is all about the user names, and I'm fond of eating vegetables, are you fond of eating crow?)

      --
      ----- Vegans don't send SPAM.
    6. Re:Really energy efficient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gas is cheaper than gatorade.

    7. Re:Really energy efficient by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      How much does a bowl of cereal cost in your area?

      I buy mine bulk, muesli-type cereals for $1.79/lb at the local hippy market, Staff of Life. I use Rice Dream in place of milk, after developing the dairy allergy. It's a good source of energy and the more you ride the better everything tastes.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    8. Re:Really energy efficient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And bottled water.

    9. Re:Really energy efficient by gnuman99 · · Score: 1
      It's a good source of energy and the more you ride the better everything tastes.

      Not to mention the benefits of tuning your ticker and burning that spare tire.

    10. Re:Really energy efficient by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Ok, that's pretty good, even if you ate a 1lb bowl that's the equivalent cost of 60 miles for a gallon of gas.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    11. Re:Really energy efficient by abigor · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but it's totally protein-free. All that cardio, and no protein = muscle wasting and general lethargy. Buy some whey protein and dump a scoop on top of your cereal; you'll feel way (haha) better.

    12. Re:Really energy efficient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So buy a good quality bottle, your own water filter (can't stand the taste of chlorinated water), and fill your own bottles.

      Not hard.

    13. Re:Really energy efficient by kfg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd agree that 10 miles is about the practical limit for most people. The longest that I'm aware of anyone doing on a regular basis was 60 miles, each way remember, but that person was a competitive ultra-marathon cyclist who subsequently won the Race Across America at a record average speed (15.3 mph).

      The cost savings, however, really are quite substantial, as is the benefit to health and fitness, including mental.

      Think about this, you likely have a job more than 10 miles away because you have a car. It's a feedback, ummmmmm, cycle.

      Even with cars the majority live within 5 miles of work (one of the reasons why most accidents happen within 5 miles of home), which is quite doable even for most begining cyclists, especially those that begin under 30 years old.

      But if you work too far away, well, you work too far away, and if you just plain don't want to, well, you just plain don't want to. It's a free country.

      Well, sort of.

      At the very least, please, while driving your car, give respect to the rights of way of cyclists who are also riding within the scope of law and the social contract, instead of taking out your anger at some other asshole cyclist on the innocent.

      Don't kick your dog either.

      KFG

    14. Re:Really energy efficient by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      Ok, that's pretty good, even if you ate a 1lb bowl that's the equivalent cost of 60 miles for a gallon of gas.

      I can only manage about 1/3 lb of cereal at a time, which is a lot. An interesting bit of math I did, years back, was TCO of a car, taking into account depreciation, gas, oil, tires, service, average repair, etc. About 12 cents a mile, when gas was cheaper and car got about 22 mpg. Be interesting to do that for a bike, though I'm sure it's far lower than 12 cents a mile.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    15. Re:Really energy efficient by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      Yeah, but it's totally protein-free. All that cardio, and no protein = muscle wasting and general lethargy. Buy some whey protein and dump a scoop on top of your cereal; you'll feel way (haha) better.

      Stuff I get has quite a bit of protein in it, in the form of soy and nuts. I seem to be doing quite well for a vegetarian cyclist, no serious bonks or other physiological problems.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    16. Re:Really energy efficient by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      For you maybe- I did it with big macs and figured out that even if I got into the best shape I've ever been in, I'd still be needing about 20 cents a mile for a bike- and my car gets 40mpg, which comes to about 8 cents a mile once I put in gas, oil, tires, service, average repair, and depreciation.

      Maybe a bit less now that I'm commuting 500 miles a week.

      Now if I could get an electric scooter to go 85, I'd be in good shape though- much cheaper and easier on the environment (especially since 90% of my electricity is hydro to begin with).

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    17. Re:Really energy efficient by cft_128 · · Score: 1
      I would take your advice, but I decided that all commutes are wasteful so I moved across the street from my office. Bad traffic for me means waiting 15 seconds for traffic to clear before I cross the street. When I do need a car I have a Subaru - almost all the advantages of a SUV (AWD, cargo room) with better fuel efficiency and excellent handling.

      Ever notice how people that preach the evils of cars and everyone should only use bicycles (not that my parent poster is one but I have seen zealots on /.) are usually from places like California (where I am from) never come from places like Minnesota or Manitoba?

      --

      Underloved Movies and Pub Quiz: donotquestionme.org

    18. Re:Really energy efficient by navegan · · Score: 1

      If it makes you feel any better, for seven years I cycled in Edmonton, Alberta. That's sort of like Manitoba...at least it's closer than California! :) Edmonton has a bike-path laden river valley park that connects many parts of the city. Cycling in Edmonton was hardly perfect (it's bitterly cold in the winter - you really have to dress for it - but it's also cool riding over crunchy snow), but the valley made things easier and there was a free map for cyclists that indicated the safest roads.

      Having worked in air quality, I frankly welcome advances that reduce polluting emissions from cars, but my preference is still to walk or cycle whenever possible.

      --
      ----- Vegans don't send SPAM.
    19. Re:Really energy efficient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For commuting you should use public transit. It's more efficient than driving your car and maybe even more efficient than biking. If your area doesn't have adequate public transit, put pressure on the councilors to make it so. In the end, public transit is the most efficient way of commuting.

    20. Re:Really energy efficient by barzok · · Score: 1

      And what do you propose we use for the 10+ years it will take to get local gov't to do anything with public transit?

      For some of us, public transit is impossible until we get high-speed rail (speed on par w/ the TGV and Japanese bullet trains) that's affordable for daily commuter use.

    21. Re:Really energy efficient by Chris+Carollo · · Score: 2, Insightful
      At the very least, please, while driving your car, give respect to the rights of way of cyclists who are also riding within the scope of law and the social contract, instead of taking out your anger at some other asshole cyclist on the innocent
      This is probably karma suicide, but....I don't see too many of those cylists. I drive through an area pretty regularly that is a popular biking route and almost everyone is riding side-by-side rather than single file, running through stopsigns without stopping, blatantly running red lights, and advancing past all the cars that are stopped at both of the above. Also, this road is no passing (double solid line in the middle). Are those of us in cars really expected to ride along at 10-15 mph behind a cyclist for 5 or 10 miles?

      The basic fact is that cars and bicycles are fundamentally different vehicles and many of the laws that we have just don't deal with the reality of their interaction very well. I don't see too many motorists "taking out their anger" on cyclists, but I do see the vast majority of cyclists ignore "the scope of law and the social contract".

      If it were up to me we'd be spending the money to put bike lanes along most roads and have plentiful bike routes, but sadly that's just not the case.
    22. Re:Really energy efficient by kfg · · Score: 1

      I don't see too many of those cylists.

      I'm afraid I have to agree with you.

      Are those of us in cars really expected to ride along at 10-15 mph behind a cyclist for 5 or 10 miles?

      No. They should make way within a reasonable time. However, if we're going 30 in a 30 zone, yes. Maybe even if we're only going 28, or whatever speed you would be reasonably expected to follow behind another car. Sometimes we're even expected to follow behind a car in front that's holding us up. It happens.

      If it were up to me we'd be spending the money to put bike lanes along most roads and have plentiful bike routes, but sadly that's just not the case.

      I'd have to disagree with you here. I don't agree that's it's even possible except along the major highways where bicycles aren't even allowed. Of the bike paths that actually exist in America I've never seen one that's even suitable for anything but light recreational use. The designers themselves don't seem to understand that bicycles are high speed vehicles. The roads we already have are perfectly suitable for sharing if we, well, share. Cyclists don't have the right to hog the road and ignore rights of way. Neither do cars. We all "own" the road in common. It would be nice if we acted that way.

      IF it comes down to it cyclists (and in many cases even pedestrians) have a right to be there, and drivers only have a priviledge.

      And I act that way when I drive.

      KFG

    23. Re:Really energy efficient by Chris+Carollo · · Score: 1
      I'd have to disagree with you here. I don't agree that's it's even possible except along the major highways where bicycles aren't even allowed. Of the bike paths that actually exist in America I've never seen one that's even suitable for anything but light recreational use.
      I've seen a couple rails-to-trails bikepaths that were perfectly good for doing some real cycling. I lived outside of Boston in Bedford, MA for a while and could ride all the way in to Cambridge where I could hop on the T and get anywhere in town, and there was no problem riding 20 mph+ for most of the trip.
      The designers themselves don't seem to understand that bicycles are high speed vehicles. The roads we already have are perfectly suitable for sharing if we, well, share. Cyclists don't have the right to hog the road and ignore rights of way. Neither do cars. We all "own" the road in common. It would be nice if we acted that way.
      My problem is that there is just too much difference between cars and bicycles for practical sharing. I can't recall EVER being behind a cyclist on a road that was going a speed that I'd expect a car to be going. Even on the rare 30mph road most cars are going slightly over that and cyclists are going, at most, 20mph. Are we reasonably expected to share a 45mph road? Cyclists won't even be going half the speed of the automobile traffic, and that's just an accident waiting to happen.
      IF it comes down to it cyclists (and in many cases even pedestrians) have a right to be there, and drivers only have a priviledge
      Well, that's a nice sentiment, but it's simply not true. If anything, cars have MORE of a right to be there since the roads were primarily built because of automobile transportation. They also were funded more by automobiles than by bicyles (gas taxes and whatnot).
    24. Re:Really energy efficient by adamfranco · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As an avid cyclist and bicycle-commuter, I'd just like to address some of your comments.

      everyone is riding side-by-side rather than single file... Are those of us in cars really expected to ride along at 10-15 mph behind a cyclist for 5 or 10 miles?

      A bicycle happens to be a slow moving vehicle that is traveling down a public road. Other examples of common slow-moving vehicles are farm-tractors, Amish/Mennonite buggies, construction vehicles, mail-delivery-trucks, garbage trucks, old people, etc. In the case of ALL of these, the vehicle in front, no matter what its speed, has the right of way and should be passed in a safe manner when room on the road allows. In general practice (with the exception of the elderly) most slow-moving vehicle operators make some sort of attempt to stay to the side of the road as much as possible to allow for easy passing by vehicles that have the ability to travel faster. "Being nice" however, does not mean that the slower vehicle has renounced its right-of-way. When approaching any slow vehicle, the safe, legal, nice way to do it (if there is not an empty passing lane) is to slow down, wait for enough room to pass, and then pass.

      Back to bicycles. A bicycle's maximum width is the span of its rider's sholders, ~2ft/.6m. Two bicycles with a foot inbetween them take up only 5ft/1.5m. If the approching car is following the above mentioned safe-overtaking practice, there is little difference in a cars ability to pass one cyclist or two side-by-side. Where the problem for all involved resides is in auto-driver's insistance on overtaking cyclists at full speed, in the same lane, no matter what configuration the cyclists are riding in. When riding single-file, right on the edge of the road, I've often had cars pass me at 70mph with less than 2ft of clearance. This is both terrifying and incredibly unsafe. By taking up [slightly] more of the road by riding side-by-side, a cyclist can assert a bit more of their right-of-way and force overtaking traffic to at least slow down slightly (or move over) when passing, making the road safer for all parties.

      running through stopsigns without stopping, blatantly running red lights and advancing past all the cars that are stopped at both of the above.

      This is just bad form, illegal, and shouldn't be done.

      --
      "When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind." -- Bill Moyers
    25. Re:Really energy efficient by adamfranco · · Score: 1

      If anything, cars have MORE of a right to be there since the roads were primarily built because of automobile transportation.

      There have been paved roads LONG before cars. Romans had them 2000 years ago. In China they have paved roads where 1% of the traffic is cars.

      They also were funded more by automobiles than by bicyles (gas taxes and whatnot).

      This is simply not true. For example, this page shows that for Minnesotta roads [emphasis mine]:

      Derived from three statewide taxesmotor fuels excise taxes, motor vehicle registration taxes, and starting in 2003, a portion (30 percent) of the motor vehicle sales taxroad aid accounts for nearly a third of the $1.5 billion in total local road spending annually. The remaining two-thirds comes from local government general funds, primarily property taxes and state property tax relief, also known as general-purpose aid.

      While a cyclist isn't paying a fuel tax, they are still paying for the roads via other taxes. Additionally, since a bicycle induces virtually no wear on the road-surface, cyclists are paying for more than their share of road maintainence.

      Please, share the road.

      --
      "When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind." -- Bill Moyers
    26. Re:Really energy efficient by Chris+Carollo · · Score: 1
      There have been paved roads LONG before cars. Romans had them 2000 years ago. In China they have paved roads where 1% of the traffic is cars.
      Well, of course, but how many roads do you travel on today that predate cars? How many were built for a primary purpose other than for use by cars? Basically none, I'd guess.
      This is simply not true...two-thirds comes from local government general funds, primarily property taxes and state property tax relief, also known as general-purpose aid...While a cyclist isn't paying a fuel tax, they are still paying for the roads via other taxes. Additionally, since a bicycle induces virtually no wear on the road-surface, cyclists are paying for more than their share of road maintainence.
      I think you've just proven my point for me. By your quoted source, those who buy automobiles and gasoline contribute more towards road construction and repair than pure cyclists. Pure cyclists contribute just to the general fund, whereas motorists contribute to the general fund as well as to gas taxes, etc.

      As far as repairs so, yes, cyclists do cause less damage to roads than cars do, but how much of the total cost of a road goes into repairs, and how much of those repairs are due to natural causes like weather? My guess is that the 1/3 contributed by motorists more than makes up for the cost of the wear-and-tear they cause the road.
    27. Re:Really energy efficient by Chris+Carollo · · Score: 1
      In the case of ALL of these, the vehicle in front, no matter what its speed, has the right of way and should be passed in a safe manner when room on the road allows.
      Maybe I'm just ignorant of the law, but is it ever legal to pass these vehicles on roads with double-yellow lines? There's one road in particular is that is both heavily used by cyclists and is an otherwise convenient route to take by car, and it's double-yellow the whole way.

    28. Re:Really energy efficient by adamfranco · · Score: 1

      is it ever legal to pass these vehicles on roads with double-yellow lines?

      That depends on which state you are in. In my state, Vermont, it is always legal to pass in double-yellow sections of road unless there is a sign specifically stating "No passing". Other states may differ. Also, going around a cyclist at low speed rarely requires the usage of the opposite lane, since bicycles are so narrow. Speeding past requires a much greater separation for safety, though this is unfortunately often ignored.

      --
      "When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind." -- Bill Moyers
  14. It's not using Toyota's technology by Tkkyj · · Score: 1

    It's just similar enough that it's worth paying a licensing fee; Toyota is not supplying anything to Ford for this vehicle. Detroit News article

    1. Re:It's not using Toyota's technology by jbash · · Score: 1

      There were some stories about the cross-licensing when Ford presented the Escape at the NY auto show a few months ago. Toyota confirmed that Ford developed its own system, but that there were similarities that resulted in the licensing. Another story from the auto show was that Toyota offered GM a license on the Toyota system. GM and Toyota have worked together for some times on the Corolla/Prizm clones and now on the Matrix clones. However, GM refused the hybrid technology in favor of hydrogen, which GM sees as the future of automotive propulsion.

  15. The first american hybrid? by Eric+Clark · · Score: 4, Informative

    I believe this is the first:

    2005 Chevy Silverado Hybrid
    1. Re:The first american hybrid? by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1
      From the parent's link.

      The hybrid pickups feature GM's powerful 5300 Vortec V-8 and Hydra-Matic 4L60-E four-speed automatic transmission, coupled with a new hybrid technology that delivers 10 to 12 percent improved fuel economy over GM half-ton pickups, giving the hybrid Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra the best highway fuel economy of any full-size truck on the market.


      In other words, it gets 16.5-19.8 mpg. I'm so very impressed at the environmentalists running GM.
    2. Re:The first american hybrid? by Goobermunch · · Score: 1

      Complete with enormous V8 engine . . . that gets (on average) about 14 miles per gallon.

      Which, in turn, means that the 10-12% increase in fuel economy raises its fuel economy to a whopping 15.7 miles per gallon.

      --AC

    3. Re:The first american hybrid? by fred+fleenblat · · Score: 1

      I liked the part where they said the silverado's electric motor can produce 14,000 watts of power.

      Oooh, 19hp.

    4. Re:The first american hybrid? by flabbergast · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Its more of a Honda IMS hybrid than a full Prius hybrid. What's the difference?

      Toyota and Honda have blazed markedly different trails into this hybrid frontier. Honda's Integrated Motor Assist (IMA) system in the Insight and Civic Hybrid is mild and elegantly simple in its operation--an electric motor is sandwiched between the traditional engine and transmission--either a five-speed manual or a continuously variable transmission (CVT). Fuel is saved by switching off the engine when stopped or coasting and by downsizing the engine and relying on the electric motor to assist with acceleration. The motor is powered by energy stored during deceleration and braking when the motor functions like a generator, recharging an onboard battery. (Today's hybrids are never plugged in for recharging.) Honda hybrids cannot accelerate on electric power alone.

      Toyota's Hybrid Synergy Drive (HSD) is more complex. The gas engine is unique, utilizing lightweight, low-friction internal components designed to run at a maximum speed of only 5000 rpm. A mechanical compression ratio of 13.0:1 improves efficiency, but the intake valves close so late that the air-fuel mixture experiences only 9.5:1 compression, permitting the engine to run on regular fuel. A unique planetary automatic transmission allows the car to accelerate from rest up to 30-plus mph on electric power only if the driver accelerates gently, which adds significantly to the fuel savings over what Honda's mild hybrid achieves. Toe in deeper, and the gas engine kicks in. Floor it, and the separate generator switches over to work as an additional motor for even more assist. The fuel savings are far less significant at highway speeds, where the engine must run continuously, which explains why the Prius's EPA results are highest for the city test.

      Motor Trend

      Its more important for GM that the mild hybrid have the ability to produce ample amounts of electricity. Why? So you can plug in tools, that's why!

    5. Re:The first american hybrid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I don't think they mean for driving, but rather for the 120 VAC outlets:

      In addition to improvements in fuel economy and emissions, the GM hybrid pickups feature four 120-volt, 20 amp electrical auxiliary power outlets under the rear seat of the cab and in the pickup bed that can accommodate up to four accessories while driving or when parked. With this auxiliary generator capability, the truck's generator can operate when the truck is parked without a key in the ignition and can be used to power anything from tools at a construction site to appliances at a campsite.

      Considering that your average inverter is in the 200 - 400 Watt range, 14KWatts is impressive.

    6. Re:The first american hybrid? by York+the+Mysterious · · Score: 2, Informative

      The GM was sold as a fleet vehicle aimed at construction companies. It featured standard power plugs in the bed of the truck for tools that would run off the hybrid batteries. That was more of the sales pitch than the actual "green" factor.

      --

      Tim Smith - Ramblings from Nerd Land
    7. Re:The first american hybrid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a 1990 GMC 1 Ton Extended Cab (5.7L 350 V8) that currently gets 19mpg in town and 25mpg highway. Keep in mind this was originally a 3.4 Ton truck that's been modified with heavy duty springs uping it to a 1 ton. Two years ago I installed a factory rebuilt engine (same model) after throwing a rod which was to be expected since this is a former DOT truck. Anyway after installing the rebuilt engine and reprogramming the prom I've increased the in town and highway mpg from 14 - 19 respectively. The point is simple, for the most part when buying a new automobile you're buying it not for fuel effeciency, but performance. All it takes is usually reprogramming the ECU.

      Ownership of this automobile is for farm work including transporting animals, and getting feed. This is not a pleasure car, or a pointless "burner." To those of you who think owning a truck, or SUV is "cool" get a damn economy car and learn to appreciate the value. The only reason we have this truck is for work our other car(s) is a van (Astro which gets worse mpg...but is required because of the size of the family), and 1976 Fiat Spyder (getting 25mpg in town and 32mpg highway because of the engine setup, suspension, and general setup). Anyway if you want to be respectable either get a car you know you can modify to make fuel effecient, or get a hybrid. For the most part the return on investment is great if you put some work into it.

    8. Re:The first american hybrid? by PortHaven · · Score: 1

      i hate to bust it to you idiots....

      but a LOT of people need trucks...

      I dj and do sound and lighting and no f'ing Honda Civic is going to lug that stuff around or pull a trailer.

      So i'd really like to cut down 10% of emissions. I mean...imagine if 10% of all auto emissions were reduced. That'd be a darn good thing!

    9. Re:The first american hybrid? by fred+fleenblat · · Score: 1

      GM hybrid pickups feature four 120-volt, 20 amp electrical auxiliary power outlets

      4 outlets * 120V * 20A = 9600 watts.

      It is indeed an impressive inverter, but the 14KW number can only be for the propulsion motor.

  16. An old joke by daeley · · Score: 3, Funny

    Guess we need to update the old acronym:

    "Found On Road, Drained."

    --
    I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
    1. Re:An old joke by Anonymous+Crowhead · · Score: 1

      This one sounds more like a Factory ordered road disaster.

    2. Re:An old joke by Lord_Slepnir · · Score: 2, Funny

      Fuel Or Recharge Daily

    3. Re:An old joke by The+Analog+Kid · · Score: 1

      or Fix or Repair Daily, or Found on Road, Dead. (I assume the last one applies if your using stock Firestone tires).

    4. Re:An old joke by rgmoore · · Score: 1

      Or, if you spell it backwards, Driver Returns On Foot.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    5. Re:An old joke by pyrrhonist · · Score: 1

      Fucked On Raw Deal

      --
      Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
    6. Re:An old joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since nobody has mentioned this one so far...

      Fucker Only Runs Downhill ;)

    7. Re:An old joke by bobobobo · · Score: 1
      No no no. It's

      "Fix Or Repair Daily."

    8. Re:An old joke by NetGyver · · Score: 1

      Yes yes yes, it's

      Found On Russian Dump,
      Full Of Repaired Defects :)

      --
      A Penny for my thoughts? Here's my two cents. I got ripped off!
    9. Re:An old joke by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Fucked Over Rebuilt Dodge.

      Of course this is actually a fucked over rebuilt toyota, but FORT gives the impression of solidity :)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  17. yes, by geekoid · · Score: 3, Funny

    becasue it's easy to take your dog, 3 kids, and pull you boat from a Bike.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:yes, by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      OK, then... get a kayak. The Chihuahua can easily fit inside. One kid on the front handelbar carrier, one on the back carrier, and the smallest in the Baby Bjorn.

      It's a little more work, but not impossible.

    2. Re:yes, by morcheeba · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're not using the right bike -- put those kids to work, and you can tow a boat easily!

    3. Re:yes, by bcboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      becasue it's easy to take your dog, 3 kids, and pull you boat from a Bike.

      I could count on one hand the number of SUVs I see per day that have more than one person in them.

    4. Re:yes, by Epistax · · Score: 1

      You must have the most exciting (library/store/park/school) on the planet.

    5. Re:yes, by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      Just because you see Dad going to work or Mom going to the supermarket doesn't mean that vehicle isn't ever used more fully.

      Granted, it's not likely ;)

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    6. Re:yes, by kraut · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just because the vehicle has three people and a dog in it once a year means it's sensible to drive two tons of metal menace around the rest of the time.

      Granted, that is likely ;)

      --
      no taxation without representation!
    7. Re:yes, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have a dog, boat, or 3 kids.

      And therefore I don't have an SUV, the "minivan of the new century".

      Instead I have a Porsche.

      If I need to go to the Home Depot to buy some lumber, I can rent their truck for $19 an hour. Otherwise, I can cruise in comfort (best seats in the world) and control (fabulous handling). Oh, very reasonable gas mileage too.

      And I could blow away any SUV if I wanted to.

      But note that I find that many SUVs feel the need to ride up on my ass on the highway, and I just let them pass... after all, SUVs aren't really designed to safely go 90 MPH (or stop from those speeds).... so why screw with the poor suckers.

    8. Re:yes, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes it is. I have a trailer that the dog will sit in, my GF pulls the trailer with the kayacks in them and the kids can ride their own damned bikes.

      anyways 99% of all Escalades and other oversized SUV's never carry more than one person... and usually they are 4 inches away from the bumper of the subaru that dared to only do 85 in the 60 zone.

      SUV owners = asshats. I have yet to meet anyone that does not fit in that category.

    9. Re:yes, by ljavelin · · Score: 1

      This hybrid SUV can carry 3 kids, a dog, and tow a typical pleasure boat. All at once.

      Look at the specs!

    10. Re:yes, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put the kids on their own bikes. Let the fat ass dog run alongside (it'll be good for him). Rent a boat at your destination. Or just go swimming. And stop picking on the people who need or want a car. Being coerced by a bunch of tree-hugging extremists ain't my cup of tea, but it's bikes only for me.

      Bike Nut
      www.rebartalk.com

    11. Re:yes, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I regularly haul plenty of people, but I also haul a lot of gear too. I never see more than 2 peopel in any Toyota or other little POS 4 banger. I haul 3, 4, 5, as many as 7 people in my SUV. If I drove a little POS, I'd have to take multiple trips.

      What a waste of time! Have you ever looked at sports cars? Most of them get far worse mileage than the average SUV. How about conversion vans? Pickup trucks? Luxury cars? You are just like the typical bleeding heart tree hugger. No original thinking, just repeating the same party line. Why don't you just move to Cuba or China?

    12. Re:yes, by ikeleib · · Score: 1

      becasue it's easy to take your dog, 3 kids, and pull you boat from a Bike.

      You've obviously never been to the Netherlands.

    13. Re:yes, by mschaffer · · Score: 0

      I just did a count. I saw many vehicles (of all sorts) with one person in them. However, in less than 10 minutes I saw more than both hand's worth of SUV's with two or more people in them.

      It is interesting to note that almost every tractor-trailer had one occupant. Very bad milage, but can a hybrid pull the trailer, let alone the cargo that one of these can?

      What a f-ing, ignorant tree-hugger.

    14. Re:yes, by chihowa · · Score: 1
      My little 4 banger sports car (Honda del Sol) gets in excess of 40 mpg. Even my rotary (notoriously inefficient) powered RX-7 got over 24 mpg. They are both very sporty cars.

      You forget thay most newer sports cars are pretty small and light. The only exception to this are the typical American muscle cars like Mustangs and Corvettes that weigh as much as an SUV and have an engine to match it.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    15. Re:yes, by chihowa · · Score: 1
      It is interesting to note that almost every tractor-trailer had one occupant. Very bad milage, but can a hybrid pull the trailer, let alone the cargo that one of these can?

      You know, I think that's a problem in and of itself. Those trucks aren't nearly as fuel efficient as, say, trains. The fact that the taxpayers pay for the construction and upkeep of the highways the trucks operate on, and that the trucking companies don't have to pay compensation to anyone (who?) for the pollution emitted by their vehicles keeps their business afloat.

      Perhaps instead of a credit for fuel efficient, low-emissions vehicles, people should be charged for having inefficient, polluting vechicles.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  18. Sounds ideal by myowntrueself · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "The hybrid Escape uses a 200-pound, 330-volt battery pack to power the vehicle at low speeds and in stop-and-go traffic."

    Since so many people spend so much of their day in stop and go traffic this is a big winner.

    Just do the math. When I look at masses of traffic stuck at rush hour I can't help but imagine how many litres of fuel are being burnt while the cars are all but totally stationary for hours on end.

    What a stupid waste. Electrical has to be better under those conditions.

    Actually, surely it can't be hard to convert? If you had a large battery in a regular car, couldn't you use it to drive the starter motor while in gear and push the car forward slowly without the engine having to be running? (Using the starter motor to jog a car forward saves lives; when you are stalled out while crossing the railway lines for example)

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    1. Re:Sounds ideal by imaginate · · Score: 1

      Even more important in improving the efficiency of stop-and-go driving is the hybrid's ability to use regenerative braking, turning some of that "stop" into "go".

    2. Re:Sounds ideal by WOV · · Score: 1

      Less of a battery size problem and more of a starter motor size one; check out the starter / alternator in your car. Both tiny, tiny, tiny compared to the motive engine.

      So once you've made the starter motor big enough, it's a major new component, you have to rearrange the engine compartment, it weighs a lot, your normal engine's low-end characteristics can be changed, etc., etc., - you've almost made a new engine.

      Not to say it's not doable - this is what's frequently called a "mild hybrid", (one that can't really *drive* on its electric motor,) and I think it's what, e.g. the Dodge Ram sort-of-hybrid is.

    3. Re:Sounds ideal by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

      The hybrid Escape uses a 200-pound, 330-volt battery pack

      Why don't they just use one of these ??

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    4. Re:Sounds ideal by homer_ca · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hybrids are very efficient in heavy stop and go traffic, but not much better than a regular car on long freeway trips. A diesel would be better for that. The VW TDI gets over 40MPG freeway. The extra power from the electric motor is good for accelerating from stop lights, but if you're climbing a long highway mountain pass, the battery never has a chance to recharge and you're left with just the power from a somewhat undersized gas engine.

      You couldn't just wire up a regular starter motor to a bigger battery. They're made to be very powerful for their size, but they'll overheat and wear out if run for long periods.

    5. Re:Sounds ideal by cheide · · Score: 1

      Even better would be a diesel/electric hybrid engine, but then you're looking at a *very* niche market. A better diesel infrastructure is needed in either case.

    6. Re:Sounds ideal by Hoch · · Score: 1

      You will then be in line for 26,000 kilowatts of free electricity every year (the average all-electric home uses between 14,000 and 18,000 kilowatts per year).

      Joules/s*s seems a bit fishy to me as a measurement of energy. It must be some sort of power change, like each year, the amount of power produced goes up by 26000 kW. I freaking love sites like these and even more, the people who believe them.

      --
      2*31*37*263
    7. Re:Sounds ideal by ramk13 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The starter motor is just too small, and definitely not designed for continuous operation. If you re-engineered it, so the motor could handle continuous operation, and you put in a bigger battery, then you'd be halfway to hybrid already. In which case you'd go all the way, because the half-breed would be overkill for starting, but not big enough to make a real dent in fuel usage.

      The real loss in fuel isn't in standing (when you are at idle and under 1000 rpm) it's when you are accelerating from all the 'go' of stop and go. When you come out of a stop light you are at more throttle than you are going 50 mph, but you are accelerating through the 0-20 mph range and upwards of 2000-3000 rpm. So you are using a bunch of gas, but you aren't going anywhere. You're just using the gas to give the car kinetic energy, which you then dump into the brakes when you need to stop. That's where the hybrid really save fuel - on recovering braking energy. It also allows the engine to operate in its optimal range most of the time, instead of revving up at every stop light.

    8. Re:Sounds ideal by myowntrueself · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Maybe I could power my browser on the cookies that site wanted to feed me...

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    9. Re:Sounds ideal by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

      Long highway mountain pass?

      Most of these will be used as suburban shopping carts.

    10. Re:Sounds ideal by ksheff · · Score: 1

      The battery will recharge from the regenerative braking and excess energy available from going down the previous mountain and/or will be fully charged while going down the flat interstate, so the battery will be able to help. I rented a Prius a few months ago and averaged 45mpg (ave speed 75+mph) on a 1400 mile trip. I would say that it's comparable in power with the TDI VWs that I've driven.

      A big advantage a Jetta TDI has is range. One model year had an 18 gallon tank, so one could drive about 800 miles before having to fill up. Bring along some of the wide neck MtDew bottles for those trips.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    11. Re:Sounds ideal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better diesel infrastructure? Are you referring to North America? Just about any fuel station near a major road is going to have diesel available. Sure some of the suburban neighborhood stop-and-robs might not have it, but diesel trucks are everywhere. That's how most of the stuff that you buy gets to its destination. Rural towns have it because that's what farmers use. Diesel is everywhere in Europe because it's cheaper and more efficient.

    12. Re:Sounds ideal by lordbrain · · Score: 1

      Not a *very* niche market at all nor do you need a better diesel infrastructure. Truckers would most likely love having diesel/electric hybrid considering the price of fuel and the incredibly low profit margins. Even if the rigs did cost more, it at least would be a fixed cost as opposed to the very varible cost of diesel.

      --

      Thank you. Thank you. Please no applause; just throw money
    13. Re:Sounds ideal by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      There's two kinds of mountain passes on the highways. I-5 through the Tejon Pass (4000 ft) has both. Rolling hills on the south side where you could coast on the downhills to recharge and a big, long, continuous climb on the north side. Not fun in an underpowered car.

    14. Re:Sounds ideal by William+Tanksley · · Score: 1

      There's no certainty that a diesel/electric hybrid would be better than a gasoline/electric or a pure diesel. It may be true, but then it may not.

      The problem is that hybrid technology introduces complexity into the powertrain, which reduces efficiency in certain cases. They win over gas engines because the gas engines are only optimally efficient at a narrow power band, and elsewhere they're very inefficient; so the hybrid system can afford to lose some nominal efficiency in return for helping the gas engine stay in its powerband. The overall result, obviously, is a much higher total efficiency.

      But the same result isn't certain for other engines. Diesel is already very good at handling normal driving demands; can hybrid improve on it?

      I don't know. I'm not even guessing -- but I just wanted to mention that it's not as obvious as it seems.

      -Billy

    15. Re:Sounds ideal by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      "Hybrids are very efficient in heavy stop and go traffic, but not much better than a regular car on long freeway trips."

      If someone could figure out a way to make the process of starting a car engine less of a production, we might not have to sit and idle so much!

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    16. Re:Sounds ideal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An idling car burns less than a gallon per hour, moron!
      You think that's a huge waste? It's not. It's almost nothing. I've let a car run in winter all night long, and burned less than 3 gallons of gas.
      The EPA lies need to end. The public deserves to know the truth... that very few hybrids actually do anything to save teh environment, and that they don't get any better true mileage than other vehicles of comparable size. Hybrids don't burn fuel in stop and go traffic... woop-do-doo... they just burn it everywhere else... or when they run out of electrical charge in the batteries. They still need to run the gas engine, and it takes the same amount of gas (or more) to get from here to there! Figure it out! Imbeciles try and tell us that these hybrids are good. Hogwash! It's not true. How could it be?

      If you're driving 400 miles, and it takes 15 gallons of gas in a hybrid, or 15 gallons of gas in a gas-powered vehicle, you're trying to say that the hybrid is better? Why? Tell us! We'd like to know. Explain!

      You can't. It's not possible. The EPA lies. You lie. There's no reason to waste the money on a hybrid. There's no reason to drive around with 300 lbs of batteries that need ventilation. What are they ventilating? Acid fumes? How come? What happens to the acid fumes? Does anyone know? Who studies what the acid fumes are going to do to the environment? Again, more dumb people in denial. They think they're reducing our need for oil, but you're not. Hypocrites.

    17. Re:Sounds ideal by SewersOfRivendell · · Score: 1
      Should also say that the September 2004 Car and Driver reports more than 40 MPG on highway-only tests for at least three cars: the Civic Hybrid, the Prius, and the (Jetta?) TDI. The first two are gasoline-electric hybrids. Also note that these were hands-on Car and Driver tests, not idealized EPA numbers. They seem to think the cars performed fine, which probably corroborates your claim of the power being "not much better" than conventional gasoline engines.

      Note too that an SUV, hybrid or not, is still the worst end of the fuel efficiency stick: you'll see more like 30 MPG highway with a hybrid. Better than the best conventional SUVs today (avg 20 MPG), but not very good relative to a hybrid sedan.

    18. Re:Sounds ideal by Lours · · Score: 1
      Just do the math. When I look at masses of traffic stuck at rush hour I can't help but imagine how many litres of fuel are being burnt while the cars are all but totally stationary for hours on end.

      True. But do some other maths too : when I look at the average number of people per car at any hour and not just rush hour, I can't help but imagine how many gazillions litres of fuel are being burnt for the sole sake of moving a one ton steel vehicule, in which the driver's mass is almost insignificant.

      There lies the real waste : moving more than one ton of steel when
      • most of the time
      we just need to move like 100 kilograms of flesh and bones.
    19. Re:Sounds ideal by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The benefit of using diesel in a hybrid is that you can run diesel fuel. Diesels ARE typically more efficient than gasoline engines of the same displacement, but usually not THAT much more efficient.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    20. Re:Sounds ideal by William+Tanksley · · Score: 1

      This seems quite obvious. Of course diesel hybrids burn diesel. Why do you mention it?

      I'm sorry, I just don't understand your point.

      -Billy

    21. Re:Sounds ideal by LiamQ · · Score: 1

      Hybrids are very efficient in heavy stop and go traffic, but not much better than a regular car on long freeway trips.

      You're thinking of the Prius, but there are other hybrids. My Honda Insight gets over 80 MPG on long freeway trips.

    22. Re:Sounds ideal by dabraun · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what's been done with hybrid cars. My Civic Hybrid starts faster than you can take your foot off the brake and press down on the gas - and the starting process is no louder than when the engine is running. They just use the electric motor as an extremely powerful starter motor.

      It doesn't work so well if you don't have a large electric motor to start the engine with - you end up slowly turning the engine over with a little starter motor waiting for a few cylinders to fire and get the process going. And little starter motors need to run at high RPMs (geared down to get enough power) and hence are pretty loud.

    23. Re:Sounds ideal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is why they have 'slow lanes' on those types of roads and you can just put the vehicle in a lower gear and step on it. It's not like the TDI produces that much more power than the 1.5L motor that's in the Toyota, so they would both be in the same boat. I've pulled smaller trailers up grades like that with a Hyundai Excel. So everyone passes you. BFD.

  19. Decent price by lothar97 · · Score: 1, Informative

    Base MSRP is $19,855, for manual transmission. Since no one in the US drives manual (except me it seems), I suspect $21,000 to start for most people.

    --

    1. Re:Decent price by jasonbw · · Score: 1

      ah, good, i was gonna ask how much.

      $20K seems pretty reasonable, oh wait, nevermind. the hybrid it seems is $26,970 (4wd $28,595), with the 2.3L i4 as the gas powerplant. CVT transmission, so shifting is out - damn. 36 mpg is more than my damn focus gets. they claim a 400 mile range, so a 11 gallon fuel tank?

      apologies to metric people.

    2. Re:Decent price by phidipides · · Score: 4, Informative

      >Base MSRP is $19,855, for manual transmission.
      >Since no one in the US drives manual (except me
      >it seems), I suspect $21,000 to start for most
      >people.

      Ford's web site - http://fordvehicles.com/escapehybrid/home/index.as p?bhcp=1 says $26,970 for front wheel drive, $28,595 for four-wheel drive. Where did you get your numbers from?

      It would be nice to see the government provide more tax credits to encourage use of these vehicles (less pollution, encourage new technology development, less gas use leading to less reliance on middle east oil, etc), but the existing credits are set to expire soon. Meanwhile Bush wants to drill in Alaska for a minimal oil supply, but that's another story...

    3. Re:Decent price by lothar97 · · Score: 1

      D'oh! Should've played with the numbers a little bit more. I just didn't want a Ford sales rep to contact me.

      --

    4. Re:Decent price by Lancer · · Score: 1
      Ford's web site - http://fordvehicles.com/escapehybrid/home/index.as p?bhcp=1 says $26,970 for front wheel drive, $28,595 for four-wheel drive. Where did you get your numbers from?

      He clearly pulled the numbers for the traditional Escape. The one thing this does show (besides the grandparent poster's lack of research skill) is that hybrids are really, really expensive still. So much so that you're never going to break even on gas costs, even when you project a much higher $/G then we're currently paying. In fact, using Ford's own calculator, I'd only save about $1000/yr at $3.00/G (much higher than I'm actually paying) and 85 miles/day (much higher than most I'd bet) compared to their traditional Escape. That means, not even accounting for the net present value of the dollars, I'd have to own the vehicle for at least 7 years (probably much longer) to break even, and by that point I'd probably be looking at having to replace fairly expensive batteries.

      There may be other reasons for choosing a hybrid (that same calculator suggested I'd save 331 gallons of gasoline), but until the cost of these comes down to where it actually makes sense to the pocketbook, these will be nothing but toys to brag about by the green crowd.

      --
      Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside a dog it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
    5. Re:Decent price by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "It would be nice to see the government provide more tax credits to encourage use of these vehicles"

      Why bother? It'd be better if we simply stopped groveling at the feet of our "friend & allies" (to quote both Bush and Kerry) in OPEC every time they scale back production.

      It's interesting to note that national pride is only enough to put tattered flags on car windows instead of sucking it up and dealing with high gas prices.

    6. Re:Decent price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tax credits? This is going to cut into all of those gas taxes states have imposed. There should be a tax penalty. I call it the Do-gooder-environmentalist liberal luxury tax (tm). Liberals love taxes, they won't mind.

  20. Just to point out by geekoid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The auto industry licenses technology from each other all the time. Not really a big deal. A much bigger deal is that many of the hybrid don't get the effiency they claim.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Just to point out by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

      Also to point out that many hybrids do get the efficiency they claim.

      Chalk it up to environmental differences (altitude, humidity, temperature) and driver training (behavior and patterns).

    2. Re:Just to point out by Akaihiryuu · · Score: 1

      No kidding...I have a 2004 Prius, and I'm averaging about 55mpg right now, mostly highway. I've actually gotten the average up over 60 before, but it's hard to keep it there if you have to go on the highway.

    3. Re:Just to point out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just drove 262 miles down Hwy 99/I-5 into LA and got 60.1 mpg in my 2003 Prius. It all depends on how you drive. I have hurried down the same path and only gotten 47 mpg. Just like Jimmy Carter taught us: speed wastes gas.

    4. Re:Just to point out by franoculator · · Score: 1

      You're right. I have a 2002 prius, and I get better mpg than toyota suggests. If you don't drive like a 16 yr old kid with jackrabbit starts and fast stops, the prius can easily surpass 50 mpg in town, and 45-48 mpg on the highway.

    5. Re:Just to point out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's you?! Please stay to the right, for both our sakes ;)

    6. Re:Just to point out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly! If you go to Ford's site, they say that the EPA rating will be 35 mpg.

      Then, they say that the 15 gallon tank should get you just over 400 miles. Do the math. That comes out to 27 and maybe a little extra. Well, the 4 cylinder 2wd gets 29 on the highway, and 24 in the city. Average that out, and you're in the same ballpark. There's no 35 mpg. It's a scam, and it's about time the public knows about it. The EPA has pulled the wool over people's eyes long enough. It's a a big shit sandwich, and the treehuggers think they're accomplishing a big deal. Just imagine what happens to all of that battery acid, lead plating, and other crap. It's horrible, and it doesn't get any better gas mileage. What are people thinking?

  21. Not to start a political discussion but ... by krygny · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ... I heard John Kerry today made a point announcing the Kerry's and Edwards' families are on the waiting list for the Escape. That should make up for all the fuel burned by the yacht, private plane, SUVs, and mansions.

    --
    Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
    1. Re:Not to start a political discussion but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mansions use fuel?

    2. Re:Not to start a political discussion but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He may be full of a lot of hot air, but it still requires some sort of fossil fuel to heat a mansion in New England (heating oil, gas, etc.).

    3. Re:Not to start a political discussion but ... by ejaw5 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Few months ago when the gas prices started shooting up, I saw a news report of Kerry's and Bush's solution to the high gas prices:

      Kerry: we need to look into alternate fuel sources
      Bush: we need to explore Alaska for more oil services.

      I'm not making this up ...hope this doesn't fuel a flamewar.

      --

      $cat /dev/random > Sig
    4. Re:Not to start a political discussion but ... by gnuman99 · · Score: 1
      He may be full of a lot of hot air, but it still requires some sort of fossil fuel to heat a mansion in New England (heating oil, gas, etc.).

      Ever heard of geothermal heating? Works here (central Canada) and it gets 40 below in winter. Works even better for cooling in summer. Just switch the heat pump the other way :)

    5. Re:Not to start a political discussion but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bush is more practical and Kerry is a bullshit artist. The fact is there is no efficient replacement for gas/diesel.

      Now hybrids look promising but so far no study has been made of their complete efficiency. That is what is the real MPG over the lifetime of the vehicle? How much energy is required to build, dispose of and replace the batteries?

      The only glimmer of hope (read long shot) to solve the world's energy demands would be nuclear fusion.

    6. Re:Not to start a political discussion but ... by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Funny

      More like:

      Kerry: We need to talk to our friends and allies in OPEC
      Bush: We need to talk to our friends and allies in OPEC

    7. Re:Not to start a political discussion but ... by Dumbush · · Score: 1

      umm... for a starter, maybe you need to get some eduation first...

    8. Re:Not to start a political discussion but ... by randyest · · Score: 2, Interesting

      eduation?!

      Are you kidding?

      No. You're not.

      Oh my.

      Wait, I'd expect this from an AC, but you're logged in.

      That's the most humiliating thing I've ever seen.

      Really.

      --
      everything in moderation
  22. Almost first from USA by ChozCunningham · · Score: 2, Informative
    Ford claims this is the first US Hybrid. Kudos for making a hybrid that looks lie a "real car".

    General Motors already had a hybrid truck available in the 2004 fleet division, and is releasing it in the public this year, as well. Or you can get a used 2004, but they are rare. Interestingly, the V8 Silverado uses it's motor and battery for idling and coasting, never to propel, so it works out as a trade off between the "fuller" hybrids, with about a 16% milage boost.

    1. Re:Almost first from USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note the GM is a "Mild Hybrid" - it can not self propel on electric power.

      It just powers the electrics in the truck when it would otherwise idle, resulting in the minuscule (1-2mpg) savings.

      But it does operate as a pretty cool generator - you can plug a whole lot into it (I've seen both 4.8 and 18.8 KW numbers in different reviews. The 1st seems more likely)

    2. Re:Almost first from USA by hawaiian717 · · Score: 1
      Kudos for making a hybrid that looks lie a "real car".

      I think the Honda Civic Hybrid looks like a real car.

      --
      End of Line.
    3. Re:Almost first from USA by qintar · · Score: 1

      Ya. I drive a Civic Hybrid and always feel a little cheated whenever people talk about the Prius as if it were the only thing out there...

      Perhaps if Honda gave it a freaky-weird dash or goofy, space-wasting body style, people'd notice it more - but as it is, the only difference from the outside observer is the center-mount antenna and the word "Hybrid" on the back.

    4. Re:Almost first from USA by York+the+Mysterious · · Score: 1

      I wish Honda would make a hatch back (not like the old Civic hatches) hybrid like the Prius. I'm a Honda guy and I'm looking to give up my Integra in 3-4 years. I absolutely love having a hatch back. You have the small car size, but the big cargo room of a larger vehicle. I've taken out the back seats (5 minutes) and put plywood in the thing and it's 2 door. While a lot of people think the Prius is weird looking in it's latest incarnation (the 1st gen was really strange) I think the hatch design is really functional to allow such a small car to carry a large amount of cargo.

      --

      Tim Smith - Ramblings from Nerd Land
    5. Re:Almost first from USA by cft_128 · · Score: 1
      Probably because of the design philosophy differences:

      The Toyota uses the electric motor as the primary propulsion and then augments it with the gas engine as needed and has a SULEV rating.

      The Honda uses the gas engine as the primary propulsion and augments that with the electric motor as needed and has a ULEV rating. The first Honda hybrid, the Insight, always had to have the gas engine running leading some people to not consider it a 'true' hybrid further harming the reputation.

      --

      Underloved Movies and Pub Quiz: donotquestionme.org

  23. diesels get better MPG but burn a lot dirtier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    diesels get better MPG than these hybrids, but burn a lot dirtier than even gas engines.

    1. Re:diesels get better MPG but burn a lot dirtier by SnapShot · · Score: 1

      Please can someone explain this...

      If I go 50 miles on a gallon of diesel or 30 miles on a gallon of gasoline how is it that the diesel is dirtier? It's not like gasoline engines have a little filter that you empty out over your flower beds every 10,000 miles, is it?

      --
      Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
    2. Re:diesels get better MPG but burn a lot dirtier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Diesels run lean at low load. 3 way catalytic converters which convert NOx to N2 and O2 require stoichiometric mixtures and cannot operate correctly when lean.

    3. Re:diesels get better MPG but burn a lot dirtier by WOV · · Score: 1

      The diesel engines put out more emissions per gallon, due in part to generally not having a catalytic convertor, but also combusting at different temperatures - more soot, etc. CO2 you're ahead, but in terms of NOx, PM, and (possibly) SOx, you end up behind.

    4. Re:diesels get better MPG but burn a lot dirtier by WOV · · Score: 1

      What's their deal with SOx? Same? Better? Worse?

    5. Re:diesels get better MPG but burn a lot dirtier by SnapShot · · Score: 1

      Assume that, for the sake of easy math, the diesel is burning 2 gallons of fuel every 100 miles and the gasoline engine is burning 3 gallons of fuel in the same distance. Does this mean that, for the diesel to be "dirtier" it must produce 50% more NOx (nitros oxide ?) and ozone than the gasoline engine per mile driven? Does a diesel engine actually produce 50% more polutants per mile driven?

      --
      Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
    6. Re:diesels get better MPG but burn a lot dirtier by maidhc · · Score: 1

      The New Toyota Avensis D4D Diesel does 50+ MPG AND has a catalytic converter. Diesel cars also have far more torque than any comparable petrol making everyday driving easier with far less gear changes.

    7. Re:diesels get better MPG but burn a lot dirtier by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that it is the *kinds* of pollutants, not the amount that is at issue with diesels. Note that diesel fuel is at a different distillation "level" than gasoline ( I.E. gasoline is more "refined" ).

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
  24. Anyone see the MPG? by Barlo_Mung_42 · · Score: 1

    I'm not seeing it. They do cliam 400+ miles on a tank but they don't say how much the tank holds.

    1. Re:Anyone see the MPG? by genericacct · · Score: 3, Informative

      I've read elsewhere that it's in the 35mpg highway ballpark. here is an article stating they got anywhere from 39 to 60.

    2. Re:Anyone see the MPG? by nwbvt · · Score: 1

      60 miles per gallon? The civic hybrid gets around 50 so I really doubt that (unless they were just rolling downhill).

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    3. Re:Anyone see the MPG? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't you get the memo? Ford is really good at that! Running downhill that is.... nevermind.

      Disclaimer: I have a BMW Escape. Belongs to my wife =)

    4. Re:Anyone see the MPG? by Akaihiryuu · · Score: 1

      I have a 2004 Prius, and it does get 60mpg as long as the speeds are 45 or lower. Once you get on the highway it drops a bit, I've managed to average 55 with quite a bit of highway driving though (my drive to work is about 80% highway). I've gotten my average up over 60 before, but that's really hard to maintain. It's advertised as 60 city/51 highway/55 average though, and that's been VERY accurate for me. I doubt Ford's implementation in an SUV will be as efficient though.

  25. Scary article at the end of the submission.... by kemapa · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I'd just like to throw in my 2 cents on the article that is link to at the end of the slashdot story. I decided to browse it but then got pulled in and read the whole thing. Some of the comments made by the author were down right scary and heavy handed.

    She's right--it wasn't the intent. But that's because these weight limits generally predate the 1990s SUV craze that lured suburbanites out of their lighter sedans and minivans. It's the vehicles that have changed, not the law. These ordinances remain on the books and they're not obscure. They're clearly marked on signs in many California cities. In fact, three of L.A.'s affluent neighborhoods have the signs almost everywhere you look.

    The author is certainly correct that it is the SUVs that have changed, not the law. But what about slavery? Slavery used to be legal, and it was the people in America who changed and started believing slavery was wrong, not the law. So would the author be in favor of slavery back then because 'It's the people that have changed, not the law'. In my opinion laws in a democracy should change, to benefit the people living in the country. Just because a law is already a law does not make it sacred.

    I suspect the biggest impediment to enforcing these bans is political will--SUVs are wildly popular, and it will take brave city and state officials to challenge the right of residents to use their own streets.

    The author seems almost indignant that we have a democracy where popular things are allowed to exist. If America were a dictatorship, the author could show all those stupid SUV driving pricks a thing or two without fear of losing the next election! Stupid democracy! How elitist.

    Six-thousand pounds does the same damage to roads (not to mention pedestrians) that it did before the SUV craze. I don't know about your state, but California's ongoing budget crisis doesn't exactly leave cash to burn for road repair.

    Maybe California wouldn't be in a budget crisis if it didn't spend so much money on big government regulating everything? But sure, spend more money on regulating SUVs out of existence, which may end up costing more than letting them 'ruin' the roads and just fixing them.

    For vehicles over 6K, classify them as trucks, pure and simple. Let their drivers use more gas, roll over more often if they want, and take tax breaks. And ban them from residential streets. Make them stick to the truck routes, including truck lanes on highways. (Heck, maybe even require a truck driver's license to pilot one.)

    This comment is totally elitist, totalitarianistic, and harsh. How about rather than regulating everything you don't like out of existence, just leave me alone? If I want to drive a vehicle that has a higher risk of rolling over, then LET ME. Why do you care if I kill myself? I know what is best for me better than you know what is best for me.

    I think the Golden State has stumbled on a way to end this hypocrisy, and the rest of the country should take notice.

    I think this is a good comment to end my own comment on. Go ahead, golden state, end your hipocrisy all you want, but I doubt the rest of the nation is going to take notice. Most of us still live in common-sense-ville, thank goodness.

    1. Re:Scary article at the end of the submission.... by sydney094 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm loathe to reply to anything that equates traffic weight laws to slavery, but here goes...

      Opinionated as that article may be, there is a good point. No one is saying get rid of SUVs. But they do cause greater damage to roads than a smaller car, and as such they should have to compensate for that somehow... whether that be by not driving on those streets or by paying a higher tax.

      You can't have your cake and eat it too... either take the tax cut, and avoid driving by my already pot-holed street or pay for the extra up keep.

      --
      "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research." - Einstein
    2. Re:Scary article at the end of the submission.... by WOV · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have to say, as a (very new) rescue technician and EMT, that it's not just your decision to drive that SUV - because you're driving it in a community full of other people.

      It's when you're riding 60 mph in a 25,000 lb truck, the wrong way down the Beltway, in order to shove yourself through shattered glass and twisted metal and jaws-of-life some blood-spattered libertarian out from under his dashboard (and bag up the kids in the Focus that he killed,) that you begin to wish that people had actually read the Wealth of Nations all the way through to the end, where the caveats are.

      Economic decisions don't occur in a vacuum, and we don't usually have (or have the money to get) enough data to fuel the marketplace appropriately, (e.g. I am happy to wake up and go do the above, but I sure would like some extra cash into the firehouse for every Expedition in our first-due area, because man do they make a lot more work,) so we make laws. All together - ideally, a democracy lets us generally agree on the solutions to problems the marketplace can't get a handle on.

      Too much of this "let every individual decide" BS is really based on faith statements...

      Now, post-rant, clearly this is just a misfired law; the problem is, when you go to make truck routes so that they don't, e.g., run through elementary schools, cul-de-sacs and nursing homes, that it's hard to get a handle on what is and isn't a truck. So they went for weight - which is a pretty good proxy for danger to others, noise, and road damage, the things that we as a society were really hoping to minimize the cost of.

    3. Re:Scary article at the end of the submission.... by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The author is certainly correct that it is the SUVs that have changed, not the law. But what about slavery? Slavery used to be legal, and it was the people in America who changed and started believing slavery was wrong, not the law. So would the author be in favor of slavery back then because 'It's the people that have changed, not the law'. In my opinion laws in a democracy should change, to benefit the people living in the country. Just because a law is already a law does not make it sacred.

      Sorry, the laws of physics are somewhat sacred, and don't change over time. 6000 lbs. 50 years ago is the same as 6000 lbs. now, and is still doing more damage to the roads than a 2500 lb car. The only way to rectify this is for SUVs to lose weight, or for residential roads to be built to handle that weight. Morons like you apparently want the largest vehicle possible, so if we're going to go with option #2, then someone needs to pay for it. Since you're the one with the huge vehicle, why don't you pay for it through higher taxes, instead of getting a tax break. I don't see why I should subsidize your penis extension.

      This comment is totally elitist, totalitarianistic, and harsh. How about rather than regulating everything you don't like out of existence, just leave me alone? If I want to drive a vehicle that has a higher risk of rolling over, then LET ME. Why do you care if I kill myself? I know what is best for me better than you know what is best for me.

      Because when your overweight vehicle hits me because you were too busy talking on the phone and screaming at the kids to pay attention to the road, I'm the one who will die. It's called living in a civilization: actions you take will affect other people. Because some people are too stupid to take responsibility for their own actions, government has to step in and regulate their behavior.

    4. Re:Scary article at the end of the submission.... by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

      The author seems almost indignant that we have a democracy where popular things are allowed to exist. If America were a dictatorship, the author could show all those stupid SUV driving pricks a thing or two without fear of losing the next election! Stupid democracy! How elitist.

      I think the point is that the popular thing to do isn't nessecarily the right thing. There were a lot of people in the South about 150 years ago, who though owning people was o.k. and they were in a democracy.

      If I want to drive a vehicle that has a higher risk of rolling over, then LET ME. Why do you care if I kill myself? I know what is best for me better than you know what is best for me.

      Yes, you are correct, but if the vehicle you are driving is abnormally dangerous to ME, then I can use your argument, too. Your argument is just as valid for either viewpoint, unless you are being hypocritical.

      --

      HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    5. Re:Scary article at the end of the submission.... by SydShamino · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm amazed how you quoted parts of the article to completely misinterpret the meaning, while advancing your own agenda. Here is the core of his argument:

      It's no accident the automakers churn out so many SUVs that break the 6K barrier. By doing so, these "trucks" (and that's how they're classified by the U.S. Department of Transportation) qualify for a huge federal tax break. If you claim you use a 3-ton truck exclusively for work, you can write it off immediately. All of it. Up to $100,000 (in fact, Congress raised the limit from $25,000 just last year). Heavy SUVs qualify for similar state tax breaks in California (up to $25,000) and elsewhere. These vehicles are also exempt from the federal "gas guzzler tax" because they're trucks. (And you probably know that many SUVs are exempt from the tougher gas mileage and safety standards of cars because they're classified as trucks, but that's another story.)

      Tax advisers actually warn their clients to make sure they buy vehicles that are heavy enough to qualify for the tax breaks. Some offer helpful lists of which SUVs will tip the IRS's scales.

      (California's Legislative Analyst's Office estimates the average L.A. driver pays $700 a year in vehicle repairs because of crummy roads.) Yet despite the increased road wear their vehicles cause, heavy SUV owners can take tax breaks that mean they pony up much less to the tax system that funds street maintenance.

      As it stands now, big-SUV drivers have it both ways: They use their trucklike status when it benefits them, yet they ignore the more onerous restrictions that "real" truck drivers face.

      So you can buy a monster truck/SUV if you want to, no problem, but you damn well better pay the same taxes I do to buy a vehicle, and you damn well better pay far, far more toward road repair than I do. And that is the common sense that most people seem to lack.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    6. Re:Scary article at the end of the submission.... by dameron · · Score: 1
      The signs are there for a reason. Apparently at some point the elected official in part of the L.A. area decided to prohibit vehicles over 6000 lbs. from using residential streets.

      Just because lawbreaking becomes popular doesn't mean that it should be ignored. Lots of people driving SUVs and their proliferation doesn't make the reasons for these bans go away.

      >>For vehicles over 6K, classify them as trucks, pure and simple. Let their drivers use more gas, roll over more often if they want, and take tax breaks. And ban them from residential streets. Make them stick to the truck routes, including truck lanes on highways. (Heck, maybe even require a truck driver's license to pilot one.)

      >This comment is totally elitist, totalitarianistic, and harsh. How about rather than regulating everything you don't like out of existence, just leave me alone? If I want to drive a vehicle that has a higher risk of rolling over, then LET ME. Why do you care if I kill myself? I know what is best for me better than you know what is best for me.


      Someone at some point decided driving a 3+ ton truck required a special set of credentials. If it rolls like a truck and crushes cars like a truck it's a truck. Why do I care if you kill yourself? Well, if you're in an Expedition and you go enough damage to that monster of a machine to kill yourself, the chances of you doing no damage to anyone else or their property are pretty damn small. I could care if you drove your SUV off a cliff right into a recycling compactor, but you're much more likely to plough into my compact and much more likely to kill someone in an accident that I am.


      -dameron

    7. Re:Scary article at the end of the submission.... by chill · · Score: 1

      Yes, you are correct, but if the vehicle you are driving is abnormally dangerous to ME, then I can use your argument, too. Your argument is just as valid for either viewpoint, unless you are being hypocritical.

      "Normal" means "average", or, what everyone else is doing. Considering SUVs and big vehicles are so popular, they can be considered close to average and thus "normal". Ergo, they are not "abnormally dangerous" to you. It is all the small care that are "abnormally non-dangerous". :-)

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    8. Re:Scary article at the end of the submission.... by oevren · · Score: 2, Insightful
      For vehicles over 6K, classify them as trucks, pure and simple. Let their drivers use more gas, roll over more often if they want, and take tax breaks. And ban them from residential streets. Make them stick to the truck routes, including truck lanes on highways. (Heck, maybe even require a truck driver's license to pilot one.)

      This comment is totally elitist, totalitarianistic, and harsh. How about rather than regulating everything you don't like out of existence, just leave me alone? If I want to drive a vehicle that has a higher risk of rolling over, then LET ME. Why do you care if I kill myself? I know what is best for me better than you know what is best for me.

      Because when you roll over, there is a good chance that you'll land on somebody else. What's worse, you'll end up causing a huge traffic jam. I don't care whether you want to kill yourself or not, I just don't want to be there to suffer the consequences of *your* actions.

      Feel free to do whatever you'd like to do to yourself as long as you don't affect other people.

      --
      I love deadlines. I love the whooshing noise they make as they go by. --Douglas Adams
    9. Re:Scary article at the end of the submission.... by imaginate · · Score: 1

      Umm... what the article was commenting on was the fact that SUVs *cost* the gov't more money because of the wear and tear on roads, yet people are encouraged to buy them with tax breaks that decrease the amount the gov't gets to pay for their burden.

      You seem to be trying to fit this into an anti-government intervention attitude when the main body of the article never involves an increase in regulation. It is merely pointing out the contradiction in current regulations, contradictions that could be changed without any need for new regulations. If anything, if you are trying to argue the libertarian point, you could recognize that the current regulations are causing the burden of these vehicles on the state's infrastructure to be shouldered disproportionately by the people that *don't* own them. I would think that the libertarian view would be that a real estate agent shouldn't be exempt from taxes that others pay just because he/she drives something categorized as a truck. And I really wouldn't think a libertarian or conservative would buy it when that truck is causing a greater strain on a public infrastructure that we all pay for. The current situtation is an allowance for certain people to take from others, forcing non-SUV owners to dole out money for road work they don't even cause.

      Personally, I don't mind if people want to have SUVs so long as they are willing to step up and pay for their whole cost to society. You're right, people *should* be allowed to do what they want, kill themselves if they want, but only if they're not taking from everyone else to do it.

    10. Re:Scary article at the end of the submission.... by TiggertheMad · · Score: 1

      Again, simply because SUVs are popular and non-dangerous to each other (which isn't true...I'll get to that) doesn't mean that you have a right to endanger other people. I addressed this before. Popular != Right.

      For example, If I chose to drive a car that had whirling sawblades on the side, it may only be a menace to pedestrians, but nobody would agree that I had a right to drive it. This example is a ludicris extreme, but it makes the point.

      It's also not true that driving an SUV is safer for you. Everyone else starts diving SUVs for the same reason, and the mass advantage is quickly offset when a SUV vs. SUV collision occurs. Moreover, since a SUV fram isn't massivly more reinforced when compaired to a car's, more force of impact will be applied to a similar structure, and result in more severe damage. (Disclaimer: I am not a automotive engineer, but if you can prove me wrong with evidence contrary, please do so.)

      --

      HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
    11. Re:Scary article at the end of the submission.... by Inebrius · · Score: 1

      At 36.4 cents a mile in taxes, with much lower miles per gallon, large SUVs are paying their share of damage to the road. They may even be paying part of your share as well.

    12. Re:Scary article at the end of the submission.... by Inebrius · · Score: 1

      -Edit 36.4 cents a gallon-

    13. Re:Scary article at the end of the submission.... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Sorry, not when they're letting people write off $100,000 on their income taxes. Fuel taxes alone do not come close to paying for highway and road maintenance costs in this country.

    14. Re:Scary article at the end of the submission.... by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >some blood-spattered libertarian

      I know you mean well, but you destroy your credibility when you make statements like that.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    15. Re:Scary article at the end of the submission.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh, road tax (or road use tax) generally comes out of the fuel usage; you're taxed at the gas pump. My 1993 coupe has a GVWR under 3000 lbs, and gets better than 30 mpg. These behemoths require more power to move them at the same rate as most other vehicles out there, which requires more fuel (to the tune of 12 mpg for most full-size SUVs). So yes, in practice, they are paying more than someone like myself for road repair.

      If the gas-tax is incapable of covering the costs to repair the roads, then it's the problem of the state legislature. The system can work, the logistics are in place. Hopefully your state is more proactive than reactive in such matters, and is forseeing the potential damage caused by the climbing average vehicular mass.

    16. Re:Scary article at the end of the submission.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      These behemoths require more power to move them at the same rate as most other vehicles out there, which requires more fuel (to the tune of 12 mpg for most full-size SUVs). So yes, in practice, they are paying more than someone like myself for road repair.

      Damage to the road is a function of the square of the axle weight of the vehicle. If a 3000 pound car causes $4 in damage to the road, a 6000 pound SUV causes $16 in damage, yet it uses only twice as much gas. SUV drivers are not paying anywhere close to their fair share in road repairs.

    17. Re:Scary article at the end of the submission.... by randyest · · Score: 1

      Wait -- what?!

      You are either utterly full of shit or my new best friend.

      Please tell me how someone "writes off" $100k on their income taxes by buying an SUX^HV.

      This, BTW, is the first time I've even vaguely considered for a second buying an SUV. But about half of -$100k would help me out a lot (just now trying to finish taxes before 8/15 deadline, and it's ugly.)

      You better have details. And it better not include me having to buy a $1M vehicle to do it.

      I'm waiting -- start typing!

      --
      everything in moderation
    18. Re:Scary article at the end of the submission.... by randyest · · Score: 1

      The force on the road is proportional to the mass of the vehicle (and the axles simply divide this force, assuming a balanced vehicle) so I don't see how damage would vary with the square of the mass (again, axles dividing, but this is simply an irrelevant coefficient.)

      I'm sure you'll enlighten me as to how this quadratic relationship arises.

      I'm waiting.

      --
      everything in moderation
    19. Re:Scary article at the end of the submission.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Not like making a patronizing and otherwise content-free statement does.


      I know you mean well, but go read some Jonathan Swift; then I'll give you a temporary engineers' certification to comment on others' satire.

    20. Re:Scary article at the end of the submission.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to lessen your point, but SUVs generally get in single-vehicle accidents, due to rolling over or hitting trees or the like. This is because of their lack of maneuverability.

  26. Hybrids can use HOV lane by morcheeba · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In virginia, a hybrid with only one passenger can use an HOV lane (more details) -- that means a hybrid suv can use the lane even when my car is more fuel efficient. We'll see what happens in two years when the rule comes up for renewal and its folly will look a little worse when hybrid != execellent gas milage.

    1. Re:Hybrids can use HOV lane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Oregon they want license fees for Hybids to go up because they will not generate the fuel tax incomes of petroleum bases cars.........
      yes, we are liberal buttheads our here.

    2. Re:Hybrids can use HOV lane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      In Oregon they want license fees for Hybids to go up because they will not generate the fuel tax incomes of petroleum bases cars.........
      yes, we are liberal buttheads our here.

      I, for one, bow down to our liberal butthead overlords!

      (In other words, JOHN KERRY FOR PRESIDENT!)

    3. Re:Hybrids can use HOV lane by rokzy · · Score: 1

      omfg that's the most retarded thing ever.

      if you recycle do you get a "damaging manufacturing industry tax"?

    4. Re:Hybrids can use HOV lane by plasm4 · · Score: 1

      Is it only in California that they are called carpool lanes?

      This is something I've been longing to know.

    5. Re:Hybrids can use HOV lane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dodge should start including a small electric motor with the Cummins (?) diesel trucks, so they can get wicked sports car acceleration, a pair of tax breaks, and drive in the HOV lane. mwuhahahahaha

  27. If it wasn't street legal... by Chiisu · · Score: 1

    what would be the point?

    And why did they choose to go w/ 1st-gen technology instead of 2nd?

    1. Re:If it wasn't street legal... by slashrogue · · Score: 1

      Ah, young grasshopper. The "street legal" article linked to should be read before you post such silly quips. The Slate article is referring to the fact that many SUVs break the 6,000 pound barrier which makes them "heavy" trucks, and thus would be barred from a lot of roads (in CA at least). Of course this law is universally unenforced against SUV drivers, just people that drive trucks. It must be nice to get a tax break and break the law and not get in trouble for it all at the same time.

    2. Re:If it wasn't street legal... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Because it's Ford, where innovation is something that they let other people do.

      Note that the same is true for pretty well all of the American car companies.

      Now, each of them has a skunk works group that turns out some bad ass hardware, but the run of the mill vehicles are all (repeat ALL) 1970's vintage crap.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    3. Re:If it wasn't street legal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That article doesn't tell the whole story. There are loads of exemptions for the weight limit laws.

      Just think about it - would they intentionlly not allow FedEx, UPS, most of the U.S. Mail vans, the milkman, and Moving Vans?

      Most of those limits have expemtions for needing to go to a house on the otherwise banned street.

  28. 30 Posts... by SnapShot · · Score: 3, Informative

    About 30 posts and no one has mentioned the Slate article. That had to be the funniest thing I've read in a while.

    To summarize, residential neighborhoods in California (many places actually, but the author was in California) have inadvertently forbidden large SUV's from driving down thier roads because the SUV exceeds the gross weight limit (6000lbs) that defines a truck.

    Now I'm just waiting for a politician with the conjones to enforce this law.

    I'll be waiting a very, very, very long time...

    --
    Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
    1. Re:30 Posts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. A de fact violation of the law doesn't mean it's going to be enforced.

      I doubt they will do anything, if they do something at all, until the SUV craze dies down. There is some indication people are sick of SUVs (I hate them not because of gas guzzling, but because people don't know how to drive them, worsened by the fact that many times, they block other drivers views knowingly), but not enough to tip the scales. Plus, many other de facto law violations pertaining to driving are not enforced or bothered with, e.g. turn signal, speeding, jake brake use, etc.

    2. Re:30 Posts... by Sparr0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      i never made the connection here either. im going to start calling the cops when i see the big SUVs on those streets. we have some of them here in TN too, and I dont see it as any different from calling in a noise complaint.

    3. Re:30 Posts... by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the most important part of the story is that people are trying to play both ends against the middle. On one hand, they're buying vehicles over 6000lbs ON PURPOSE for the tax break. When they're told that they can't drive a vehicle that large on the road, they claim that the gross weight may vary by a bit, and their vehicle is just slightly UNDER 6000lbs. So, the people that do the MOST damage to the roads are getting a tax break for it!

      That's just wrong. If I lived in the states I'd be furious. As it is, I'm pretty aghast at it.

    4. Re:30 Posts... by DrCode · · Score: 1

      I live in the states, and the SUV craze is one of the stupidest things I could have imagined, perhaps because I lived through the recurring gas shortages in the 70's.

    5. Re:30 Posts... by upsidedown_duck · · Score: 4, Insightful


      There's something wrong with a 160lb person (average) driving a vehicle for day-to-day use that weighs almost 40 times more than they do, unless they are doing so to earn a living (delivery truck, dump truck, etc.). Think about it: this is 6000lbs of raw metal and technology just to haul their lazy ass around town, when a decent sedan is well under 4000lbs and often under 3000lbs.

      --
      -- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
    6. Re:30 Posts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which slate article?

    7. Re:30 Posts... by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Screw 4000lb sedans, most people need nothing more than a Smart car, or at the most, a Hyundai Accent (~2300lbs). They get along fine in Europe like that, anyway.

      Hell, lots of people could use a freaking bicycle, and it would have the benefit of making their fat asses a little less fat!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    8. Re:30 Posts... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      He'd need very big cojones indeed, since politicians don't enforce laws. So he'd have to be some sort of vigilante or superhero or something.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    9. Re:30 Posts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who's travelled Highway 101 through California knows of King City. It lies in infamy as the small town between SF and LA, where no one ever wishes to return, where the local law enforcement has set up a lucrative, revenue-generating speed trap.

      Officers of the tourist towns would do well to capitalize on the 6000 lb. limit enforcement. Places like Monterey (during the big races at Laguna Seca) or Sonoma (get a few of those winos driving the big SUVs). An officer could use the sme argument they use for catching speeders when they are without a radar gun: "trained estimate".

      As the California state legislature tightens its belt, funding to the small towns, especially to the law enforcement officers, will be greatly reduced. I take no issue with the local law enforcement divisions from cashing in on this potential revenue stream. After all, the law was on the books years before the GVWR of modern SUVs got anywhere near the 6000 lb limit.

    10. Re:30 Posts... by jbnite · · Score: 1

      It seems the article on Slate was very misleading... The links to the vehicles weight ratings showed specified the GVRW (gross vehicle weight rating) as being over 6000 lb's, which is true, but not what the road sign's are referring to. The weight on the signage pictured prohibits the ACTUAL weight of a vehicle to be over 6000 lb's. This is not the case, take for instance the first link in the article, scroll to the Performance Section of the Chevy Suburban's specs... http://www.autoweb.com/content/research/vir/index. cfm/vehicle_number_int/1015219/Action/StandardFeat ures This vehicles Curb Weight is 5268 lb's, the GVRW is 7000 lb's, and the max vehicle weight is 7000 as well. Since Curb Weight is dry weight, the empty vehicle without gear or people. That means you can load 1731 lb's of people and stuff and still be under the limit. In that case the 6000 weight rating doesnt seem much of an issue for *most* of these trucks and SUV's, since most people use them for daily driver anyways. Let alone the fact that the police would have to get some kind of scale to determine the weights of vehicles on residential streets like is done on highways with semi's. Other Vehicles Mentioned which this doesnt apply to: Cadillac Escalade: http://www.autoweb.com/content/research/vir/index. cfm/vehicle_number_int/1015393/Action/StandardFeat ures BMW X5: http://www.autoweb.com/content/research/vir/index. cfm/vehicle_number_int/1014503/Action/StandardFeat ures

    11. Re:30 Posts... by molo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Neat article. Inspried me to check my locality. Palo Alto, CA has a 7-ton "truck" classification. Maybe I can at least get the busses off my street then. Oh well.

      -molo

      --
      Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
    12. Re:30 Posts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      There's something wrong with a 160lb person (average) driving a vehicle for day-to-day use that weighs almost 40 times more than they do, unless they are doing so to earn a living (delivery truck, dump truck, etc.). Think about it: this is 6000lbs of raw metal and technology just to haul their lazy ass around town, when a decent sedan is well under 4000lbs and often under 3000lbs.

      ...and a decent bicycle is about 25 lbs. That's what I use to get around town when I'm alone and not carrying cargo.

    13. Re:30 Posts... by germinatoras · · Score: 1

      Do you mean mass-trasit busses? If you get those off your street, you might just end up with many more cars/SUVs to deal with. (people who would've taken the bus now have to drive)

    14. Re:30 Posts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but it's america. Convenience and self-indulgence first, to the exclusion and detriment of anything else.

      Me, I just got rid of my car and moved into the city. People ask how I can do it - the taxes are higher (Philadelphia wage taxes) and I have to ride a bus to work. I like walking places, as it turns out, the bus isn't that bad, and the added taxes and bus fare are actually less cheaper than the insurance, maintenance, and gas on my car. Plus, I can stagger home from a bar without endangering anyone else, or myself beyond bumping into stuff.

      I watch people driving to and from where I work, and lots of them have SUVs and few of them have more than a single passenger when they arrive or depart. It's sad. We'll destroy the world and/or run out of oil in the next 50 or so years all so people can tool around in oversized cars.

    15. Re:30 Posts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use a bicycle every day (my workplace is 7 miles away).

      This does keep me in shape, but there is a significant risk of being splattered onto the pavement by some middle aged lady driving a monster SUV with a Kerry-Edwards bumper sticker. I have already had two very close calls during the last year. So during the next several months, I plan to (1) get myself a used Civic and (2) vote for GWB.

    16. Re:30 Posts... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Be careful about staggering home from the bar; you could still accidentally stagger into the street and get hit by a 6000lb SUV that can't stop in time due to its vast inertia.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    17. Re:30 Posts... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I typically worry about the bible-thumpers driving monster SUVs and pickup trucks with Bush-Cheney bumper stickers myself. Luckily, I already have a new Hyundai Accent, so I don't need a Civic.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    18. Re:30 Posts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They get along fine in Europe like that, anyway.

      Yes, but the average European is 1/4 to 1/3 the size of the average American.

      Hell, lots of people could use a freaking bicycle

      They are using bicycles. It's just that they had to reinforce the bicycles a bit so they could support an American. That's where SUVs come from.

    19. Re:30 Posts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong,
      The 179 Section deduction DOES NOT REQUIRE A VEHICLE TO WEIGH 6000 lbs. It does require the vehicle to be CAPABLE of adding people and equipment, which, when totaled with the vehicles weight, can exceed 6000 lbs.

      Many of the examples listed in the article CAN be loaded and exceed 6000 Lbs, but are far under that number on the typical drive. We are not talking just a few pounds under, many are more than 1-2 thousand pounds under a 6000lbs gross wieght. It's when you load up 6 250lb adults in that expedition, along with the luggage, that you hit the 6000lbs plus GVWR.

      There is no magical tax break for a 6000lbs vehicle, there IS an acclerated depreciation schedule that small businesses can use to calculate depreciation.

      It's not like getting a check back from the IRS simply becuase you choose the right car. It has to be used for Small Business to even qualify, and you have to pay enough in taxes to make the depreciation meaningful for your tax year.

      It's still subject to exemptions for the percentage of personal use, (which guts the article's principal compaint, personal use on personal streets) so most folks are only able to use 60-80% of the calculated deduction anyway. No free lunch here. And as with most deductions, you have to pay enough in taxes to even start taking the deduction. So they've paid MORE in taxes to start with. . .

      The other silly arguement in the article is that "the people who do the most damage to the roads are getting a tax break for it!"

      Wrong again,
      Vehicle registration, Fees, and Insurance are most often calculated on Type, Class and, you guessed it, weight. So the people driving a heavier vehicle are ALREADY paying more for road upkeep and road building.

      Plus these vehicles typically consume more gas, so again, they pay more in Highway and Road taxes on the fuel they purchase. So they have just as much of a "right" to the road as the prius driver. . .

      The author simply doesn't like SUV's and wants to treat them as second class while he feels smug about his underweight car. Typical crap journalist bias and anti SUV spew. . .

    20. Re:30 Posts... by molo · · Score: 1

      Actually, yes. The thing is, they don't stop on our street. They stop two streets over in a business district. If they continued on the business district instead of this residential street (to get to the same cross street), it would be much quieter, and wouldn't effect the route since there is no stop here. I wouldn't want them to move the bus stop, just change the preferred route to keep to the business district at 6am and not wake us up.

      So, I would agree, busses in general can be a good thing. But driving through a residential neighborhood at 6am for no good reason is not.

      -molo

      --
      Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
    21. Re:30 Posts... by upsidedown_duck · · Score: 1

      ...and a decent bicycle is about 25 lbs.

      Yes, and bicycles are perfect when they can be used safely. However, so many places are just not designed with bicycles in mind, and a person would be risking their life riding on those roads (e.g., 5 or 6 narrow lanes, 45+mph speeds, big trucks, etc.)

      --
      -- "Makes Little Debbie look like a pile of puke!" - Moe Szyslak
    22. Re:30 Posts... by HRH+King+Lerxst · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's going to work for my 30 mile each way commute, when it's 95+ degrees outside for the ride home.

      Hell, I used to _race_ bicycles in college and I still wouldn't attempt to commute to my job.

      --
      No one got beat up more often than the mimes of the old west!
    23. Re:30 Posts... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      There's nothing stopping you from living closer to your job (or conversely working closer to your home).

      Also, it's not stopping you from getting a Smart car or an Accent -- those do have air conditioning, doncha know!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    24. Re:30 Posts... by HRH+King+Lerxst · · Score: 1

      I am the sole wage earner for my 4 (and soon to be 5) person household. I could live closer to work, but then I would be farther away from family, and would likely have to pay more for a house than I do now. I could get another job, but then I would have to find one that allows me to earn the same amount and have equitable benefits, with a like amount of job security.

      I could drive an Accent, but I already drive an Elantra, which is about the smallest car that will work for our family. I'd really like to have a VW diesel, but I've owned VWs in the past, and their reliability was not up to par (particularly the electrics). Smart does not market cars where I live.

      My wife drives a minivan, which suits our needs, it's as heavy as many SUVs and get SUV-like mileage (~15mpg). It sucks but we need it to haul the kiddoes and their stuff.

      Just want to point out that not everybody can ride a bike, or drive an ultra small car to work.

      --
      No one got beat up more often than the mimes of the old west!
    25. Re:30 Posts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I realise that you're not associating "jake brakes" with SUVs, but that may not be clear to others. In fact, most folks may not even know what that means. So read here about jake-brakes.

  29. Good start, but you'll still be stuck in traffic. by Moderation+abuser · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The problem has to be re-thought entirely.

    I'm a big supporter of removing journeys entirely, put everything within walking distance. It's not practical to do on existing cities and would take decades.

    In the meantime the solution turns out to be a feature of the Information Revolution, as the Steam engine was a feature of the Industrial Revolution. The application of information technology to transport will solve many of the congestion and environmental problems.

    Personal Rapid Transport:

    http://www.cprt.org/

    A couple of PRT systems:

    http://www.skywebexpress.com/
    http://www.atsltd .co.uk/

    --
    Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
  30. Splendid! by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 1

    I'm sure it will do wonderfully on my 100 mile round trip commute.

  31. meh. by nobodyman · · Score: 1


    Wasn't there a story on slashdot a while back on how the mileage ratings for hybrid cars were a crock? I read a review of the Escape hybrid in USA Today and they weren't able to get better than 28 mpg highway, which is a whopping 3 mpg better than the non hybrid version.

    Hybrid technology may have room to grow, but escape is a ploy to seperate rich, stupid hippies from their money.

    1. Re:meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is a BAD thing?

    2. Re:meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... is a ploy to seperate rich, stupid hippies from their money.

      Which is a problem why? :)

    3. Re:meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now compare the emissions of your mythical non-hybrid 28mpg SUV to this Escape. Which one wins? Apparently non-stupid Alex Keatons like yourself have some learnin to do!

    4. Re:meh. by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

      Uh, hybrid's strengths are in the city.

      So DUH if they couldn't best highway mpg. On a highway they aren't using their eletric engine, they're essentially using the gas engine plus lugging an extra several hundred pounds of batteries and motors.

      The mileage ratings are only crocks if you drive like an idiot or suffer the misfortune of living in an extremely harsh environment, which is bad for ALL cars.

      Do a little more research on the matter. 36mpg in the city for a SUV (for any car) is outstanding.

    5. Re:meh. by getnate · · Score: 1

      Correct, mostly. However you failed to mention city driving. That is where the hybrids excell.

    6. Re:meh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hybrids are more useful for city milage than highway; stop-and-go, low speed. My '02 Escape 4x4 gets about 17mgp city, 18 highway. Most of my driving is city, community back and forth to work. Doubling my gas milage (they expect 35mpg city), would save me about $1000 a year in gas prices.

    7. Re:meh. by MikeCapone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Did the car reviewer also review the normal one they compared it to or just took the number from literature? I found that in pretty much ALL car reviews they get lower than sticker MPG because it's not their car and they drive it pedal to the floor and try to "test performance" instead of saving fuel.

      Then at the end of their run they calculate the MPG and, OH SURPRISE, it's fairly low.

    8. Re:meh. by nobodyman · · Score: 1

      Do a little more research on the matter. 36mpg in the city for a SUV (for any car) is outstanding.

      It would be outstanding if it were accurate, but it's not. Reviewers have not come close 36mpg city or highway (again, 28mpg is the best USA Today could do). It's just not a big enough jump in effeciency over the non-hybrid version to warrant the switch.

    9. Re:meh. by jbash · · Score: 1
      Hybrids milage on highways generally drops to that of conventional cars.

      Hybrids make a lot of their gains through regenerative braking. So they do really well in low speed, stop and go traffic. Want good mileage in a hybrid? Find a traffic jam.

      On the highway they have to burn energy to shove their way through the airstream, just like any other vehicle. Milage becomes more a matter of frontal area and aerodynamics.

      Sounds like the the Escape's a bit old school, regarding driveline and aerodynamics. But at least they're trying, and maybe some other SUVs will follow suit.

      Plus it's quite an improvement. The regular Escape gets like 20/25.

      If every SUV got that kind of improvement, it would represent a huge savings in fossil fuels. Especially considering that so much driving is stop-and-go.

    10. Re:meh. by Matimus · · Score: 1

      In theory a hybrid should get better milage when it is driving in the city than it does on the highway. The hybrid portion of the vehicle does most of its operation when at low speeds or while accelerating. For traveling long distances it should run approximately like any other vehicle since the assist motors aren't really doing any work. The only reason it gets a little better milage on the highway is probably because they were able to reduce the size of the engine due to the reduced torque demand on the engine. It doesn't need as much torque when accelerating because of the assits motors.

      So, while its true that you won't see a huge mileage increase for the highway, that really isn't a fair comparison because the highway isn't where hybrids are designed to excell.

      --
      GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
    11. Re:meh. by temojen · · Score: 1

      Hybrids are better at stop and go traffic than conventional vehicles. On highways they are usually only slightly better, or the same as they can't use regenerative braking.

      Hybrid technology may have room to grow, but escape is a ploy to seperate rich, stupid hippies from their money.

      Is anything in the US not a ploy to seperate rich, stupid people from their money? Smart people can't be bamboozled easily into a frivolous purchase, and poor people don't have money to be seperated from.

    12. Re:meh. by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

      You said 28mpg highway before, you know, and you keep mixing it with city!

      And to counter *your* anecdote, Ars reviewed the Honda Civic Hybrid, rated for 47mpg city and got 48mpg. It's rated for 48mpg highway and they can get 55mpg.

      How is one review better than the other? Only that careful driving and a good environment means hybrid electrics *can* meet the EPA guidelines.

    13. Re:meh. by Lours · · Score: 1

      Wasn't there a story on slashdot a while back on how the mileage ratings for hybrid cars were a crock? I read a review of the Escape hybrid in USA Today and they weren't able to get better than 28 mpg highway, which is a whopping 3 mpg better than the non hybrid version.

      And there's a physical reason behind this : no hybrid breaks the laws of thermodynamics. A hybrid uses a regular diesel engine to power the car and oil is the only energy source you have to put in.
      So in ideal conditions (highway, long distance, no breaking, no regime change) an hybrid can't do much better than a "regular" car because they both have (almost) the same engine and working conditions.

      However, hybrids are much more efficients than regular cars in city traffic and short distance runs. This because when not much power is needed the engine runs at its optimal torque (minimum consumption) (not exactly true but you get it) to provide the electric engines with power. Running at a (almost) constant rate is enormously more efficient than constantly changing regimes.
      Moreover, when breaking, part of the kinetic energy is converted back into electricty and fed to the batteries which reduces again the global consumption.

      But anyway, it's inherently innefficient energy-wise to use a 4 place car to travel short distances run. Moving one+ ton of steel just to transport one person most of the time is ridiculously innefficient. A bike, or a motorbike (if the distance is too long) would be much better.

  32. Strange dynamics here... by WOV · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A collection of thoughts I've developed watching the continuing hybrid saga:

    1. Within the American car manufacturers, there's some major problems; particularly, the sheer profitability of their SUVs is just daunting. For about the same marketing / sales / distribution / engineering / raw materials cost as they'd have to expend on your $20k Taurus, they can sell you a $30k+ SUV; it's as if they somehow stumbled onto a means of making suburban moms all buy mid-market luxury cars. Plus they can build it on marginally modified versions of their light truck lines...so don't expect American manufacturers to stop or slow down SUV manufacture anytime soon.

    2. That said, I think that Bill Ford is a not-kidding environmentalist. Some of their factories are really leading the way in terms of green building (article here), and he was a prime mover behind this (admittedly belated and somewhat slow) project. Ford has also become a lot more reasonable on climate and emissions issues over even just the past three years. I am a pretty active environmentalist, but I've always much preferred the "pat on the back" to the "too little too late" carping, so thank you, Ford, for giving us all the opportunity to insure ourselves a little better against future fuel supply, national security and global warming uncertainties.

    3. The political rhetoric surrounding SUVs on both sides is so disingenuous and heated that you'd think they were talking about guns. There's essentially two positions: 1. Every one of these light trucks is being used by a farmer or contractor, and any attempt to regulate fuel emissions back to, say, early 80's standards will annihilate small business in America and kill thousands of people because our cars will be too small. 2. Every one of these light trucks is being driven by a latte-slugging soccer mom, and unless we triple our CAFE standards in two years, we'll annihlate our economy, and kill thousands of people because our cars will be too big.

    4. People talk about fuel cell cars constantly, but here's the thing; a fuel cell car will have to be a highly streamlined, possibly drive-by-wire, light-body device with electronic drive components and regenerative brakes; you get there by developing hybrids, not by skipping them.

    5. This is one of those "we have to do it now, even though it won't matter for a while" problems; we have to get our transportation fuel economies up, but new cars alone won't do it. The reason? As cars have become less junky, we actually now turn over our automotive stock fairly slowly; in 2020, people will still be driving their 03s...as a result, incremental fuel economy standards have a sort of marginal impact in any given year.

    6. and final. You don't make your money back on a hybrid, even with the tax credits, but if Yukos gets slapped / the Venezuelan labor situation doesn't settle, that could change real quick...or, the other option, I've never understood why no one just started an all-hybrid cab company. The more miles you put in on one of these things, the better your ROI compared to a normal car, and you could even end up with a distinct brand that people would prefer, vs. current commoditized cabs.

    Just hoping to spur some discussion...

    1. Re:Strange dynamics here... by SnapShot · · Score: 1
      4. People talk about fuel cell cars constantly, but here's the thing; a fuel cell car will have to be a highly streamlined, possibly drive-by-wire, light-body device with electronic drive components and regenerative brakes; you get there by developing hybrids, not by skipping them.

      Particularly insightful comment. For my fellow environmentalists who are still carping about "how there's still a gas engine in those things", at least they are a step in the right direction.

      --
      Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
    2. Re:Strange dynamics here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      re point 3, we are nearly talking guns. With the increase in SUVs came a huge increase, nearly a doubling, of the death rate from traffic accidents, in 2 years. That does not included maming. And unlike guns, there is usually huge equipment damage included.

      This isn't a disingenuous argument either. It's common sense. What do you expect when you increase vehicle size (both in footprint and reduced views by those around it) yet roadways change and drivers feel they are just driving a big, elevated car? When you increase the mass, you increase the power of the impact on the receiving body. I'd much rather be rear ended by a Ford Taurus than a Ford Expedition any day. Apparently, you don't think this is valid talk.

      I've been threatened with a gun twice in my life. I've been threatened in the first 5 miles of my morning commute by SUV and dump truck drivers *every day*. I also live at the corner of an intersection that gets heavy traffic. Car versus car acccidents, police show up, people pull to the side of the road. Last 7 years, SUV versus car, fire and ambulance show, intersection is shut down and detours set up with SUVs.

      There is no argument. This is due to an escalation in vehicle size like people picking up the armaments. Before, a Ford Explorer was considered too big, big enough to protect your family. Now, people want at least a Lincoln Navigator.

    3. Re:Strange dynamics here... by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >For my fellow environmentalists who are still >carping about "how there's still a gas engine in
      >those things"

      It's worse than that. I had one who decided he
      had shut down the discussion by reminding me that
      even my bicycle requires petroleum lubricating oil.
      As if that is precisely equivalent to the millions of tons of fuel we use daily in our cars.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    4. Re:Strange dynamics here... by imaginate · · Score: 1

      Do you have a source for that doubling of fatalities? I'd love to see it (really, I'm not being disingenuous).

    5. Re:Strange dynamics here... by ksheff · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why not toughen emissions standards? The people that bitch and whine about that it would kill small business & farmers can just STFU. Those vehicles would still be available, one would just require them to be owned and tagged as commercial vehicles. Big deal. Farmer Brown doesn't own the machinery costing well in excess of $100K that he uses to operate his farm now. The little corporation that he set up does. The same goes for most small busineses. People that legitimately need them would still have them and the soccer moms can go back to their mini-vans or station wagons. The problem is that car companies are using an exemption that is supposed to be for commercial vehicles to sell lots of high margin vehicles (aka macho station wagons) for use as passenger vehicles even though they do not meet the safety standards.

      I would imagine that once a company builds a full-sized hybrid, then you might see some cab companies try them out. I guess it depends on your corner of the world, but I've never seen a taxi that was a small or mid-sized car.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    6. Re:Strange dynamics here... by kraut · · Score: 1

      3. I think you're missing the point. If it's a "light truck" it should be sold, taxed, regulated and used as a light truck, and not be sold, and used as a car, but taxed and regulated more leniently as a truck.

      Also, there is simply no good reason for people to drive humongous trucks as personal transport. I'm all for personal choice, but you should pay a fair price for it - my understanding is that the US has some skew in the tax system for SUVs.

      --
      no taxation without representation!
    7. Re:Strange dynamics here... by William+Tanksley · · Score: 1

      Me too. I hunted for quite a while to try to prove that SUVs were at risk for certain types of crashes (i.e. even though they're safer to run into small cars with, they might be riskier in rollovers) -- but the numbers I found, although not broken down by type of accident, clearly showed that the more massive your vehicle, the fewer passenger/driver fatalities per accident. So I had to give up -- my thesis might have been technically right, but the overall facts were in favor of the SUVs.

      If you're right, though, and I honestly find it hard to believe that you are, that's a whole new argument that I'd LOVE to have.

      -Billy

    8. Re:Strange dynamics here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check out the recent book "High and Mighty: SUVs, the World's Most Dangerous Vehicles and How They Got That Way" by New York Times editor Keith Bradsher. It has all the stats and studies you need right there, especially look at the "Kill Rates" chapter. Occupant death rates inside SUVs are higher than in sedans and minivans (due to their poor handling, truck-like design [no crumple zones], weak roof and accident-prone nature), and they kill the drivers they hit at alarming rates. Very, very good read.

    9. Re:Strange dynamics here... by Polo · · Score: 1

      I've never understood why no one just started an all-hybrid cab company.

      People are starting hybrid taxi companies:

      http://www.masshightech.com/displayarticledetail.a sp?art_id=66215&cat_id=165

    10. Re:Strange dynamics here... by saroth2 · · Score: 1

      Hydrogen also isn't just sitting around, it needs to be extracted from water. To extract hydrogen from water you need to use a process known as electrolysis (latin: to cut electronically, [not the hair removal procedure]) wikipedia this process splits the two hydrogen atoms from the one oxygen atom.
      Due to the first law of thermodynamics (Conservation of Energy) wikipedia, splitting the water molucule requires the same amount of energy that is gained by recombining it. So... hydrogen is not an energy source, it is simply a way of carrying energy, like a battery Wikipedia.

    11. Re:Strange dynamics here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ford has always been ahead of the game with hybrids, propane, natural gas, and ethanol cars. The upper midwest has been burning E85 fuel for the better part of 2 years. That's 85% ethanol, made locally from distilled grain alcohol and some gasoline additives.

      As for SUV's, who cares? You want to point fingers at SUV's, but how many passengers ride in an SUV? I have an Expedition, and I regularly carry 5 people. How many people do you carry with a dinky Toyota Tercel that might get 30mpg? Probably not enough to outdo my Expedition at 16.5mpg hauling 5 people.

      I bought a big vehicle because I live in a snowy climate, I need to haul people (and stuff), and I don't care to drive a little piece of shit cramped 4 cylinder. It'd take me 2 trips (or 2 cars) to get where we go with the people we have to take. Occasionally, I take up to 7 people (comfortably). Can you do that with a Tercel? Or a Prius? Can you tow a trailer? Or plow snow with a Tercel or Prius? Then quit judging all SUV's the same. You need to look at ALL vehicles. Look at RV's, sports cars, big luxury cars, conversion vans, pickup trucks. Yet no one mentions those. Ever. Why is that? Is it because people like you have small brains?

      Guess the largest market for an SUV? Women. Guess where most women vote? Democrat. Guess where most of the treehugging, anti-SUV crowd come from? That's right... you can say it... the Democrats. Hypocrite Democrats. Fix your own crowd before you start attacking the entire SUV-owning population.

      Who's the anti-SUV bimbo from California... the one that tried to run for Governor, used to be married to a rich guy, now lives in a big house, doesn't pay any taxes, and rides around in limousines all the time. Whatever her name is, get her fat ass out of the limousine, and put it on a bicycle, and then, and ONLY then, will I consider listening to her and her "message". Until then, all you bleeding heart liberals are a bunch of hypocrites. The politicians, the lobbyists, the media... hypocrites.

    12. Re:Strange dynamics here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (can't find my temp password, this is WOV).

      Believe me, after a few years in the renewable energy world, I know. But here's the one and only ultimate point about hydrogen. You can make more.

      You can make hydrogen from electrical current and water, both available in grandiose excess from natural sources. Meaning you won't run out. Tap a wind or concentrating solar plant, hell even nano-PV, and you can get *to* that medium with an indefinite supply. We're going to run out of oil. Best outside estimate I've seen is 55 years, and frankly I think that one underestimates China.

    13. Re:Strange dynamics here... by toriver · · Score: 1

      Ford has also become a lot more reasonable on climate and emissions issues over even just the past three years.

      Yeah. It's not like they would buy a Norwegian electric car manufacturer in anticipation of the California no-emission laws, ship 250 cars over, then when the car/oil lobby got a postponement destroy the cars instead of returning them to fill the European demand, and try and sell off the company to some sleazy company-butcher.

      Oh wait, they did.

    14. Re:Strange dynamics here... by Lours · · Score: 1


      I think that Bill Ford is a not-kidding environmentalist. Some of their factories are really leading the way in terms of green building [...] Ford has also become a lot more reasonable on climate and emissions issues over even just the past three years [...]

      Sure, but Ford is only trying to walk in the feet of japanese and european automakers there. Starting after the second oil crisis, those countries industries have made huge efforts to increase their energy efficiency in order to lessen their dependence on oil, which in turn has a big effect on their greenhouse gases emissions. Which is why they produce less GHG per capita than the USAs despite having similar GNP per capita (similar not meaning identical).
      The United States industry is unfortunately still far behind there. But, of course every step in the good direction is welcome.
      That said, I still think that buying a japanese hybrid car is a much better way to incitate american automakers to make efforts, that's the way concurrence works anyhow.

      [about SUVs] 1. Every one of these light trucks is being used by a farmer or contractor, and any attempt to regulate fuel emissions back to, say, early 80's standards will annihilate small business in America [...]

      It depends on how fast it's done, you can let time to the automobile market to adapt and promote more energy efficient vehicles. A good way to help is to have negative taxes for more energy-efficient vehicles (as was planned in France a few weeks ago but the bill was canceled because of automakers pressure...).
      This way you won't annihilate any small business, you will even make sure that irresponsible polluters pay to ensure reasonnable citizens will have access to less polluting transporting means.

      Bug the truth certainly is that the big automakers don't want to adapt to any external constraints. The french example is quite revealing here.

    15. Re:Strange dynamics here... by chihowa · · Score: 1

      I think that he was saying that the occupants of the car were more likely to die. In typical US fashion, the solution seems to be make everybody drive SUVs.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    16. Re:Strange dynamics here... by William+Tanksley · · Score: 1

      He didn't say that, though -- he said that the death rate multiplied (or something to that effect). I agree with the previous poster in wanting to see the numbers he got that from, because they don't match anything I've ever seen.

      And another thing -- what do you mean "in typical US fashion ... make everybody drive SUVs?" I don't understand either half of the sentance -- neither the "typical US fashion" nor the coercion. (I certainly haven't been forced to drive an SUV -- I drive an old Pontiac.)

      -Billy

  33. Stewart and Stevenson - hybrid heavy truck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone got a link to the Stewart and Stevenson hybrid heavy military truck developed a year or so ago?

    1. Re:Stewart and Stevenson - hybrid heavy truck by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/vehicle s/stewart_stevenson/

      Also, they can convert a bus into a hybrid using an Allison hybrid transmission.

  34. Oxymoron? by otisg · · Score: 2, Interesting

    hydrogen == supposedly more environment friendly
    SUV == environement unfriendly

    Does a Hydrogen SUV make sense then?
    Do we really really need SUVs?

    --
    Simpy
    1. Re:Oxymoron? by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

      There are places and times where SUVs make sense.

      Living in the woods
      Living in snowy areas
      Needing to haul heavy loads and keep a family seated

      And there are places where SUVs don't make sense

      Suburbia
      Downtown
      Commuting to work over two hours on the freeway

    2. Re:Oxymoron? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >Do we really really need SUVs?

      I routinely carry 20 cubic feet of equipment cases,
      about the same in speakers, several cases with my
      musical instruments (4 keyboards and one guitar), a couple of square plastic bucket containers with cables and so on, stands, and sometimes more stuff.

      I like for this stuff to be IN the car, locked up, climate controlled, etc., as opposed to a truck bed. I don't really want a "van", although some vans are pretty nice. A big station wagon fills the bill pretty well, better than most minivans would actually.

      That's what SUV's are. High roofed station wagons.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    3. Re:Oxymoron? by nwbvt · · Score: 1

      Hydrogen SUV? Its a hybrid car, not a hydrogen car. Minor difference between the two.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    4. Re:Oxymoron? by jbash · · Score: 1
      To say nothing of a seven-year lead . . .

      The first Japanese Prius debuted in fall, 1997. Now, in August 2004, Ford's first hybrid SUV arrives. And while GM and Chrysler have talked big about their hybrid pickup trucks, neither company will produce more than a few hundred in the next 2-3 years.

      Oh, but I forgot, it's easier to blather about the hydrogen economy than it is to produce an actual car that people will buy. I do give Ford credit for actually doing it.

    5. Re:Oxymoron? by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      "Does a Hydrogen SUV make sense then?"

      I read on http://www.theonion.com/ that Ford were planning a hydrogen-powered SUV and that if it reached prjected sales forecasts the world supply of hydrogen would be depleted in 20 years.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    6. Re:Oxymoron? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be cause .5 [hydrogen] + -1 [SUV] = -.5 which is still > -1 [SUV].

      Meaning: an improvement.

      Lesson: Just because you can't achieve perfection, doesn't mean that less than perfect results aren't worth pursuing.

    7. Re:Oxymoron? by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      Where did this common wisdom come from that SUVs are environmentally unfriendly? I have yet to see any statistics that show that they are.

      SUVs replaced large custom vans, which in their time replaced large station wagons. There could be statistics showing that a Honda CRV is worse for the environment than a Dodge Caravan, but I haven't seen them. Someone have a link for me?

      SUVs are merely the current solution for large families with kids in lots of after school activities. Do you use an SUV to drive Junior to soccer, Missy to dance recital, and yourself to the grocers, or do you take three trips in a Prius to perform the same errands?

      I don't need an SUV, because I'm a single guy. And most people driving around in Hummers all alone probably don't need them either. But if an SUV allows people to carpool more effectively, I'm all for them. Of course, I don't have any statistics that SUVs are worse for the environment than large vans or multiple trips in tiny four bangers. So if I'm wrong, please send me the statistics.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  35. Ehh... SUV? Why not a car? by Citizen+Philip · · Score: 1

    Please don't interpret my response as an attack against the idea of hybrid vehicles in one of the highest gasoline consuming nations:

    but WHY AN SUV?

    It's a big fuel consuming road hog. Why not start smaller, and say, affordable for like a 2/4 door sedan or compact car for those "younger" types that are -hopefully- more interested in environmental concerns?

    Do we really need more SUVs abusing the road?

    CP

  36. Sue! by Sean80 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The poster's last link really got me thinking. Imagine you get hit by one of these monsters on a street where it's not actually legal for them to be driving? Sounds like a mighty big lawsuit waiting to happen to me, particularly if it, er, explodes in a large hydrogen explosion. Kidding.

    But seriously, I've wondered how long it'd be until somebody sued an SUV driver for running into them in a car which they bought specifically because it would give them a higher survival rate. I can see the prosecution lawyer now: "Now let me see, you bought this car specifically because you knew it would kill the occupants of the other vehicle, and not your own?"

    Anyway, got me thinking again.

    1. Re:Sue! by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      How are you going to prove what the SUV owner was thinking when they bought the car? They'll make the argument that it was only one (minor) factor in their decision. Also, they'll respond to the prosecution with "No, I bought it to keep my family safe" which of course is the same thing, but spun the other way.

      IANAL, but I seriously doubt you'd win.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:Sue! by Spackler · · Score: 1

      I can see the prosecution lawyer now: "Now let me see, you bought this car specifically because you knew it would kill the occupants of the other vehicle, and not your own?"

      In a word, yes. I've been hit by an SUV while I was a passenger in a small car (Shattered femur, broken hip, 4 broken ribs). I now drive a very large truck that get's bad mileage, SPECIFICALLY so it will be the other person that dies, and NOT ME. I'd rather be sued for that than be the paste they are cleaning off my bumper. No, I don't want anyone to die, but it is just plain stupid to only bring a knife to a gun fight.

  37. Escapism at 36MPG by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Informative

    None of the articles, or the Escape website itself, report the actual mileage of the hybrid SUV. Their Fuel Cost Savings Calculator touts mileage that will "exceed 35MPG", which turns out to be 36MPG. Any comparison to a user's current mileage over 35MPG reports that relative costs compare "quite favorably", even when the Escape has to beat 72MPG or more (double the Escape's mileage, for the arithmetic impaired). Trying current several mileages around 30MPG reports a consistent $2778:y for 100,000mi @$1.00:gallon in the Escape, which is 36MPG. Their mileage figures are "preliminary estimates of EPA certification", so the actual number is "YMMV".

    That mileage number is the only important number. Hybrids use electric regeneration from the same gasoline tank as the internal combustion engine, so they are not in any way "alternative fuel" vehicles, any more than is the gas guzzling SUV in the next lane. But that guzzler probably gets about 15MPG, so these hybrids are certainly laudable. At $27K, driving 252,000 miles saves enough gas money to pay for the car. Which is about 20 times around the Aelutian Islands / Tierra Del Feugo circuit. Finally a use for that "Intelligent 4WD" SUV.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Escapism at 36MPG by notsoanonymouscoward · · Score: 1

      notice how they're carefully saying 36 in the city only? I wonder how well that little 2.3 liter v4 does chugging along on its own on the freeway. I'll have to keep wondering since I didn't see it listed anywhere.

      --
      I ate my sig.
    2. Re:Escapism at 36MPG by bandy · · Score: 1

      My Expedition is getting about 12.5MPG, mostly highway [California stop'n'go]. I can get 15MPG if I drive on cruise control at 55MPH and have a trailer behind me.

      --
      "You might as well get your son a ticket to hell as give him a five string banjo." -unknown minister
    3. Re:Escapism at 36MPG by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Why do you drive a 12.5MPG SUV on California highways? Why not a more efficient car? Are you shuttling campers up Mt. Shasta? That would probably get 6-7MPG, but you might that kind of truck in that terrain, with that clientele.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    4. Re:Escapism at 36MPG by bandy · · Score: 1

      Because I'm a big man and I don't bump my head against the roof when I go over a small bump, unlike a more efficient car.

      I also periodically haul around large materials (4'x8' sheet goods, 2x4s, etc), and tow a trailer when I go camping.

      --
      "You might as well get your son a ticket to hell as give him a five string banjo." -unknown minister
    5. Re:Escapism at 36MPG by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      They're probably just pitching it against the weakest numbers in their SUV competition. Like their own Explorer, which apparently gets less than 15MPG at best on the highway. That probably means 10MPG in the city, so the Escape is over 3.5x the mileage, which probably means their calculator can show about $2500 gas savings per year, enough to tip some people's budgets at almost 10% the cost of the car in savings.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    6. Re:Escapism at 36MPG by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Since Ford claims their new Escape will save you about $2500 every 15,000 miles you drive it instead of their Explorer, would you consider upgrading?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    7. Re:Escapism at 36MPG by fred+fleenblat · · Score: 1

      Okay, time for some math.

      The Escape Hybrid claim is about 35MPG. The Prius's real world mileage is only about 85% of it's EPA rating. So let's say the Escape Hybrid gets 30mpg, that's still pretty good for an SUV.
      A 4 cylinder regular Escape is rated at 24 mpg and doesn't suffer the hybrid EPA mileage penalty.

      Okay, so per mile, I'm saving (1/24 - 1/30) gallons.
      That's 0.008333 gallons per mile saved.
      Let's say $2 a gallon for gas.
      That's 0.01666 dollars per mile saved.
      The list price is going to be $3300 for the hybrid option, but since it is likely to be very popular Ford won't offer rebates and dealers won't discount, so the real price premium is likely to be more like $4500.

      Okay, so $4500 / 0.01666 dollars per mile before you actually get full payback from your initial investment, as a consumer of hybrid technology.

      That's 270,000 miles.

      If you make optimistic assumptions, i.e. that it will actually get the full 35mpg and that dealers won't price gouge you, it's still going to be well over 100,000 miles before you'd be better off choosing the hybrid over the 4 cylinder.

    8. Re:Escapism at 36MPG by bandy · · Score: 1

      Yes.

      Then it's just a matter of saving up to switch. My current gas costs are $1900/year to commute. Switching would save me about $1300/year. I have a big spreadsheet on this at home on my Mac.

      --
      "You might as well get your son a ticket to hell as give him a five string banjo." -unknown minister
    9. Re:Escapism at 36MPG by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I wish the car magazines would publish their test data in XML to subscribers. I'd have a home server process which tracked the params of my current ride, and alerted me when my preference triggers had been pulled. Consumer reports could publish whole spreadsheets with each specialty issue describing their model, and regular updates, while something like Gomez could track the markets for my actual stuff, and resale for my prospective stuff. Approved autolisting on eBay and elsewhere would complete the picture. I'd subscribe to the data and models, and set my preferences, then read the editorials before committing to publication of purchase or sales offers. A perfect capital market...

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    10. Re:Escapism at 36MPG by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I usually pay about $2.25:gallon for gas here in NYC, and I don't see it going anywhere but up. And, yeah, 252,000 is somewhere around 85% of 270,000, as I mentioned, in there with my disclaimer about the optimism of their "estimated EPA rating". But comparing this SUV to Explorers, which get 15MPG, maybe even 10MPG, the extra price might still be worth killing the sky with pollution, and sending our money to foreign oil companies.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    11. Re:Escapism at 36MPG by Inebrius · · Score: 1

      Wasn't it reported just a week or two ago that the MPG numbers reported on the stickers are not realistic, and in some cases, the hybrid vehicles get worse gas mileage than their non-hybrid counter parts?

      This is due to the way the government calculates the gas mileage - analyzing exhaust and applying calculations which are not at all accurate.

      My wife used to drive a Hyundai Santa Fe. It was comparable in size to an escape, looked a lot nicer, had a good amount of power, and got decent gas mileage. The 4WD version is under 30k.

    12. Re:Escapism at 36MPG by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I hate to be pedantic, but an Escape is not an Explorer -- compare the hybrid to the non-hybrid of the same car, not to a (bigger, less efficient) different one.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    13. Re:Escapism at 36MPG by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      There are small cars with good headroom. Check out the Hyundai Accent, or a Toyota Echo. They're both small, cheap, have good headroom and get good gas mileage.

      The Echo is significantly better in terms of mileage (I think it's close to 40MPG city, while the Accent is "only" 30) and probably headroom (it looks tall, almost top-heavy).

      The Accent is sportier (better handling) and looks a lot nicer though, which is why I chose it over the Echo. It also has side airbags, which I don't think the Echo has.

      Anyway, what you ought to consider doing is getting one of these in addition to your SUV, and using it most of the time. It can be pretty darn cheap (including insurance) if you get one used.

      Or you could replace your SUV with it, and just rent a van when you go camping. Even an Accent can tow a light trailer with some 2x4s or plywood (just not a powerboat!).

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    14. Re:Escapism at 36MPG by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I'm comparing the SUV in the story to one submitted elsewhere in these subthreads, which was an Explorer. It's appropriate, because the Explorer types are popular, against which this Escape is competing. In fact, the Explorer driving poster says he's planning to upgrade. We could also compare to a 1978 Chrysler station wagon, or a bicycle, but that's not the comparison made in the market.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    15. Re:Escapism at 36MPG by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      That's a really neat idea -- I suggest you try selling it to them.

      I don't think just publishing XML would be useful though; you need to provide the server process and an analysis program also to make it easy to use, since the websites need to provide service for their less-saavy readers too.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    16. Re:Escapism at 36MPG by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Those cases where the hybrid performs worse would probably be when they're used almost exclusively on the highway (cruising, not in a traffic jam), when the benefits of a hybrid (specifically, regenerative braking) don't come into play. However, the vast majority of cars are used for city driving, where hybrids excel.

      Highway-only drivers should consider a diesel VW Golf, Beatle, or Jetta instead, because they get really good gas mileage on the highway (a TDI Golf gets better mileage than a Hybrid Escape, or even maybe a hybrid Civic or Prius), and the highway is where most diesel gas stations are anyway.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    17. Re:Escapism at 36MPG by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Thanks - that's a data publishing utopia. It's a chicken/egg paradox. They won't sell XML subscriptions until there are subscribers; of course no subscribers until there's something to buy. An aggregator like Consumer Reports could work both sides, with existing customers and researchers, developing a data mart, but they're too old, and I'm too busy to do it. But blabbing about it on Slashdot might get someone who's already positioned to do something about it. Just spooking the zeitgeist, for fun and profit :). I actually think that model will have to emerge eventually. I'm just hoping its open enough that personal devices will allow personal authentication and corroborative validation of the data, without trusting an external server. We still don't even have the "Privacy Platform", with web client cached personal data and preset publication exposure levels automatically sent in return for signed standard privacy policies. So I don't think it'll happen soon, because I'm still typing my billing address over and over again in web forms.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    18. Re:Escapism at 36MPG by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Well, all I was trying to say is that Ford sells both the Escape and the Explorer, and they're made for different market segments -- they don't expect them to compete with each other. I wouldn't consider an Escape, even a hybrid one, to be an "upgrade" from an Explorer anyway. It's higher-tech, but a smaller vehicle.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    19. Re:Escapism at 36MPG by Deeper+Thought · · Score: 1
      Great calculator -- well coded too!
      I couldn't get it to crash.

      How much do you pay for gas: 9e99
      How many miles do you drive: 9e99/day
      Enter your current car's MPG: 9e-199

      Result: Every year it costs about $Infinity to drive your current vehicle. It would only cost about $8.2125e200 to drive an Escape Hybrid. You could save about $Infinity a year. Not bad.

      I'll say!!!

    20. Re:Escapism at 36MPG by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      It's Flash. Looks like MacroMedia is beating Sun at BIGNUM/GRANDE, too.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    21. Re:Escapism at 36MPG by inkydoo · · Score: 1

      I'm not aware of any report that hybrids were getting worse mileage than their non-hybrid counterparts. What I have read is that the gap between EPA mileage estimates and real-world mileage seems to be greater for hybrids.

      So, for example, say the EPA estimates the regular civic at 30 mpg but it really gets more like 27, while the hybrid gets 45 according to the EPA, but really only gets 37. (These are completely made up numbers to illustrate the point).

      Of course, that said, I'm not convinced that these massive discrepancies in hybrids are more than anecdotal. I may not get the EPA estimate in my 04 Prius, but I'm not that far off and I get closer on nearly every tank.

  38. 6000 pounds? by BrookHarty · · Score: 1

    So this truck at 6800 pounds is too heavy to drive on most streets legally in california. ;)

    I read they are now giving tickets for driving these in some parts of California. Anything over 6K is a classified as a truck, and not allowed.

    Funny.

    1. Re:6000 pounds? by BrookHarty · · Score: 1

      BTW, here was the news tidbit, http://slate.msn.com/id/2104755/

      Also, why make the electric so heavy?

    2. Re:6000 pounds? by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      You're off on your weight estimate, but only by about 3,000 lbs. And adding, what was it, about 200lbs for batteries is far from unreasonable.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    3. Re:6000 pounds? by getnate · · Score: 1

      The author of that article is refering to gross weight, the theoretical maximum weight of a vehicle, which includes Car + Passengers + Stuff. Most SUV's driving around are not at their gross weight, with a mom and kids the actual weight will be considerably less. Now the quesiton comes, does the law refer to Actual weight or Gross weight.

    4. Re:6000 pounds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the jpegs with the article specificly read "6000 GROSS WEIGHT".

  39. Not likely... by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 1

    ...but perhaps it can be slowed. That would buy us a little more time.

  40. re: your sig... by Moofie · · Score: 1

    You mean Real Geeks are waiting for the Neuros to ship.

    And getting handtrucks to schlep it around.

    --
    Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  41. Re:Ehh... SUV? Why not a car? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because those are the folks who can't afford to pay off the R&D. R&D traditionally gets paid for by the rich, who want to be the first. Then when R&D is paid off, the rest of us can aford marginal costs.

  42. FFS, cars have had that for decades. by Moderation+abuser · · Score: 1

    The Citroen DS for instance, forty years ago.

    --
    Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
    1. Re:FFS, cars have had that for decades. by antirename · · Score: 1

      I've always liked Citroens... I almost bought a Citroen SM that needed hydraulic work (yes, I know that the French-language only manuals are a bitch to figure out). I didn't becuase it was this god-awful pale purple color, and I figured I'd run across one painted something normal one day. I've been kicking myself ever since. I should have bought the damn thing, painted it black, and screw the "originality". Live and learn.

    2. Re:FFS, cars have had that for decades. by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1
      Hydraulics are dead easy. FWIW, I got the genuine workshop manual from a guy who was clearing out a garage - there are diagrams with "international" symbols on most pages, with printed inserts for the relevant language.


      On the other hand, if you buy an SM, bear in mind you're buying a really highly-strung Maserati engine for which parts are like the proverbial rocking-horse shit. I really do hope you like changing timing chains...

  43. Re:Ehh... SUV? Why not a car? by rjstanford · · Score: 1

    WHY AN SUV?

    It's a big fuel consuming road hog.


    Well... 36 mpg, the ability to carry a relatively large amount of stuff, comfortable seating positions... why not an SUV?

    Why not start smaller, and say, affordable for like a 2/4 door sedan or compact car for those "younger" types that are -hopefully- more interested in environmental concerns?

    Have you noticed cars like the Insight and Prius before, perchance?

    I say, "Good on yer Ford." Here is an application of technology that improves a product that people are actively interested in buying - despite its flaws. And by and large fixes them.

    Not too shabby, IMO.

    --
    You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
  44. Is this just a re-branding? by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1
    Ford will use Toyota's first-generation hybrid technology in the SUV (the 2004 Prius is Toyota's second generation technology).

    So, is this just a re-branding for the American market? We have seen this before...

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    1. Re:Is this just a re-branding? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they bought a license for Toyotas patented tech.

    2. Re:Is this just a re-branding? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      No. They may share drivetrain components, but the Prius is a sedan and the Escape is an SUV, so it's not rebranding the way a Ford Explorer/Mazda Tribute is.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  45. How is it american? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



    ford GM etc are not american car companies and havent been for like two decades

  46. HUGME hug hug! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those hybrid cars really depress me, because their mileage suck. Would anyone chear me up by giving me an hug? Thanks!

  47. Is it just me, or by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    does anyone else think "WTF?!" after reading that?

    1. Re:Is it just me, or by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Anonymous illiterate/innumerate Coward, if you don't learn to read, you'll never be a geek.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  48. Nein. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sie verlassen es, Adolf.

  49. Maybe not the first in commercial use ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://memphis.bizjournals.com/memphis/stories/200 4/03/29/daily15.html

    FedEx has (apparently, I haven't seen them yet.) diesel electric hybrids as of last March.

    In any event, a hybrid truck will save a lot more gallons than several hybrid tiny vehicles. They might actually be economical; which tiny hybrids aren't. If you take the difference in price between my conventional Toyota Echo and a hybrid (about twice the cost), the hybrid will never save enough gas to pay for the difference.

    1. Re:Maybe not the first in commercial use ... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Do you want to save gas, or do you want to save money? A hybrid SUV might come closer to paying for itself (since regular SUVs are expensive) but it will still use more gas than a tiny hybrid car. The Escape SUV is rated at ~35MPG, while a Prius (which is midsize now, not "tiny") gets ~45, and an Insight gets ~65.

      I applaud you for driving an Echo, but some people want a hybrid to save the environment even if it won't save them money. And "hybrid tiny vehicles" still make better mileage than even an Echo.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:Maybe not the first in commercial use ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with everything you say. The point I was making is that, where money matters, hybrid delivery trucks are a good idea both for the environment and the bottom line.

      If people really cared about the price of gas maybe they wouldn't drive SUVs. Having said that, the gas my previous van used per month cost more than the lease payments on the Echo.

  50. Re:Ehh... SUV? Why not a car? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    The perfect thing would be a hybrid Suburu Outback or Forrester. They already get good fuel economy; a hybrid engine would give them fantastic economy. Plus, they have plenty of room for passengers, cargo, etc., they have AWD and high ground clearance for bad roads and conditions, and they don't look like a box on wheels.

  51. I'll take a VW diesel, thanks. by Rikardon · · Score: 4, Informative

    Honestly, I just don't get the hype over hybrids. A Jetta turbo diesel gets comparable mileage, is a larger, more comfortable, more powerful car, and presents no extraordinary risk to emergency services trying to free you in an accident.

    If you're worried about emissions, run it on biodiesel. Now you've closed the carbon loop, and are running on a 100% renewable resource. Even hybrids can't make that claim.

    In comparison, hybrids just seem to me like a solution in search of a problem.

    1. Re:I'll take a VW diesel, thanks. by SnapShot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wish I had Karma points. I love my Jetta TDI! I get 54 MPG in mostly highway driving. That pushes it up to second on the list behind the Insight.

      --
      Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
    2. Re:I'll take a VW diesel, thanks. by proj_2501 · · Score: 1

      i've seen this comment before...

      i've replied to this comment before...

      ---

      how the f*ck is a jetta wagon bigger than an escape?

    3. Re:I'll take a VW diesel, thanks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd take the VW diesel too (Jetta Wagon, please).
      One drawback though, they pump out about 4 times the amount of "smog-forming particles" as the gasoline version. That's why they aren't sold in California, New York, Maine, Vermont and Massachusetts. (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/)
      You're not going to cure that problem with biodiesel. Peugeot has a working particulate trap system. I goggled this: http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/uba-info-presse-e/pr esse-informationen-e/p3101e.htm

    4. Re:I'll take a VW diesel, thanks. by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I could have sworn it was third; the Golf is second because it's a little smaller.

      The only trouble with VWs is that they're expensive; it's almost as if they think they're BMW or something. I'd get one if I could afford it though (I instead got an Accent for half the price and half the mileage).

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    5. Re:I'll take a VW diesel, thanks. by Thu25245 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Jetta wagon cargo volume: 34 cu ft.

      http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/spec_engines.a sp x?modelid=10488&trimid=-1&src=vip

      Escape hybrid cargo volume: 27.6 cu ft.

      http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/spec_engines.a sp x?modelid=11254&src=LeftNav

      Just because it's got a jacked-up suspension, doesn't mean it's actually bigger inside.

    6. Re:I'll take a VW diesel, thanks. by randyest · · Score: 1

      Wow. +5 Fatality.

      proj_2501: did you get pwned like that when you saw/replied to that comment before?

      I hope not, since I'd think you might want to not go through that humiliation again.

      But that's just me.

      --
      everything in moderation
    7. Re:I'll take a VW diesel, thanks. by randyest · · Score: 1

      BS, AC! VW Diesels are sold in MA.

      --
      everything in moderation
    8. Re:I'll take a VW diesel, thanks. by Lours · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I just don't get the hype over hybrids. A Jetta turbo diesel gets comparable mileage, is a larger, more comfortable, more powerful car, and presents no extraordinary risk to emergency services trying to free you in an accident.

      A hybrid is interesting especially in urban traffic, there it does *much* better than any car, and there's nothing you can do about it (apart from removing mass to your car) because technically hybrid are more efficient in this kind of traffic.
      The toyota prius in urban traffic consumes only a little more than a SMART. How does a Jetta compare there ?

      If you're worried about emissions, run it on biodiesel. Now you've closed the carbon loop, and are running on a 100% renewable resource. Even hybrids can't make that claim.

      Sure, but the entire surface of the USA would have to be used to produce biodiesel and you wouldn't have anything more to eat. So this is not a viable general solution, only a marginal one.

      We must stop transporting one tone of steel just to move tens of kilograms of flesh, there lies the solution : adapt our vehicules to their real main use.

  52. -1 Troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "One but i hate to break it too you: American cars are just as well engineered as Japanese cars"

  53. Gross weight != Curb weight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A gross vehicle weight > 6,000 lbs. will not in itself prohibit a vehicle from streets where 6,000 lbs. is the legal limit. For example, while the Porsche Cayenne has a GVW of 6,790 lbs. (http://www.edmunds.com), its curb weight is "only" 4,950 lbs. If 6,000 lbs. is the limit, that still leaves over 1,000 lbs. for fuel and passengers. For most purposes, that's plenty of latitude for staying legal. Furthermore, if a vehicle looks over-weight, how are the police actually to prove it? Arrest on suspicion of being over-weight? What communities have appropriate scales?

    1. Re:Gross weight != Curb weight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Furthermore, if a vehicle looks over-weight, how are the police actually to prove it? Arrest on suspicion of being over-weight?"

      An illegal production vehicle will not be given license plates, it's that simple.

    2. Re:Gross weight != Curb weight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excuse me, but there's nothing illegal about the Porsche Cayenne that would prevent the owner from obtaining license plates, is there? The problem is when the vehicle is being driven in a restricted area. That's when law enforcement would need to determine (somehow) that the vehicle was too heavy.

  54. Hang on there, Greenpeace by DesScorp · · Score: 1

    You have to start somewhere. Are you saying that GM shouldn't even try? Or that they should ignore customer demand, and make nothing but little Honda-style scooters that you can squeeze two people into? Ever seen one of those? Does Honda include a bag to hang over the side as a standard item, or does cutting grass with it cost extra?

    The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. Two or three gallons saved at first in big trucks is a start.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    1. Re:Hang on there, Greenpeace by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      Ah, customer demand...

      I wonder what my neighbors drove before Hummer came in and met all that customer demand. Oh. Right. They didn't drive at all, as no vehicle met their needs.

    2. Re:Hang on there, Greenpeace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yah the NSX and S2K sure have the equivalent of a lawnmower in them.

  55. Hear, Hear, Mr. Bowers: Treat 'Em Like Trucks by reallocate · · Score: 1

    I heard Bowers on NPR today make his case that SUV's over 6000 pounds should be classified, regulated and taxed as trucks, and that their drivers be required to get truck licenses.

    He's right. Almost every SUV I see has only one person in it: the driver. Except for the biannual trip to Home Depot, they aren't hauling cargo. And they sure aren't hauling a bunch of kids, because no self-respecting SUV-owning couple would ever have more than 2 kids.

    If people wanna drive around in big, useless, trucks, they oughta be treated like truckdrivers, not soccer moms.

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  56. Ford? posh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've had well over 200 cars in my life. Ranging from $200 cars that you buy because your street muscle just sucks too much gas to brand new cars off the show room floor. About 20 of those have been Fords. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM has been nothing but money pits. There's a reason they are called "Fix Or Repair Daily". I currently have a Ford that's been in the shop 3 times in the past 8 months and needs to go back for a coolant leak.

    And no, Only 1 of them was driven hard ('68 mustang gutted with 12 bolt rear end and a built 351 pushing about 480 horsepower. There's more but no point listing it), but it was BUILT to drive hard. It actually held up better than the 98 Taurus I bought in 2000 which was sold 6 months after I purchased it and had to have the transmission rebuilt. Probably because I did most of the work myself and I'm a stickler for details and had to rework half the engineering flaws in the engine as it was.

    So, I could care less if Ford was the first to produce a vehicle that would pump tiffany cufflinks out the exhaust pipe every 5 miles, I'll never buy another Ford Product again. I'll stick with my mopar, chevy, or german engineered vehicles.

  57. ceramic engine by zogger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm wondering what ever happened to their cool running lightweight ceramic engine they were talking about a few years ago. Allegedly ran so cool and because it was mostly ceramic, the pistons didn't even need rings-no gross metal expansion/contraction. I read once about it, then poof. Of course I haven't looked either....

    1. Re:ceramic engine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The usual routine is this:- government makes some half-arsed commitment to petro-alternatives, Ford pulls one of a dozen or so interesting ideas off its shelf and shows it around to the media, then after 3 months or so forgets all about it and goes back to churning out the lamest, crappiest, ladder chassis, leaf-sprung, pushrod-powered piece of crap at maximum profit and minimum effort.

      Just remember this. Ford could EASILY produce an 80mpg Diesel vehicle if they remotely fucking cared. They waste any engineering talent they've got on bigger cup holders.

    2. Re:ceramic engine by Duhavid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think you mean Chevy. :-)

      Unibody has been the standard, except for trucks and the CrownVic. I owned a Mustand and I currently own a CrownVic, no leaf springs. Also, both where powered by the new 4.6 liter engine, which is an overhead cam design.

      Agreed about the max profit and min effort, but all the big boys are doing that, no?

      If they could produce an 80 mpg diesel, I would think they would. That would trump the other manufacturers till they caught up.

      Course, I did hear from a family member that was a service writer for a Ford sales blob that Ford once fired the designers of the front end components ( long long time ago, like 50's 60's or smoething like that... ) because they were not getting enough in selling replacement parts.... It could be wrong, but...

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    3. Re:ceramic engine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Actually, Ford *does* have an efficient diesel, the 1.4l Fiesta (www.ford.co.uk). Not quite 80mpg, but not bad either.

      Why this isn't available in North America is a question I will leave to the philosophers.

    4. Re:ceramic engine by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Diesels flopped HORRIBLY in small cars over here, and there's a lot more demand for SUVs here.

  58. Won't work... by Duncan3 · · Score: 1

    Small efficent cars will never have a chance in America until genetic engineering is commonplace...

    Too many men have have a small dick.

    Once we solve that, the SUV's will not be a problem. Or we could just educate women I suppose. "If he's raping the planet, how well to you think he will treat YOU?"

    --
    - Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
    1. Re:Won't work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but half of SUV drivers are stupid women who need SUVs so those troublesome pedestrians and other cars get squished so their bad driving doesn't endanger their baby.

    2. Re:Won't work... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a stupid thing to say.

    3. Re:Won't work... by Mattintosh · · Score: 1

      Actually, I see more men driving regular pick-up trucks. All the SUV drivers are women.

      Which means that too many American women have small dicks.

      Oddly enough, every TV portrayal (yeah, realism...) of a husband shows a henpecked, beaten down man wishing his wife would just shut up and quit berating him. This is the kind of attitude we teach our children to have, not to mention that it tells adult men that a total bitch of a wife is "normal". Which brings us back to those goddamned, testosterone-pumped, evil, SUV-driving, amazon-bitch soccer moms we see everywhere.

      While I don't think that women were treated fairly 100 years ago, I also don't think that it's right to inflict even a fraction of the same on anyone now. It's all about balance.

      SUV drivers are anything but a sign of balance. Few people need one, yet marketing has told the masses otherwise. Once again, America's values are fucked up. Balance, people, we need balance. And people that think for themselves.

      Oh, and keep your genetic engineering to yourself. I don't need a bigger penis.

  59. 36 mpg == energy efficient?!?! by kvn · · Score: 1

    36 mpg is supposed to be good mileage?

    Only Ford would make an SUV it's first hybrid.

    1. Re:36 mpg == energy efficient?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Going from 25mpg to 36mpg is a greater savings (in terms of actual fuel saved) than going from 30mpg to 41mpg. With a 100 mile journey:
      25mpg == 100 / 25 = 4 gallons.
      30mpg == 100 / 30 = 3.33 gallons.
      36mpg == 100 / 36 = 2.77 gallons.
      41mpg == 100 / 41 = 2.44 gallons.

      25mpg to 36mpg == 4 - 2.77 = 1.23 gallons saved.
      30mpg to 41mpg == 3.33 - 2.44 = 0.89 gallons saved.
      So if Ford can sell two efficient large vehicles (instead of two inefficient large vehicles), the savings will be similar to selling three efficient small vehicles (instead of three inefficient small vehicles).

      In the big picture, it's a smart move by attacking the fuel efficiency problem where it is the worst. So long as they don't start selling even more SUVs now that they're less of a "guilty" purchase.

      Now if only the Prius wasn't such a hideously ugly design (outside isn't pretty, but the dangerously bad instrument panel layout is the killer - I don't know why they decided a conventional and functional instrument panel was a bad idea)...
    2. Re:36 mpg == energy efficient?!?! by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Only Ford, or Chevy, or (maybe)Dodge you mean, right?

      Chevy already has a hybrid truck/SUV (just not sold to the public yet), and I haven't heard an plans from Dodge, but I'd suspect that they'd make a truck or SUV first to compete with Ford and Chevy.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  60. For comparison: by petra13 · · Score: 1

    Toyota says the Prius gets: 60mpg city
    Ford reports that the Escape hybrid will get 35-40 mpg city. That's only a little bit better than a regular non-hybrid sedan. And being an SUV it will still take up tons of space on the road and be difficult for other drivers to see around. Forgive my cynicism if I don't go running out to buy one.

    1. Re:For comparison: by Jens_UK · · Score: 1
      Before making blanket statements about the size of vehicles, please look them up.

      For example, if autos.yahoo.com is right, the Prius is longer than the Escape hybrid.

  61. Linked article about (unknown) California SUV ban by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

    The linked article (in the parent story) about California's SUV ban is really interesting. Basically, thousands of miles of streets in California, including most of the streets in Pasadena, Santa Monica, and Beverly Hills, have ordinances prohibiting vehicles over 3 tons, in order to prevent road damage. Many popular SUVs are over this limit, including the Ram 1500, Hummer, Land Rover, and Yukon.

    I wonder if we'll actually see these laws being enforced. Where does one call to report the license plate of a too-large truck driving on a street it isn't suppoesd to?

  62. How about a Hummer instead? by Louis+Savain · · Score: 1

    A 60 miles per gallon Hummer would be cool. Don't hold your breath, though. Just dreaming. But, joking aside, would it be possible to develop a 60 miles per gallon Hummer with comparable performance, using current or future Hybrid technology?

    1. Re:How about a Hummer instead? by endoboy · · Score: 1

      No, it's not possible to develop a 60 mpg Hummer--at least not with anything even vaguely resembling today's technology.

      The Hummer just weighs too much, and the aerodynamics are ghastly.

      With ~current technology, you'd be lucky to break 20 mpg on the Hummer platform

    2. Re:How about a Hummer instead? by caswelmo · · Score: 1

      Actually, it all depends on how you use it. Most of the Hummers I see are just doing city driving. (Of course, I live in the city). Since these don't tend to get over 30 or 40 mph very often, you could definitely save some gas using a hybrid system. Heavy wouldn't matter, because regenerative braking would regain most of that energy. Now, 60 mpg is probably a bit high. But I'm guessing 40 or even 50 mpg is possible. Very, very expensive though.

    3. Re:How about a Hummer instead? by kraut · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A Hummer is simply a pointless abomination. At least the Hummer II. A Hummer I is just about acceptable, if your daily commute really covers 60 miles of unmade terrain - but even then you'd be better of with a Landrover, because you wouldn't look quite as much of a prat.

      Using "environmentally friendly" technology in an SUV is a bit pointless - you know, like painting your coalburning firestation a pleasant shade of green.

      Anyway, Ford actually do do some nice cars (Volvo, Jaguar, Aston Martin and (oops) LandRover). Now a hybrid V70 I would consider buying.

      --
      no taxation without representation!
  63. Wow! by maskedbishounen · · Score: 1

    Your post really got me thinking. . . and all I can say is, I'm going to go look for some poor SUV owner and win myself a DOOM3 box. ;p

    --
    "An infinite number of monkeys typing into GNU emacs would never make a good program."
  64. IT'S WHAT WE CALL FANATICAL SUPPORT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IT'S WHAT WE CALL FANATICAL SUPPORT .

    how are you gentlemen !!

    how are you ??

    gentlemen !!

  65. It's not a FORD it's a TOYOTA by fred911 · · Score: 1

    we dont have to negotiate on our products, they sell them selfs. We don't have to give no stinki discounts to you mooches either, there's more buyers the product.

    Then again... at 100,000 miles you still have a drivable vehicle with some value and with a ford you have scrap metal

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    1. Re:It's not a FORD it's a TOYOTA by Camulus · · Score: 1

      Not to go all troll happy on you, but reliability in American cars has increased greatly in recent years. I will agree that Imports are overall still reliable. However, there is still a bad taste in peoples mouths from several of the reliability issues that American manufacturers went through in the early 80's. Since I believe what I stated above, I have a 94 Nissan Altima for my beater because it is reliable and gets decent gas mileage. I have American muscle for when I want to play.

    2. Re:It's not a FORD it's a TOYOTA by Camulus · · Score: 1

      Doh, just realized something. That should be, I will agree that Imports are overall more reliable.

    3. Re:It's not a FORD it's a TOYOTA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tend to believe that yes, the bottom end domestic cars are junk compared to the bottom end imports. However if you look at the higher end models, I believe that domestic cars are just as reliable as their import counterparts, or more so. Case in point, I've got a 1992 Ford Thunderbird V8 with over 300,000 miles on it. No major overhauls yet. With the exception of people buying used cars, who keeps a car long enough to wear it out anyways?

  66. Hybrids, hydrogen, boondoggles by SteamyMobile · · Score: 1
    Am I the only one who thinks these things are all boondogles? Let's see, bolting on the equipment for making a hybrid adds thousands of dollars to the price of the car. Let's say it adds on $5,000, and gas costs $3/gal (rough figures here). That means that the added cost of the hybrid is equal to 1666 gallons of gas. That's probably several years of driving a conventional car. It's a wash on economic savings, and it's not that much better in fossil fuel savings, and if you drive mostly highway miles, hybrid might not be any better at all.

    Hydrogen is an even worse boondoggle. You have to have some enormous source of cheap energy to produce this hydrogen, and right now, that means you have to burn a huge amount of fossil fuels to get a little of that energy converted into hydrogen. You end up paying far more than you would pay for the equivalent energy in gasoline. Then you end up with a car that costs ten times what a regular car costs, has half the range and poor performance, and when you add everything up, it actually results in more carbon emissions.

    There is an alternative to both hybrids and hydrogen: it's called electric vehicles. They are based on lithium batteries. They have a range that is almost as good as gasoline vehicles. They have no tailpipe emissions, and obviously they are powered by electricity, which can be generated from fossil fuels (obviously) but can also be generated by solar, nuclear (cf. France) and many other forms of energy. It seems like the big interest in boondoggles such as hybrids and hydrogen is because it preserves the huge barriers to entry that exist in creating a new car for sale. The barriers to entry for creating electric vehicles are much lower than for gas, and infinitely lower than for hydrogen cars.

    1. Re:Hybrids, hydrogen, boondoggles by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      I like what you say, but the forgetting to charge the car the night before leading to not going somewhere will keep this from being considered, I fear.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    2. Re:Hybrids, hydrogen, boondoggles by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      If the (relatively) cheap batteries in a hybrid cost $5000 more than a conventional gasoline car, how much more would the fancy lithium batteries in a fully electric car cost, specially considering that you need many more of them in a fully-electric car than you do in a hybrid?

      Just because electric cars might be the ideal, it doesn't mean you should stop developing interim solutions. Besides, consider this: the problem with gasoline and hybrid cars is pollution and fossil-fuel use, right? This can be solved with a more mature technology: biodiesel.

      Imagine a VW Golf TDI, but with an engine running on biodiesel (or even straight vegetable oil, with modification), a hybrid drive system, and one of the new catalytic converters that are becoming available. It gets good mileage, has good range, doesn't produce many of the pollution of old diesels (particulates, etc) because of the catalytic converter, and doesn't produce net CO2 because it uses fuel that's part of the short-term carbon cycle. What more do you want?

      Granted, it has non-zero emmissions, but even batteries and nuclear power have environmental problems. Electric is a solution when we have fusion and ultracapacitors, or small-scale cold fusion (like Mr. Fusion in Back to the Future II -- and even then the DeLorean ran on gas!)

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    3. Re:Hybrids, hydrogen, boondoggles by inkydoo · · Score: 1

      While hybrids don't cost $5K more, you are esentially correct that current hybrids are probably a wash economically. On the other hand, at least for the Prius, the goal is lower emissions not better mileage, and fuel economy is only one of the ways the Prius accomplishes low emissions.

      The real point of my post though is that you can't talk about range in an electric car the same way you talk about range in a gasoline car. Even if the range of an electric is the same as a gas, it only takes five or ten minutes to "re-charge" the gasoline car. I think electric cars are great for a lot of situations, but long-distance driving is not one of them.

  67. I've said this many times by Sgs-Cruz · · Score: 1
    The problem with the world is not how much energy we use. The only way we're going to make progress as a civilization is to use more energy - I'm sorry, but that's hwo it is.

    What we can change, however, is where we get the energy from. It's time to go to full-hydrogen engines in cars. Make the hydrogen from fossil fuels, I'll still be extremely happy about our future, you know why? Because when the oil runs out (okay, not really, just gets too expensive to use for personal transport), we will make the hydrogen from other things, and [i]the engines will already run it[/i].

    This SUV is a step in the right direction, but we need to go to full hydrogen (or something equivalent, I'm all for anything that does what H2 does that's easier to transport/use) eventually.

    --

    Karma: pi (Mostly due to circular reasoning in posts).

    1. Re:I've said this many times by Coupons · · Score: 1

      It's time to go to full-hydrogen engines in cars.

      Hydrogen is highly explosive and must be stored at high pressure in non-corrosive tanks. Due to hydrogens' low energy density and storage limitations, hydrogen vehicles will be of short range.

      In Widescale Biodiesel Production from Algae Michael Briggs of the University of New Hampshire Physics Department offers an enlightening comparison of hydrogen and biodiesel fuels.

      Biodiesel is here today and it doesn't require new technology. It will power existing vehicles equiped with diesel engines.

      --
      If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it? ~ Albert Einstein
  68. Re:Ford? posh by Mustang+Matt · · Score: 1

    I've owned 3 Fords.
    '87 GT Convertible
    '98.5 SVT Contour
    and my current one: 98 SVT Cobra.

    (We also currently own a mazda (owned by ford no less) '01 Protege MP3 and while it's a nice car by far it's had the most problems.)

    All three were/are excellent vehicles. I can see how a taurus is a piece. Every manufacturer has good products and crap products.

    Ford trannys are crap. Plan on rebuilding them eventually but when you rebuild them you can make them awesome. I had a fully manual valve body in my original mustang's aod. The contour needed new synchros once (my fault).

    The cobra needs new synchros too (my fault again).

    --
    The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
  69. Bullshit Alert by ChangeOnInstall · · Score: 1

    From the author, concerning GVWR vs. Curb Weight:

    "In other words, owners say their SUVs are over 6K when it benefits them and under 6K when it burdens them. Here's my solution: Pick a number and stick with it. If owners of heavy SUVs prefer to use the lower curb weight, fine with me. "

    Unfortunatey this solution is in search of a problem, as at present, there isn't anything that needs to be solved. There are two weight ratings, one is for the actual weight of the vehicle, and the other is for the vehicle at maximum payload, a weight number that few people are ever going to see. Other weight ratings on vehicles include front and rear axle ratings (the sum of which is greater than GVWR). We could even introduce GCWR (Gross Combined Weight Rating) which includes towing capacity in to the weight, and then we could see the astronomical figure of 22,000lb show up when analyzing the diesel-powered Ford Excursion!

    There are different weight ratings for different reasons, and different laws are based on different measures.

    --
    What has *science* done?!? -- Dr. Weird (ATHF)
  70. So what? by nwbvt · · Score: 1
    My used Acura gets about the same mpg. It was also affordable to someone who doesn't make 70 grand a year.

    Besides, fuel intake is only one problem with SUVs (and since SUV drivers pay for that at the pump, one I don't really care too much about). They also represent a huge safety hazard to smaller cars who can't see around them or who would get crushed should they be involved in an accident.

    The worst is when they say they bought the car to help their own safety. Selfish bastards.

    --
    Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    1. Re:So what? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      On the bright side, the Escape is a small SUV. I'd much rather see one of those in the rear-view mirror of my Accent than an Excursion!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  71. May my big chevy truck crush... by Bloodbane · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    May my big chevy truck crush one of you hybrid compact driving morons... Just because you are too poor to buy a real vehicle does not mean you can bitch at me for doing so...

    1. Re:May my big chevy truck crush... by PhoenixFlare · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      And when I pass idiots like you on the thurways this winter, spun off the road in your giant SUV's and trucks, I will laugh and laugh :)

      Have fun thinking that being big and having 4-wheel drive makes you invincible to the elements :)

  72. funny, but no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not the same thing.

    I've been a bike courier, bike toured for vacations, commuted with antiques and mountain bikes, and trained on racers for fun. But it's not the same thing. Don't confuse utility overlap with utility replacement.

    (But if we're talking utopias, then forget bikes and make downtowns worth living in. I'm in one now. It's great. Gave up the bikes. Everything is just a few blocks away.)

  73. Ford Escape Hybrid SUV by dmf415 · · Score: 1

    That would be totally cool if the Escape Hybrid lives up its expectations of 36 mpg, but looking at how the other so-called 36 mpg hybrids are doing, im not very optimistic.

  74. Can you believe this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The technology for cheaper and renewable vehicle propulsion is all over the place. The problem isn't resources, they're there. The problem is that the big oil companies screw us all over by buying out, and keeping secret, all plans that would produce fuel for vehicles that doesn't involve buying petroleum products - just so they can line their wallets. They don't give a damn about the environment. And, thanks to all those who "pay at the pump" (it really is their fault), we can expect this shitty trend to continue.

    I am so glad I don't own a vehicle that requires petroleum products.

  75. Cabs by mr_burns · · Score: 1

    A lot of cab companies (not all) don't pay for gas. They lease the car to the driver with a full tank and they're required to return the car with a full tank. So the driver pays for the gas and what amounts to a car rental. Whatever money's left after that is what they keep.

    The cab companies do pay for maintainance and repairs. Wether there's a cost difference between maintaining gas or gas-electric hybrids would probably be a bigger cost factor for these companies.

    --
    "Let him go, Ralph. He knows what he's doing." --Otto Mann (simpsons)
  76. The Math by doormat · · Score: 1

    A 2005 non-hybrid escape gets 22/25, and costs $20,000
    A 2005 hybrid escape gets 35/30, and costs $27,000
    (Front wheel drive)

    So to make up the $7,000 difference, even after a $1,500 tax credit, is $5500. I only drive 8000 miles per year. So at a 60/40 ratio of city/highway, I save about $200/yr at $2/gallon. So I'd save $1,000 over 5 years. No thanks Ford.

    --
    The Doormat

    If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
  77. Offtopic but, by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

    You may well be the only vegetarian (as in quit-cold-turkey no meat no dairy) who does ANY sort of physical activity i've ever heard say that.

    Color me impressed, however you manage it. The only vegetarian I know who has any sort of muscle mass still eats chicken or beef from time to time, though not much of it.

    is there a brand name to the muesli you get or is it mixed in-store?

    --
    If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    1. Re:Offtopic but, by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      You may well be the only vegetarian (as in quit-cold-turkey no meat no dairy) who does ANY sort of physical activity i've ever heard say that. Color me impressed, however you manage it. The only vegetarian I know who has any sort of muscle mass still eats chicken or beef from time to time, though not much of it.

      Tofu and Rice w/spinach the night before rides. Usually do 45-60 miles each Sat and Sun, and at a hard pace, not of this noodling along stuff.

      Dunno how others manage.

      is there a brand name to the muesli you get or is it mixed in-store?

      Dunno, most of their supplies come through a local company called Harmony Foods.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:Offtopic but, by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link...I don't bike (probably should start, my cardio sucks..) but i do lift weights and have been looking for a healthier way of getting a bit of extra protien (besides the whey supplement im taking) without having to buy more meat (poor college kid here)

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    3. Re:Offtopic but, by gotih · · Score: 1

      add myself and at least 8 of my cyclist friends to the list of vegetarians or (gasp!) vegans who are quite active. somehow, despite plenty of living evidence to the contrary, people still buy the misconception that being vegetarian means a low-protein, low iron, low energy diet. silly silly omnivores, vegetables are full of all the minerals you need and beans provide us with plenty of protein.

      --

      fear is the mind killer
    4. Re:Offtopic but, by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      people still buy the misconception that being vegetarian means a low-protein, low iron, low energy diet.

      Not to start an arguement, but I'm not going by what I read, but who i know. I realize it's *possible*, but for a large part of my life the vegetarians I met were content with the aforementioned low protien low iron low energy system.

      I figure public conception is because most people think of the wispy "hippy" vegetarian they met at school (college, whatever) and simply haven't encountered any people who are counterexamples to the image

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
  78. Not bad but not a Prius by ibi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    40? Not bad but not comparable to a Prius.

    My friend's 2004 got 50 MPG on the last long trip I was along for. (That was with three people and all their camping gear, too.) And it does 0-60 in 10 seconds - most diesels are considerably slower.

    It also does the 3000+ foot climb over Snoqualmie pass on I-90 without a problem - so that issue is not a real one.

    Diesels won't really make sense in the US until after the new low sulfur fuel comes in (a few years away), anyway.

    1. Re:Not bad but not a Prius by AtomicDog · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My 2001 VW Jetta TDI once achieved 54 MPG on a road trip with the AC on, 4 adults, and a packed trunk. 785 miles on a single tank.

      I have a 5-speed manual transmission which helps a lot. I hate it when they compare an automatic TDI to the hybrids because the automatics get considerably less mileage than one with a manual transmission. Automatic TDIs usually get at least 5-7 MPG less than manual ones. Still, the mileage is awesome considering the fact that there are no differences between a regular gas Jetta from a diesel one besides the engine.

      Stock TDIs may be a bit slow, but that is easily solved by a $300 software upgrade to the ECU. The torque is addicting and hills are an absolute blast!

      For more on TDIs, I suggest visiting TDICLUB.com.

    2. Re:Not bad but not a Prius by ibi · · Score: 1

      Wow! 54? That is impressive.

      Once low-sulfur diesel does phase in diesels will be interesting in the US.

      Hybrids still have substantial advantages (especially in traffic jams) - but of course there's no reason you couldn't build diesel-electric hybrids. This study shows that a diesel hybrid could be even better than a fuel cell vehicle.

  79. First? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    If Ford is first, why do i vaguely remember a failed ( but sold.. ) attempt by GM many years ago to do this in california..

    From what i remember, they sold a few but as a product it failed..

    That would make them first...

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:First? by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 1

      Maybe the EV1? I think that was a purely electric vehicle.

      --
      --- Ban humanity.
  80. Re:Ehh... SUV? Why not a car? by Monkey · · Score: 1

    An Escape isn't even what I would call a "real" SUV. I had one as a rental once (non hybrid version). I decided, hey, this thing is supposed to be an offroad vehicle so I bounced it through a creek in AWD mode. Something ended up fucking up in the rearend/transaxle/what-ever-the-fuck that turns the rear wheels and it was making a grinding noise when I took it back. Of course, when explaining the problem to the rental place, I never mentioned the creek incident.

  81. engine sizes by r00t · · Score: 1

    In the USA, wanting massive engines is a given.
    Wanting AWD is for the intelligent people.
    Vehicular weight has advantages; a light vehicle
    can get blown off the road when going over a
    mountain pass or bridge.

    We only cut corners for money.

    4-cyl: cheap, but won't last
    6-cyl: decent
    8-cyl: nice, if you can afford it
    more: getting kind of excessive

    0.1 to 2.4 liter: joke
    2.5 to 2.9 liter: tolerable
    3.0 to 3.6 liter: decent
    3.7 to 4.8 liter: good
    4.9 to 6.0 liter: nice, if you can afford it
    6.1 to 7.2 liter: getting kind of excessive
    above that: WTF?

    Even Subaru has figured this out. There's a
    6-cyl engine now. It wasn't soon enough for
    me though; I went with the VW Passat. Now VW
    has an 4.0 liter 8-cyl Passat. Nice!

  82. street-legal in residential areas? by LS · · Score: 1

    Was this ever a question? You might as well say "also has a steering-column and four wheels"...

    LS

    --
    There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
  83. Re:Good start, but you'll still be stuck in traffi by Duhavid · · Score: 1

    How about just working from home? I could do it, for the most part, but....

    --
    emt 377 emt 4
  84. 3000 lbs? by dmanny · · Score: 1

    Even relatively small SUV are closer to 4000.

    --
    All my previous sigs now look like this one, I wish they were permanetly recorded when used. :-(
    1. Re:3000 lbs? by sitruc37diesel · · Score: 1

      1985 Jeep Cherokee
      2.5L 4-banger
      no air conditioning
      AM Radio

      3090 pounds

      this was weighed at a salvage yard using the jeep to haul in scrap aluminum. I'd think their scales are accurate.

    2. Re:3000 lbs? by dmanny · · Score: 1
      That doesn't sound unreasonable but consider that is a 20 year old four cyl. As a four, it might well have been 2wd and going to 4wd costs quite a bit of weight.

      More ominously, they haven't been making these beasts lighter. In one way of looking at things, improved technology has been used to make heavier vehicles more accepted. Almost all American vehicles have been on the increase. There is an interesting parallel to CPU horsepower and software bloat.

      Take our (wife would say its hers) 1999 Rodeo V-6, 4x4 LXE (full boat version). It doesn't give curb weight but gross is 4850. This size of vehicle generally doesn't allow too much in the way of cargo weight. I suspect it would be nearly 4k curb.

      I have a 93 Nissan Pathfinder, 4x4 full dress. I don't have the manual handy but I think it is about 3800. It's descendant has bloated up to 4304 but gets better mileage than my old beater with an engine rated at about 240 HP. Mine has a V-6 originally rated at an anemic 145 horse. At 155k miles, it is much more tired than that. That generation of Pathfinder is significantly smaller than the Rodeo or Chevy Blazer. I'd love to upgrade but then I would have to treat it nice.

      I generally only buy new vehicles when someone destroys one as I can handle anything in the mechanical department. One of these days I will get stuck with one just rusting to the point of uselessness but so far someone has always smashed my car for me before I got there.

      My wife's 1993 Chrysler Le Baron convertible weighs in at 3010 according to one reference I found. The current Sebring is around 3450.

      I too have gained in the same timeframe but not quite as badly.

      Now the Mazda RX-7 at 255 HP (still stock) shows a better appreciation for weight control. Going from the old Pathfinder to it is quite an adjustment.

      And where we live, suburban Kansas City (Kansas side) the Rodeo and Pathfinder are fairly small SUVs. I can turn around in my chair and see several lager ones at my neighbors. Very few of them will ever see much of an incline in the road, let alone anything but pavement. Almost all of these yuppies insist on 4wd and it is usually best that they get a variety that they do not have to choose to engage. They are quite something to see when it snows.

      The Ford vehicle has been featured on our local news several times in the last few weeks as it is being manufactured here in the metro area.

      A quick look gets the 2wd Escape with the smallest engine at a shade over 3k with M/T. Add the electric motor, CVT trans (might well be heavier than normal auto) and the battery stack and you come on up. The curb weight of the hybrid is a good question that I did not find an answer to on the web pages they have put up so far.

      PS: If you are talking about using a vehicle scale for before and after dumping, keep in mind that absolute weight does not have to be accurate, only the repeatable difference. Many scales for that purpose are rated for accuracy above a certain 'tare' threshold.

      --
      All my previous sigs now look like this one, I wish they were permanetly recorded when used. :-(
  85. Weight Limits by Luckster7 · · Score: 1

    Posted street weight limits only apply to commercial vechiles. If you don't have a class A or B license, you can ignore them. It's prefectably acceptable to drive a 45,000 Bus conversion motorhome down a street marked 6,000 gross limit. Read the CA commercial license book.

    --
    Deuteronomy 13:06-9
  86. MB E320 CDI is not a SUV by cft_128 · · Score: 1

    The Lexus RX400H is an SUV FWIW and has a nifty 4wd system on it. The E320 would not fit my needs for a vehicle to drive to Lake Tahoe for snowboarding.

    --

    Underloved Movies and Pub Quiz: donotquestionme.org

  87. What you actually get by JoeBuck · · Score: 1

    I have a 2003 Prius, and I get anywhere from 45 to 48.5 miles per gallon (measured by dividing miles driven by gasoline purchased, the real-time fuel efficiency gauge is a bit off). This isn't far from the 47/52 rating. Some other folks I know get less, it really depends how you drive. If you're a leadfoot you'll probably get only 40, or even less. The problem that the EPA rating is higher than what you actually get is true for all cars, not just hybrids, and that's because the auto company hires an expert who knows how to drive the car just right to do well on the test.

  88. MOD PARENT UP by imtheguru · · Score: 1

    For calling it like it is.

    Thanks for posting man. You said everything i wanted to say, and more, and far more articulately.

    --
    Yet Socrates himself is particularly missed.
    A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed.
  89. Brilliant! by drdreff · · Score: 1

    According to their calculator, I could spend $28K and replace my $500 Geo and save a whopping $42 a year!

    "Not bad."

    At that rate, the Hybrid Escape pays for itself in 655 years. But the batter won't last that long, and that assumes I pay cash for the thing up front.

    Don't get me wrong, I love the fact that Ford is finally doing this, and I believe that hybrids are the "right" answer but the technology is still wet behind the ears.

    --
    As seen on Wired: Get a free desktop PC
  90. Re:Ehh... SUV? Why not a car? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

    Because Honda and Toyota already have hybrid sedans (Civic and Prius, respectively) and [sub]compact cars (Honda Insight).

    Also, because people want SUVs, and Ford exists by selling what their customers want.

    I do, however, imagine that a Hybrid Focus would be appropriate to do next.

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  91. Article's based on an incorrect assumption by v8s4ever · · Score: 1
    The author of this article obviously (and incredulously) has made a mistake that is indeed an important one.

    If he had asked a policeman (or a truck driver with a commercial license) why they don't ticket these vehicles, he would have known. Posted weights on roads do not refer to the GVRW of a vehicle. They refer to the actual weight of the vehicle.

    Sooo... unless a vehicle actually weighs over 6000 pounds at the time it's traveling on the road (as weighed on a set of scales by a policeman), there is no violation.

    That's why the salespeople he asked "why they didn't tell customers the vehicles were illegal on such streets?" weren't aware of any illegality... because there isn't any illegality.

    If you don't believe me, ask a cop. That's why they have scales at truck stops.

    1. Re:Article's based on an incorrect assumption by aber · · Score: 1

      Finish reading the article, he mentions that at the end. Something to the effect that SUVs are taxed differently because they're considered trucks, i.e., above 3 tons; so SUV owners themselves use that fact to get the tax breaks. If so, then they should deal with the traffic limitations of owning a truck. He argues you shouldn't be able to have it both ways.

  92. Re:Good start, but you'll still be stuck in traffi by bluGill · · Score: 1

    You assume that people can up and move at the drop of a hat (no home to sell, no 9 months left on the lease), and all neighborhoods are equal. I had a nice job, so I bought a nice house near enough for me. They the company closed that branch and laid everyone off... Now I have a nice job an hour (on a perfect day, which never happens) from home, but in a company that admits to not having enough money to last more than a few months. (The plan is to get more money from investers, but I've seen investers pull out at the last minute before)

  93. Re: your sig... by Barlo_Mung_42 · · Score: 1

    I have no idea what you are talking about and I suspect neither do you. The Neuros shipped last year sometime. The NeurosII is out and I'm listening to it right now.

  94. Heinlein said by Duhavid · · Score: 1

    "Your right to wave your fists around ends at my nose". At least, I think it was him, in one of his novels. Either way, I think it applies here. ( I'm agreeing with you... :-)

    --
    emt 377 emt 4
  95. Pansies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Freaking socialists on Slashdot. Get over it. Some people want to drive SUVs. Let them. A fuel tax should take care of things if the funds were allocated appropriately. However, most of the time they get diverted into non-related programs. Pretty much all in the name of income redistribution. I get the impression that people are less concerned about fuel economy and more concerned about the fact that someone makes more money than them (somehow this has been associated with the SUV buyers). Bunch of bitter losers. Do you maintain your vehicles so that they consistently get the optimal mileage the vehicle was once capable of? I thought not. Do you telecommute? Oops. Sorry, I forgot most of you lost your jobs after the dot com bubble burst and still haven't found meaningful work. Do you ride a bike to do simple errands? Spare me you fat asses. Most of you probably smoke a pack day. Go ahead, get angry at SUV owners. Have a heart attack so we can all move on.

    1. Re:Pansies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can afford an SUV, that's hardly difficult in this industry.

      I ride a bike to work.
      (Consequently I don't have a fat ass)

    2. Re:Pansies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your freedom to throw a punch ends when your fist connects with my face.

      Decadent use of fuel fucks up my world, emissions and road safety locally, climate change globally (probably more a problem for my kids), not to mention both bankrolling Osama Bin Laden and being the root of much of the middle east meddling that makes Al Quada possible.

      But I see your point, as a libertarian I should promote individual freedoms, including your freedom to fuck things up for me.

  96. only for the massive ones by rebelcool · · Score: 1

    Theres all kinds of weirdness regarding the largest SUV's, because the laws were written years ago. Namely, trucks above 6000 lbs are considered 'medium duty'. It never occured to the writers of the laws that individual owners would own one of these things for personal use.

    So, in order to stimulate small business, a tax break is given on medium duty trucks.

    --

    -

  97. 3 tons would be Gross Weight. empty = much less by sitruc37diesel · · Score: 1

    Shit. you go to Caltech and you don't know the difference between GROSS WEIGHT and how much the vehicle weighs EMPTY?

    1. Re:3 tons would be Gross Weight. empty = much less by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      Assuming I read things correctly, the 3 ton limit on many roads is indeed reliant on the gross weight. Likewise for the SUV-related tax benefits.

  98. Save the roads?! by faitaccompli · · Score: 1

    Does a 6,000 lb. SUV destroy roads twice as quickly as a 3,000 lb. car? Does the size of the tires play into this at all? I seem to remember seeing a show on the "Hitler Channel" (cough, History Channel) that explained that German and Russian tanks, although much heavier than US tanks in WWII did not tend to bog down because their tracks were much wider. Just wondering....

    1. Re:Save the roads?! by mudshark · · Score: 1

      You betcha, double and (the real kicker) aggravated by higher speeds that a lot of SUV drivers seem to favor. Think mass*velocity squared. This is why the speed limit is often drastically reduced on older, worn-out bridges: they may be able to handle a 40-ton semi doing 35, but the pounding produced by the same truck doing 55 literally shakes them apart.

      --
      In other news, astrophysicists have announced that they now know what all that dark matter is: it's stupidity.
  99. Have their cake and eat it too by cft_128 · · Score: 1

    If you read his whole article he mentions your point at the bottom. What people are doing though is trying to have their cake and eat it too: they want their vehicle to be over 6000lbs for the tax break but still consider the vehicle under 6000lbs so they can drive on residential streets. I agree with the authors point - let them have it one way or the other but not both.

    --

    Underloved Movies and Pub Quiz: donotquestionme.org

  100. Example of this?? by TofuDog · · Score: 1

    Would there be an example to back up this assertion? Does a ford Ranger look "cooler" than a Tacoma that will run 2x as long without problems? Or is a Camry uglier than the Focus that likewise has half the lifespan. -Or did I forget pretty is more important than shitty? "...rolling dog crap" is more akin to a falling apart Ford I think. Now a '68 mustang is a different story...

  101. Good Thing by Balthisar · · Score: 4, Informative

    There's a commercial for a large supplier airing locally here in the Detroit area whose mantra is, "I'm a customer, too." This really ought to be Ford's tagline.

    I work for Ford. I'm an engineer there. I'm proud to be there. And this is a fine achievement (among others!). Here in Michigan, the auto industry is everything -- you grow up indoctrinated to it. My first two cars were pieces of crap -- Fords. This being the mid 80's. My next two cars were Hondas. I still have NO complaints about any automobile that Honda produces. For their price range, they were the best cars I've ever owned.

    But Ford -- as well as the other major "American" manufacturer GM -- has come a long way in quality and innovation. The Escape hybrid is evidence of innovation. The awards the Focus (a "low end, you get what you pay for type of car") has received indicates our quality has improved to the world class level.

    I'm going to get modded overrated -- so be it. But this article is the perfect opportunity to express the PRIDE that I finally have in an American automobile company. Yeah, my post could be regarded as a commercial, but remember, "I'm a customer, too."

    --
    --Jim (me)
    1. Re:Good Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so why does the escape hybrid get crap for gas mileage????

      ford escape hybrid = the crap from the 80's that ford and GM tride shoveling at us.

      come back when your "hybrid" get's 50+ MPG. a 6mpg increase over the standard gas guzzler is a absolute joke.

      you want good gas mileage?? get a VW TDI.... 50MPG without any trickery.

    2. Re:Good Thing by chihowa · · Score: 1
      Wow, I thought this day would never come. I make my money by working on cars and I (as well as the other mechanics in my shop) have always thought (while working on Fords, even newer ones) that I wished there was a Ford engineer present so I could take out some of my frustration.

      I don't want to be too negative, but there is some specal ability Ford has of producing vehicles that seem to be designed to be a PITA to work on. It's as if the engineers never actually think about the fact that parts need to be replaced occasionally. And this is not just worst case scenarios here, I mean regular maintenance too. Admittedly for many years now the quality of Fords products has drastically increased, but they is the only cars I've ever worked on that seem to have been specifically designed to be difficult to work on.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  102. It is the DRIVER that is unsafe, not the vehicle.. by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 4, Interesting



    Japan allows much lighter cars than the US, some are somewhere between a Yugo and a scooter. Yet they have 60% of the car crash death rate per 10,000 cars as the US. Overall, Japan has much lighter cars too, because gas isn't cheap there.

    Somehow, I'm not convinced that heavy trucks are the solution to accident deaths. John Stossel did a Myth Busters or something that showed that a mid-sized car is about as safe as an SUV. I've found some stats showing that minivans are safer than SUVs. A lot of it has to do with the fact that SUVs get into accidents more often because they have worse braking, worse handling and roll over much more often. Rollovers are also the most deadly kind of accidents too.

    Regional Crash Analyses

  103. GM ALREADY SELL SYLVERADO HYDRYD by denisbergeron · · Score: 1

    Since end of 2003. Well In Canada. I don't see it on the web site, but my local dealer tell me that I can order on for 10k$ more than the normal one!

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
  104. Bush canceled hybrid funding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reason that Ford was forced to use old Toyota technology is that the Bush administration cancelled the funding for hybrid car technology, at the behest of the oil industry. When early in his administration Bush made his speech about hydrogen technology, which his administration gave a pathetically low research budget to, he used the period of press hype to cover up cancelling hybrid car research funding. The press, of course, dutifully said nothing about this travesty.
    Hybrid technology was simply too close to market and the oil industry wanted to put a stop to its deployment. So, the BushOil administration performed a bait and switch: Talk about hydrogen, which was at least fifteen years from deployment, and cancel hybrid research, which was only a couple of years away from the market. So yet again a corrupt American administration sacrifices American industrial progress.
    Fortunately for consumers, Japan wasn't about to obey Bush's commands, as Japan has to import all of its oil and is thus serious about doing something about efficiency. Unfortunately, the US is now drastically behind Japan in yet another critical technology, just at the time when oil prices are reaching record highs and probably staying there as long as the oil industry holds on to the US presidency.
    On the good side though, the high prices and technology delays are really good for Bush's buddies in the energy industry, and hey, what's a Presidency for?

  105. WTF is a SporTrac? by TofuDog · · Score: 1

    Try -driving- the Tacoma. Maybe off-road even. What a concept. Oh, maybe I can just say "Expedition", "Mountaineer", -oh wait, I feel BIGGER... Grow up. -Ot buy one of those pumps...

  106. Why big cars? by xxx_Birdman_xxx · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It always makes me wonder why people love big cars, and from what it seems, especially in America.
    Im in Australia. People here like their cars. The most popular car here I would suggest would be a Holden Commadore. But people like those because they are made well, they are really comfortable and can pull a boat/trailer/747 without any trouble.
    I have never heard anyone say they like their cars to be big. In fact, I've only ever heard small cars admired for their size, and how much easier it makes them for people to park and squeeze between things in smaller streets.

    It doesn't look like that hybrid car in the article looks THAT big, but can someone explain to me why people like big cars so much, in particular in America?
    I would think that for hybrid cars to take off in Australia, they would have to start with smaller cars for city driving, as that is what people are prefering here.

    --
    Live in your skin. Keep changing the scenery.
    1. Re:Why big cars? by jlanthripp · · Score: 1
      We Americans like big cars because we like big everything. Cars, breasts, houses, food, guns, you name it - if it's bigger, it's better in our eyes.

      All kidding aside, though, we like bigger cars for a myriad of reasons, from the status symbol quotient to being able to put a week's worth of groceries for a family of 5 in the trunk. Some prefer them because of the (maybe no longer true) fact that larger cars offer a smoother ride, which is understandably important when you see the state of disrepair our roads are in.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
  107. Re:Linked article about (unknown) California SUV b by HarveyBirdman · · Score: 1

    Uhhh... The Ram 1500 is a pickup. I own one. It's well under 3 tons.

    --
    --- Ban humanity.
  108. Seriously? by TofuDog · · Score: 1

    I've been vegetarian for 10+ years, though I eat some cheese and milk, and wild game in the last few years (learned to hunt in Alaska). I and others bike and lift with great results. John Robbins' "Diet for a new America" notes a "Mr. Universe" who was a vegie. Don't be fooled by the Beef Council propaganda. Pedal on -the only sustainable way to commute!

  109. GM is *not* a proper Hybrid by SubtleNuance · · Score: 1, Informative

    The GM Truck is what they are calling a "parallel" hybrid. It is *NOT* used to propell the vehicle.

    See here: http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/pw/05gmhybr id.htm To wit:
    But the GM trucks may not qualify as true hybrids in the minds of some observers, as their electric motors don't actually drive the wheels. ....This is the key to understanding how the "parallel" hybrid system...
    Unlike some other hybrids on the North American market, the GM pickup truck hybrid system doesn't use a supplementary motor to propel the vehicle. It does, however, use an electric motor to start the vehicle and generate electricity that powers accessories....The Sierra/Silverado hybrid system is used specifically to reduce the load on the standard 295-horsepower, 5.3-litre Vortec V8 engine (read that as "idiot sized"), ensuring that it's only burning fuel when required to drive the truck.


    In short, GMs truck isnt hybrid at all.

    As for the Escape, Ive driven it -- it is UNBELIEVABLE. Ive ordered mine already. Expect it October 13th.

    My dream car: A Ford Focus Z5 with a Hybrid / PZEV diesel.

  110. fuel cells won't help by ChrisCampbell47 · · Score: 1
    4. People talk about fuel cell cars constantly, but here's the thing; a fuel cell car will have to be a highly streamlined, possibly drive-by-wire, light-body device with electronic drive components and regenerative brakes; you get there by developing hybrids, not by skipping them.

    The question is, do we want to "get there"? To fuel cells?

    If you do the math on the energy equations, including the delivery system and most importantly the hydrogen production, you find that fuel cells are NOT EFFICIENT. You have to take into consideration the entire energy process, not just the last mile.

    Of course, there certainly is a lot of political power behind a hydrogen based energy economy, because it would use the same old production and delivery systems that many, many people are make a lot of money off of right now.

    Contrast it with energy economies that are decentralized, like home or neighborhood generation. This capability is getting closer every day. For example, every cost/efficiency improvement in solar has simply been matched on the market by fossil fuels by dropping their price, but at some point fossil fuels can't stay that low (witness the oil market right now, hmmm) and yet solar and other renewable technologies keep getting better and better.

    Now, the big advantage that fossil fuels and hydrogen do have is that they are incredibly dense energy storage mediums. Nothing comes close, certainly not batteries; think about the wallop that 10 pounds of gasoline can give a car, versus 10 pounds of charged battery. So what you might find hydrogen useful for is basically as a battery -- you expend electricity at the hydrogen generation plant to create the hydrogen, and then create electricity in the car (or home, or business) via the fuel cell. You just need to transport the hydrogen around, which is a lot different than moving oil around, so good luck with that.

    So, hybrids may be a means to a fuel cell end, but the end may not be feasible or even desirable.

    1. Re:fuel cells won't help by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      What do you propose other than hydrogen?

      Oil is out. Whether ten, fifty, a hundred, or five hundred years from today, it will run out. Signs are that it will be sooner rather than later. We can't depend on it forever, so we have to switch to something else eventually.

      Batteries are out, you said so yourself; the energy density simply isn't there.

      Other alternative energy sources simply don't scale down. You can't have a realistic solar-powered car, not even at noon in the Sahara. And a solar-powered car on a cloudy night is not going to work at all. Nuclear, geothermal, wind, etc. may all be viable energy options, but they will never be viable for cars.

      The entire point of hydrogen is to divorce the type of energy generation from the use. If you can make a car that runs on hydrogen, then that car can be ultimately powered by solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, whatever you have on hand that can generate electricity. It may be less efficient, but I'd rather have a 10% efficient nuclear process powering my car than 20% efficient gasoline.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    2. Re:fuel cells won't help by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you do the math, you'll find that my fuel cost on a solar panel is zero. It therefore renders any conversion of thermodynamic efficency to economic viability irrelevant.


      You can make hydrogen from solar, hell if you want to do it via distributed generation like you mention, go check out Honda's driveway-sized personal solar fueling station. You'll never be able to make gas from the sun, and you're going to run out of gas. In 40 years at best.


      So, in 2044, strap your musk-ox parka onto your Mad Max blubber burning trike and come over to the one remaining computer to tell me how inelegant this engineering solution is.

    3. Re:fuel cells won't help by chihowa · · Score: 1
      The fuel cost of a solar panel may be zero, but you still have to pay for the production and upkeep of it. If it does not have an indefinite lifespan, there is also the problems of disposal, management of toxic wastes caused by production and disposal.

      I'm not bashing solar power, but you can't sell it as a zero cost solution. There are both monetary and environmental costs for it as well. Likewise for fuel cells.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  111. Re:Good start, but you'll still be stuck in traffi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I expect to find bums sleeping in it (enforced as "legal" in San Francisco) , or disposed diapers, or urine, or worse... just like I do on most public transportation.

    Hence, [at least part of the reason why] people won't use it.

    Good luck, though!

  112. Hybrid Flexible Fuel Vehicles by Tekmage · · Score: 1

    I get reasonable mileage out of my hybrid, but for my next car I think I'm going to get a flexible-fuel vehicle. That way I can cut my fossil fuel consumption 85% by using an Ethanol mix.

    Could someone please come out with a Hybrid FFV? Anyone know of any manufacturers working on this?

    --
    --The more you know, the less you know.
  113. they are everywhere here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Aus, gas convered cars are everywhere, most taxis use them but also for around 2kau many people convert there own car. gas used to be much cheaper than oil, but im not sure now.

  114. You will never earn back the cost in gasoline. by Shivetya · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So while it may look better to not have to put $80 dollars in gas into the car weekly it is only because you prepaid it through the premium of buying a hybrid car.

    Until they cost the same as a similarly equipped vehicle these only are good for CAFE and feeling good about yourself (while ignoring the obvious fact you lost money on the deal)

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:You will never earn back the cost in gasoline. by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 1

      How do you figure they've LOST money on the deal?

      Isn't *any* car you buy 'money lost'?

      Especially when you compare the high end $29k Escape vs the low end $19k?

      Every dollar you spend is for a feature; in this case, it is fuel efficiency and low end torque.

    2. Re:You will never earn back the cost in gasoline. by sesser · · Score: 1

      Hybrids aren't that much more. You'll certainly make up for any "loss of money" over the life time of the vehicle when compared to the a regular (gas sucking) model.

  115. Balances the energy equation? by NuShrike · · Score: 1

    Isn't it the reason that SUVs are so inefficient is because it takes so much energy to get them moving, and then all lost to braking, compared to a smaller car?

    So, if you regain most of it back now through regenerative breaking, doesn't it make SUVs about as efficient as normal cars now, no matter the mass?

  116. Re:Ehh... SUV? Why not a car? by Agent__Smith · · Score: 0

    That is a rediculous question. Take into account here that what you are talking about is a FORD ESCAPE. Maybe it should be explained to you what a FORD ESCAPE is... Judging from your spastic attack on all SUVs as criminal and evil, you obviously have little idea.

    A Ford escape is one of the SMALLEST, LIGHTEST SUVs available today. It shares it's sub frame and structure with the TAURUS. Gets almost identical mileage as the taurus, and weighs only nominally more than said Taurus. It gets between 19 and 26 MPG depending on driver and actual driving habbits. It seats 4 adults comfortably or 5 in a pinch. Let me spell it out for you... IT IS A GLORIFIED STATION WAGON. It is a far cry from the 7000 to 9000 pound bohemoths that you are assuming just because it said SUV somewhere in the article. It would be more closely related to something like an AWD Subaru Outback Station Wagon than an 8000 pound suburban or excursion.

    When you knee-jerk react with your "abusing the road" and "environmental concerns" tirade, you just tune out the middle of the road folks like me.

    I happen to own both a 2001 Ford Taurus SES with a V6 and a 2003 Escape LX with the V6 and towing package. We pull a small camper trailer on occation, and have 2 small children. The mileage difference between the Taurus (a 4 door sedan as you suggested) and the 4 door escape is within a mile to the gallon around town and only about 2 and a half miles per gallon on the highway. The Escape is MUCH better in snowy or wet weather, and is far more capable of towing the small camper trailer. Also, the cargo space and visibility are far superior in the Escape, and the children appreciate that the seat backs in the rear seats of the Escape RECLINE. This is something really handy and convenient on those long trips. I do not believe myself to be abusing the roads or environment simply because someone decided to call it an SUV instead of a Station Wagon.

    Next time, know whereof you speak. There are SUVs and then there are S U V s.

    --
    "It seems that we are at the age where life stops giving us things, and starts taking them away..." Indiana Jones
  117. People don't like public transport by xRelisH · · Score: 1

    Interesting idea. However this is pretty much public transport.

    I'm sure most people here would rather be in their own car instead of in a subway car. People like to feel at home, that's why people like offices at work. You get to put pictures of your family, personalize, and basically make it your home. People do the same with their cars, it's their own music, the interior is the colour they chose, it's THEIRS.

    When's the last time you felt at home inside a subway car? You're sitting in a rather uncomfortable seat, other strangers around you, and it's not like you can hang up a picture of your family either.

    This is why I believe the car is going absolutely nowhere for at least the next 100 years. People like to take "home" with them, this is why the car is such a big part of society these days.

    1. Re:People don't like public transport by JimBobJoe · · Score: 1

      However this is pretty much public transport.

      Well it is public transport, certainly. However the big difference is that this system doesn't run on public transport time--it doesn't make stops that you don't need, it goes only where you want, et cetera.

      It's essentially a taxi on rails and while I agree with you that it wont' entirely replace the car--it will definitely threaten buses, taxis and light rail (which are much older public transport concepts.)

    2. Re:People don't like public transport by Moderation+abuser · · Score: 1

      It absolutely is public transport. It won't replace the car, there will always be somewhere you want to go to that the system doesn't support.

      However, what it does do is make public transport useful, threatens buses and light rail systems which are bloody useless unless you happen to want to go where they do, hence the low utilisation.

      No changes, no stopping, the PRT pods are single vehicles, you don't have to share with strangers, the cars come when *you* call them, you aren't restricted by a schedule. It's like a taxi which doesn't get stuck in traffic.

      --
      Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
  118. do you realize... by rebelcool · · Score: 1

    how many billions of barrels of oil would be saved in a year if every car got "only" a 6 mpg increase due to hybridization?

    For a first gen hybrid vehicle, thats a damn fine improvement.

    --

    -

  119. Re: your sig... by Moofie · · Score: 1

    My bad. When I looked last week, they were vaporware.

    Did it come with a lunchbox to carry it in?

    --
    Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  120. Ford versus Toyota by EnergyEfficient · · Score: 1

    Ford's first hybrid, goes on sale in the U.S. this fall. After loosing billions in the last few years Ford is attempting to brand themselves as the "environmentally conscious" company by launching their new Escape.

    However, there is much debate over who developed the vehicle technology. Ford claims all original patents but did pay off Toyota for "patent similarities". Hmmmm.
    Bloomberg News"

  121. efficiency vs weigth? by nbert · · Score: 1

    I don't want to rant, but I always wondered about the current situation of car development. The car industry innovates better and bigger engines, which use less fuel all the time. But whenever they have something new they integrate it into a heavier vehicle. In the end we'll have engines which are close to running without fuel, but the vehicles they power will weight 5 tons (that's exactly 10000 lbs). I guess that we waste the same ammounts of fuel we wasted 20 years ago. What's the point about that? We gain efficiency which is lost because cars are getting more comfortable all the time (at least that's how the car manufacturers justify the weight gain).
    I would switch from a SUV to a normal car if I was interested in reducing pollution - not the other way around.

    Btw: At least the Mercedes M xxx is primarily used for shopping over here. Everybody knows that SUV's are normally used on-road, but a SUV, which has parking sensors for the purpose of sending signals if you are getting too close to another car really prooves that they are just a waste of fuel after all. Those cars haven't seen anything apart from roads and parking lots.

  122. This is GRRRREAT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More components to fail in a Ford!

    Sign me up, my mechanic is expecting another baby and I miss my recall mails!!

  123. Best line of the entire article. by Mr.Cookieface · · Score: 1
    "Bill Ford, Ford's chairman and chief executive, drove the Escape into a roomful of autoworkers..."

    I think you are not the only one interested in it's power to kill.

  124. old news by hb253 · · Score: 1

    Talk about old news. This was in all the major car magazines one or two months ago.

    --
    Self awareness - try it!
  125. Weight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Conventional Escapes weigh a little over 3000 pounds, in the same range as a four door car. Besides, any car has the power to kill the driver of a normal sized car. E=mv^2/2, remember?

  126. Deisel Hybrids coming.. Hybrid/deisel comparason by acomj · · Score: 1

    I have a 98 Volkwagon TDI Jetta. I get about 45 miles per gallon over the 140,000 miles I've driven. The car has been great, always starts even in the cold winters in the NE. The car isn't a speed demon, but its not bad accelerating (the turbo helps and the tourque of engine is strong.)

    I've been looking at the hybrids. They look like a good. Cleaner than the diesels . But according to usa today, the mileage of the hybrid prius isn't as good as the diesel.
    USA today..

    and mack trucks are getting into the action with diesel electric hybrids..
    http://www.macktrucks.com/default.aspx?pageid=1027

  127. SUV/car accidents are a different story tho by caveat · · Score: 1

    while SUVs may very well be as safe as a passenger car in a single-car crash, when say an H2 T-bones a Civic at an intersection cuz the H2 drvier thought "everybody should get out of my way" (happened in town last year, that's what the [female] driver said, i shit you not), the occupants of the car tend to not do very well (1 killed, 1 lost a limb, 2 severely mangled).

    --

    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
  128. Re: your sig... by Barlo_Mung_42 · · Score: 1

    You didn't read my whole sig. I'm a Real Geek (tm).
    I have a 9 pocket vest that I wear (and call my geek utility vest) that holds all my geek tools. It fits nicely in the top left breast pocket. I've even wired it with built in headphones. Not kidding at all. :)

    Granted. It is a bit big to jog with. I'm a geek though, so that isn't really a problem.
    What I like about it is the built in FM receiver AND transmitter. So when I get in my car I unplug the headphones and BOOM, it switches over to transmit mode without any added doodads.
    And the software for it is open source. And it has native OGG support.

  129. Exactly by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2, Informative

    I did this eval a couple of years ago when I was looking for a new car. Updating this, using published numbers (cost and gas mileage) from edmunds.com, using essentially identical cars, the 2004 Honda Civic and Civic Hybrid, and todays gas price of $1.81...the Hybrid only actually saves money after 450,000 miles. With city driving figures, it equals out at 190,000 miles.

    That $4,000 price premium buys a LOT of gas.

    Of course this ignores any maintenance costs, which are probably higher for the hybrid (battery replacement), and any tax breaks for the hybrid.

    The Hybrid DOES save gas (always a good thing, but how much is debatable), but not necessarily money in your pocket.

    1. Re:Exactly by adpowers · · Score: 1

      I now drive my car on biodiesel. it is more expensive than petro diesel and it uses the same amount, so there is no way to earn money off the deal.

      I'm not using biodiesel to save money, I'm using it to be good for the environment and cut down on emissions in my area (which affect me more than, say, emissions in LA). Saving money is not the motivation for many, and I'd dare say most, hybrid buyers.

      Andrew

      PS: You have cheap gas.

    2. Re:Exactly by anoopa · · Score: 1

      I heard diesel coagulates in cold weather, any comments?

    3. Re:Exactly by adpowers · · Score: 1

      Well, in really cold areas (like Alaska, I think), people plug their cars in when they get home and it keeps the engine and fuel above a certain temperature. While biodiesel coagulates at a higher temperature than biodiesel, it rarely gets cold enough for either where I live, it is pretty moderate here. Also, if you do live somewhere it occasionally gets cold enough to coagulate biodiesel in the winter months, and don't want to buy a heater thing, you can always mix with petro diesel. While you pollute more, it is still a lot cleaner than straight petro diesel (even just 20 percent biodiesel gets rid of a lot of emissions).

      I'm having trouble finding figures, but all fuels will coagulate at some temperature, I think.

      Andrew

  130. Re:Sounds ideal - Diesel fallacy... by silverhalide · · Score: 1

    Diesels, which they do get good mileage, one fact is almost always overlooked: Diesel fuel contains about 10-15% more available heat content per gallon than gas. So 40MPG diesel is actually 35-37 MPPGE (Miles per gallon gasoline equivalent). While diesel engines ARE thermally more efficent than traditional otto cycle gasoline engines, the numbers are skewed further by this fact.

    The other killer for Diesel is particulate and NOx emissions, which are two major components of smog. Newer engines are rapidly improving on this, but most production diesels now can't touch gasoline engines as far as emissions go.

    As far as starter motors go, you're right, you can't run a regular starter motor more than 30-40 seconds before it starts to overheat. However, new Stater-Altenator technology is emegering in the form of "Mild Hybrids" that have essentially an oversize starter motor that doubles as the altenator for the vehicle, and is capable of providing a few kW of starting torque to take the low-end load off the engine. These systems usually cut about 10% off the fuel consumption. I believe the GM hybrid will be of this type.

  131. Costs and "paying for itself" with Hybrids by TFloore · · Score: 1

    This Ford Escape Hybrid is marketed by Ford as 36MPG. That's probably city, and highway is likely closer to 30MPG.

    Check out Ford's website, and the current Escape XLT V6 is 20MPG city, 25MPG highway.

    The cost premium for a hybrid vehicle is closer to $3,000, also. The waiting list right now for the Escape hybrid is awful, but the cost premium isn't that bad.

    Personally, right now I'm driving 20,000 miles per year. About 14,000 of that is highway, and 6,000 of that is city miles.

    Let's do some math...

    14,000 miles / 25MPG = 560gal * $2/gal = $1120
    6,000 miles / 20MPG = 300gal * $2/gal = $600
    Total cost for my driving with a normal V6 Escape is $1720/year.

    14,000 miles / 30MPG = 466gal * $2/gal = $933
    6,000 miles / 36MPG = 167gal * $2/gal = $333
    Total cost for my driving with a hybrid Escape is $1300/year.

    The price difference per year is $420. (That's for 20,000 miles per year.)

    So, to pay for that $3,000 permium for the Hybrid, I have to drive this vehicle for...
    $3000 / $420/year = 7.1years, or about 142,000 miles.

    It pays for itself after 7 years? Okay... when will the batteries need to be replaced? (Toyota talks about batteries being replaced, for a cost of about $1000, every 100,000 miles, I believe. I'd give you a website stating that, but I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. :)

    Hmm... at 100,000 miles, I spend an extra $1000. Since I don't reach my break-even point before 100,000 miles, the real price difference for that hybrid is $4,000 ($3,000 original price difference, plus $1,000 battery replacement)

    So that "pay for itself" caluclation becomes...
    $4000 / $420/year = 9.5 years (190,000 miles... I'm 10,000 miles from another $1,000 battery replacement. Which really should be included in this calculation, if you want to be honest...

    So... (maybe I shouldn't have complained about your "say it adds on $5,000")
    $5,000 / $420/year = 11.9 years (238,000 miles)

    The hybrid pays for itself after 12 years, and almost 240,000 miles. That's with a 70/30 highway/city mileage split.

    12 years?

    Umm... This is not a sound economic decision.

    There are plenty of reasons to get a hybrid, but don't pretend it's a smart money decision.

    --
    This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
  132. Truck Hybrids != better Gas Mileage by Bruha · · Score: 1

    I've researched a few hybrid trucks and their reported gas mileage is nearly the same as their gas guzzling counterparts.

    So a 25k Gas Truck 19Mpg vs 35k Same truck as hybrid 19Mpg..

    Not hard to figure out which one money saving consumers will pick.

  133. cool technology, but. . . by alizard · · Score: 1
    We're better off learning how to grow our own oil than conserve it. I like this technology, but we are better off as a society investing the $169B it's going to take to build algae biomass energy farms to replace foriegn oil imports. BTW, biomass is basically carbon-neutral, the carbon that is burned is extracted in the form of carbon dioxide.

    We're better off buying cheaper cars and light bulbs and putting the difference into taxes to be spent on subsidizing energy farm development if we actually want to make a difference either from the standpoint of global warming or from the standpoint of not providing the oil producers of the Middle East more money to make trouble for the West with.

    The question of US/EU conservation is no longer especially relevant to the global warming picture. Worrying about this is part of a conventional wisdom that is obsolete and that we no longer have time for anymore.

    The Third World will happily burn any oil we don't in the pursuit of the cheapest possible industrialization and consumer goods. Imagine ever Chinese and Indian family with a car. Get the idea? Unless we can find them and ourselves a better and cheaper alternative. Algae biomass is probably it.

    With respect to cheap energy in general, check my sig. The good news is that real solutions are within reach.

  134. Re: your sig... by Moofie · · Score: 1

    Oh, I'm glad you like it. It's just the iSheep part of your sig that made me want to fix you a nice cool glass of gofuckyourself.

    The Neuros has some great features. If it wasn't the size of a 1986 cell phone, I might have bought one. Me, I think the shirt-pocket size of my 40 gig iPod has a) the best form factor and b) the best UI that money can buy.

    So I bought it.

    --
    Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  135. Not the first american hybrid! by jeti · · Score: 1

    The first american hybrid was built in or before 1910. I'm not sure which of the mentioned cars were built in the US. But hybrid cars are basically as old as combustion powered cars. Note that Ferdinand Porsches first car was all electric. His second one was a serial hybrid.

    This site provides a nice overview.

  136. flamebait? by adpowers · · Score: 1

    Sounds like someone is trying to defend their purchase of a huge ass SUV.

  137. Re:Ehh... SUV? Why not a car? by Ruie · · Score: 1
    1. Only SUV's and minivans have rear compartments large enough to put 19" monitor in without problems.

    2. Not all SUV's are fuel hogs - I have Subaru Forester and it is pretty fuel efficient, at least as well as many "plain" midsize cars.

    So if you want to use your car for anything besides commute a minivan or SUV are very good choices.

  138. A Triumph of Marketing by ltkije · · Score: 1
    Has anyone else noticed that the publicity for this car runs way out of proportion to a production run of only 20,000 vehicles this model year? What Ford appears to get is a loss on each Escape, but good "enviro-friendly" PR without having to actually deliver in large quantities.

    On a personal note, anyone who signs up for information can expect lots of marketing e-mails from a company that doesn't really understand the opt-out principle. Wait long enough and glossy brochures will show up in your mailbox, too.

  139. Re:Why a Ford at all? - domestic quality? by freezin+fat+guy · · Score: 1

    GM and Ford have the cash to hire competent engineers. They do hire competent engineers. Unfortunately for the consumer those engineers intentionally design their vehicles to give a limited number of years of reliable service.

    The problem is economic. The North American auto manufacturing process is grosly innefficient from a number of angles (not the least of which is union related) and profits commensurately slim. In this environment a reliable vehicle could be a problem.

    Manufacturers like Toyota have better profit margins and can afford to make more reliable vehicles. (This is not raw conjecture - the profit information is documented.)

    Make no mistake, your car was carefully designed to break down.

    Scepticle? Let me give you another example:

    I used to work as a diesel mechanic for a large construction company. As you probably know, Caterpillar is an American company with production facilities in North America. I did maintenance on Cats almost 30 years old which were still being run full tilt doing heavy duty, high-impact workloads for 14 hours a day, 6 days a week, at least 6 months a year. There isn't a passenger vehicle on the planet that works as hard as those old bulldozers (American designed at that) and yet they gave us decades of service.

    Why did a domestic construction vehicle give us such good service compaired to domestic passenger vehicles? The problem for a company that produces $500,000 equipment is that their customers are large businesses who have economic sense and are fully prepared to take their business elsewhere if they know they're getting screwed on quality. The auto industry, on the other hand, has it much softer dealing with the general public which is largely descriminate in their purchasing. There are smart consumers, but they are few enough that they do not significantly affect the market.

    I could give more examples but I'm done.

  140. Re:Good start, but you'll still be stuck in traffi by Moderation+abuser · · Score: 1

    You have to pay and select a destination before a PRT car/pod will open. Also, all of the systems in development have a "Rejected because this pod is damaged/filthy" button so presumably in production they will be able to be taken out of service and cleaned as needed.

    --
    Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
  141. Front wheel drive will be better. by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1
    Just get decent frost tyres and a set of snow chains for if it gets really mucky. We regularly get feet of snow, and I have nearly always used front wheel drive cars. My old Merc, and the Volvos, were all rear wheel drive, and while they were ok, they were really tail-happy. Four wheel drive vehicles were just too heavy and had piss-poor traction.


    Make sure you're not using really wide tyres - narrower is better in the snow. Keep it slow and steady, and if you're blessed with the ownership of an elderly Citroen (possibly some others), don't forget that the handbrake works on the front wheels, which means you can use a couple of notches of handbrake to stop a slipping wheel from spinning.

  142. Yay! Citroen GSA! by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1
    Like my old one - . There are *some* in the US, but since they were never officially imported, and the one in the picture was one of the last ever built in the West (in 1985), I should think you'd have a job finding one. There are, as far as anyone knows, two left in Scotland. There used to be three, but I sold one of mine...


    Advantages were 100mph cruising speed from its dinky little 1300cc engine, 0-60 in 12 seconds (not bad for its size), seats four big adults comfortably, and suspension slightly more advanced than that fitted to Rolls-Royce cars. Disadvantages were the piss-poor heater, and rust problems.

  143. Newness by IncohereD · · Score: 1

    How many taxicabs do you see that are new enough to be hybrid?

    Ottawa, ON recently passed a law that all cabs have to be less than 5 years old. As you can imagine this prompted rotating random taxi strikes. It was a bad scene.

  144. Hybrid Car Review site by kallistiblue · · Score: 1
    Hybrid Car Reviews This is a site could turn into something interesting eventually.

    My big hope is that they begin making diesel hybrid cars soon. That way we can start using Biodiesel Alternative Fuels. I think it's time we stopped paying $14 billion to farmers to not grow crops. That's a lot of waste.

    Those farmers could grow soybeen or rapeseed that would be used to create biodiesel. Biodiesel is a net zero carbon producer. The carbon created by combustion is consumed by the future fuel.

    Say goodbye to the Green House Effect and hello to more money for education and medicare. :)

    --
    Laugh at my ignorance while I learn Rails - a Real ne
  145. When are they going to target USPS delivery vans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, those weird looking little
    vans that stop and start at every house
    with a mail box, or cluster of mailboxes.

    Also taxis in crowded urban areas.

    And I want a hybrid camper.

    By the way, can you get a converter to
    tap a hybrid for emergency house power,
    or for tools in the field?

    That'd be cool for a work truck, as well as
    the camper.

  146. That depends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That depends on how much you can get away with electric only driving (0 MPG), since this is a "full hybrid".

    I don't know whether you have the option of injecting electricity into the system by plugging it in, but for many that would eliminate gas most of the time.

    My wife drives 48 miles a day round trip. If she could plug this in each night, we'd never use gas except when we leave town.

    I believe this is the future of hybrids. Gas when you need it, all electric when you don't.

    1. Re:That depends by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      No, you can't plug it in at night. Regenerative braking evidently supplies most of the battery recharge.

      They're estimating 400+ miles on a 15 gal tank. Let's call it 425 miles per tank, that gets you 28mpg. Good (for an SUV), but not stellar. Does a 28 mpg SUV offset the extra few $$ thousang purchase price?

      There are many, many cars that get way better mileage. Cheaper, too.

  147. Re:Ehh... SUV? Why not a car? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mrr? I've put two 19" monitors in the back of the following:
    Taurus
    Golf
    Concorde
    300M
    We also put two full size towers back there too. You just need to plan a little before you put things in the car.

  148. welcome to post-NAFTA America by exhilaration · · Score: 1

    My Honda Civic was made in Ohio. Frankly, there's no guarantee that "American" cars are made in America - most auto makers are shifting production to Mexico (for example, every PT Cruiser, Avalanche, Escort, and Aztek was made in Mexico - and there are many more examples).

  149. NOT Toyota's Technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't care what the linked story says, Ford DID NOT use any of Toyota's technology. The system was developed completely in-house. Ford looked through Toyota's patents and decided to avoid trouble later by just licensing the items that looked similar enough.

  150. Re:It is the DRIVER that is unsafe, not the vehicl by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

    "Yet they have 60% of the car crash death rate per 10,000 cars as the US."

    Simply because they own cars doesn't mean they drive them as often or as far as the typical American. After all, what's the average price of gasoline in Japan right now?

    It'd be better to compare the crash death rate per car-kilometer, not just per car.