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.
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
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.
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.
Why not just get a Toyota to begin with. Chances are it's cheaper and doesn't fall apart after 6 years...
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.
.. because I'd love to buy one of these. The only thing americans wont buy this for in many cases is the higher price.
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
[sound of crickets chirping]
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
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.
http://www.detnews.com/2004/insiders/0407/31/c01-
"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. "
If you really want an energy-efficient sports utility vehicle, try a bicycle.
----- Vegans don't send SPAM.
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
I believe this is the first:
2005 Chevy Silverado HybridGuess we need to update the old acronym:
"Found On Road, Drained."
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
becasue it's easy to take your dog, 3 kids, and pull you boat from a Bike.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"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.
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.
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
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.
Looks good for your age..
I'm not seeing it. They do cliam 400+ miles on a tank but they don't say how much the tank holds.
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.
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
what would be the point?
And why did they choose to go w/ 1st-gen technology instead of 2nd?
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.
The problem has to be re-thought entirely.
d .co.uk/
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.atslt
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
I'm sure it will do wonderfully on my 100 mile round trip commute.
Finding God in a Dog
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.
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...
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.
hydrogen == supposedly more environment friendly
SUV == environement unfriendly
Does a Hydrogen SUV make sense then?
Do we really really need SUVs?
Simpy
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
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.
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
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.
...but perhaps it can be slowed. That would buy us a little more time.
Finding God in a Dog
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!
The Citroen DS for instance, forty years ago.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
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!
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
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
What's their deal with SOx? Same? Better? Worse?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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"
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
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....
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/
36 mpg is supposed to be good mileage?
Only Ford would make an SUV it's first hybrid.
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:
...hope this doesn't fuel a flamewar.
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
$cat
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.
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.
Anonymous illiterate/innumerate Coward, if you don't learn to read, you'll never be a geek.
--
make install -not war
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?
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?
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."
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 :)
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
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.
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!
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).
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
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)
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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)
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.
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 ----
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.
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
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.
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!
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
-Edit 36.4 cents a gallon-
How about just working from home? I could do it, for the most part, but....
emt 377 emt 4
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
>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.
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.
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)
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.
http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/vehicle s/stewart_stevenson/
Also, they can convert a bus into a hybrid using an Allison hybrid transmission.
"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
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.
-
Shit. you go to Caltech and you don't know the difference between GROSS WEIGHT and how much the vehicle weighs EMPTY?
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....
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
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...
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)
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
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 !
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...
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.
Uhhh... The Ram 1500 is a pickup. I own one. It's well under 3 tons.
--- Ban humanity.
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
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!
The GM Truck is what they are calling a "parallel" hybrid. It is *NOT* used to propell the vehicle.
r id.htm To wit: ....This is the key to understanding how the "parallel" hybrid system...
See here: http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/pw/05gmhyb
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.
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.
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.
One simple rule for its versus it's
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
-
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!
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"
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.
I don't read replies by ACs.
umm... for a starter, maybe you need to get some eduation first...
I think you are not the only one interested in it's power to kill.
Talk about old news. This was in all the major car magazines one or two months ago.
Self awareness - try it!
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
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.)
7
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=102
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Tech Public Policy stuff
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!
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.
Sounds like someone is trying to defend their purchase of a huge ass SUV.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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).
"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.