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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
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
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've read elsewhere that it's in the 35mpg highway ballpark. here is an article stating they got anywhere from 39 to 60.
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...
hydrogen == supposedly more environment friendly
SUV == environement unfriendly
Does a Hydrogen SUV make sense then?
Do we really really need SUVs?
Simpy
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
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.
.
>Base MSRP is $19,855, for manual transmission.
s p?bhcp=1 says $26,970 for front wheel drive, $28,595 for four-wheel drive. Where did you get your numbers from?
>Since no one in the US drives manual (except me
>it seems), I suspect $21,000 to start for most
>people.
Ford's web site - http://fordvehicles.com/escapehybrid/home/index.a
It would be nice to see the government provide more tax credits to encourage use of these vehicles (less pollution, encourage new technology development, less gas use leading to less reliance on middle east oil, etc), but the existing credits are set to expire soon. Meanwhile Bush wants to drill in Alaska for a minimal oil supply, but that's another story...
JAMWiki Java-based Wiki engine
It's a question of perception. Many people - particularly Americans it seems - equate the size, weight and inverse of performance with desirability in a car.
The rest of us think you look absolutely risible perched up in a 3 ton hunk of shit trying to negotiate a supermarket parking space. We stop laughing when you run over your dog/cat/child/grandmother because you can't fucking see out, though we perk up again when it snows and you slither into a ditch because you "off-road" vehicle is left standing by a 4WD Fiat fucking Panda.
"Why release a hybrid SUV?"
I'd venture that some folks--like myself--that would be interested in a hybrid vehicle, might live in places that *nearly* require a four wheel drive vehicle during certain (seemingly endless) times of year.
Right now, I'm forced by my financial situation to drive a light, front-wheel drive car. Once winter hits, I loathe the thought of even having to cross this town (which NEVER plows their *#$@! 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!!!
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
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,"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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....
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?"
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
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.
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
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.
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.
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
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!
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
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.
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.
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
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.