Slashdot Mirror


Hybrid Car Owners Not Likely To Buy Another Hybrid

An anonymous reader writes "A new study has found that people who purchased a hybrid car in the past are not likely to buy a hybrid for their next car purchase. 'Only 35% of hybrid vehicle owners chose to purchase a hybrid again when they returned to the market in 2011, according to auto information company R.L. Polk & Co. If you factor out the super-loyal Toyota Prius buyers, the repurchase rate drops to under 25%.' The study also found Florida drivers to be a bit more loyal to the hybrid segment than elsewhere in the country. 'It's hard to know what's causing the low repurchase rate. One reason is that about 17,000 people purchased electric cars last year, and other data shows that many of those were trading in a hybrid vehicle. Honda has been hounded by high-profile class-action and small claims court lawsuits over fuel economy issues with older models of its Civic hybrid. ... Hybrid vehicles represent just 2.4% of the overall new vehicle market in the U.S., according to Polk, down from a high of 2.9% in 2008.'"

998 comments

  1. Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The cost difference between a regular gas sedan and a hybrid of the same size is generally not offset by the savings in fuel costs for driving it. Why do it again if it didn't work the first time?

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by eln · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We have a couple of problems here: As you point out, hybrids are more expensive than they should be for purely cost-concious consumers. Secondly, though, with all-electric cars (or even gasoline-assisted electrics like the Volt) coming out, it's becoming more and more obvious that hybrids are destined to be a short-lived stepping stone and not the long-term solution to our oil and pollution problems. This means the environment-concious people are more likely to buy a Leaf or a Volt than buy another hybrid.

      So, basically, hybrids aren't cost effective enough for people buying primarily on cost, and they're not green enough for people buying primarily on environmental friendliness. As all-electrics continue to improve, the age of the hybrid will come to an end.

    2. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by flaming+error · · Score: 5, Informative

      We bought a Prius for my wife because she had to commute through downtown Los Angeles, and at the time, solo Prius drivers were allowed to use the carpool lane. It worked great, she saved many hours of driving. But now California has ended that program, so if we had to replace the car today we probably wouldn't pay the extra cost to get a hybrid drive train and battery pack.

      But the Prius has been great. No regrets about that purchase.

    3. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by cpu6502 · · Score: 0

      What cost difference? A Hybrid Civic is not any more expensive than a standard Civic. And with gasoline approaching $5/gallon, it won't take long to recoup costs. ~50mpg Hybrid vs. ~35mpg civic == $3600 saved during each 100,000 miles driven.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    4. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by SJHillman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Same price? Honda's website advertises the Civic Sedan starting at $15,995 (39mpg) and the Civic Hybrid starting at $24,200 (44mpg). A hybrid costs 50% more for a 13% mpg increase. Even the most expensive non-hybrid Civic is less expensive than the Hybrid (excluding the natural gas model). And that assumes you take the time to drive the hybrid as a hybrid, which most people won't.

    5. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by arth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hybrids are an alternative for drivers who want to be green, think of diesel as the soot spewing lorries and buses of yesteryear, can't live with the short range and abysmal interior space of of pure electrics, and can afford the price premium.

      Living in the US, gas prices is my least concern. $4.50 per gallon? That's ridiculously cheap - far less than I paid in the 90s back in Europe. So sell me a car I can like, with decent acceleration, cargo space and range. Sorry, it won't be a Prius or Volt; much as I'd love to go the green route, they are not particularly green when factoring in the factory footprint, and I can't use them for much more than commuting.

    6. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by ski9826 · · Score: 2

      3600 saved per 100,000 miles? So let's say that you drive 20,000 miles per year (more than I drive) - that's only $720 saved over that year. I'd rather keep my non-hybrid vehicle.

    7. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Chuckstar · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Volt is not really an electric car. It's better described as a plug-in hybrid -- i.e. a hybrid with a much bigger battery that can be charged from the wall. Chevy does a good job of obscuring that fact, though. My point is that the Volt would be counted as a hybrid in the referenced survey.

      BTW, don't get me wrong... I don't fault Chevy in any way for their marketing. They are very clear about what the Volt is and is not. They just have purposefully avoided using the actual terms "hybrid" or "plug-in hybrid".

    8. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by buchner.johannes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, basically, hybrids aren't cost effective enough for people buying primarily on cost

      You could also say, oil isn't expensive enough -- the gas prices don't reflect the real cost of oil.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    9. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could, but then you'd basically be saying, "Hybrids are unpopular because the alternative isn't bad enough." Not a brilliant or persuasive argument.

    10. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Kenja · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No new car, of any sort, is "green".

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    11. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Endo13 · · Score: 3, Informative

      There's nothing wrong with his math, but there's clearly something wrong with your reading ability. The post SJHillman was responding to was wrong about the estimated MPGs as well as everything else. In fact, he has the correct estimated MPG amounts listed in his post.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    12. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, right now, there's about a $5500 difference between a Civic LX with AT and a Civic Hybrid. At $5/gal, it will take 8.75 years (at 15k miles per year, which is 2k over the current average) to reach price parity. Guess what the warranty on the Hybrid batteries are: that's right, 8 years. I'd say there's the cost difference right there.

      Now, at $8 per gallon, the numbers work out much better. Only takes 3 years to reach price parity.

    13. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      I think you should read my post, which uses the figures on Honda's website. 39mpg for the basic model and 44mpg for the hybrid.

    14. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Informative

      >>> it's becoming more and more obvious that hybrids are destined to be a short-lived stepping stone and not the long-term solution to our oil and pollution problems

      Yes because an electric car can really carry me 150 miles per day on my work commute. (Not.) By the way according to the GREET study performed by the government, the most efficient car would be a Hybrid diesel. The diesel provides the compact energy format (150,000BTU/gallon), the high-efficiency engine (22:1 compression), and the hybridization provides the constant power curve. Like a modern locomotive.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    15. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by CaptainLugnuts · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, they can be green on the outside.

    16. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't fault Chevy in any way for their marketing. They are very clear about what the Volt is and is not. They just have purposefully avoided using the actual terms "hybrid" or "plug-in hybrid".

      I'm confused. They're refusing to use the name for it, "plug-in hybrid", and that's being very clear. It seems they refuse to give it any name.

      Q. Is the Volt an electric car or a hybrid?
      A. Volt is an innovative, never-been-done-before car that exists alone, in a brand-new category of cars. Volt is a fullâ"performance electric vehicle with extended range.

      Really? It's a plug-in hybrid and they've been made before. Just never marketed this widely. I don't see this kind of dishonestly as good. Nor do I believe the excuse the all marketing is lies as valid.

    17. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Considering that the Volt is an series hybrid (meaning that all energy is converted to electricity and then sent to the electric motors) you can make a solid case for calling the Volt an electric car. The reason it is a hybrid is because the electricity it uses can come from either the batteries or the generator. Calling a Volt a hybrid is the same as saying a Hydrogen/Electric car is a hybrid. Unfortunately there is no popular distinction between a parallel and series hybrid, but a plugin Prius is a world apart from a Chevy Volt.

      I am just an alternative energy vehicle fan, whose claims can be validated on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_hybrid#Series_hybrid

    18. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. Apparently the price went up since I last looked. When I was deciding between an Insight or Civic (~10 years ago), the Civic Hybrid was only $19,500 for the base model.

      So yes that does change my math..... the standard civic would be cheaper. I wonder what made Honda decide to increase they hybrid's pricetag 4000 dollars. Pretty stupid move (IMHO).

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    19. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by pluther · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >>> it's becoming more and more obvious that hybrids are destined to be a short-lived stepping stone and not the long-term solution to our oil and pollution problems

      Yes because an electric car can really carry me 150 miles per day on my work commute. (Not.) .

      Even if you're not, most car manufacturers are aware that people other than you purchase automobiles.

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    20. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      Post under this title as it's appropriate.

      I have a friends who wanted to do the right thing and help out where they could.
      They purchased a Hybrid car, at 68K miles it needed new batteries which would of
      cost over $3,000 if not for an extended warranty provided by the Government.

      They will not be purchasing another hybrid, the batteries only lasted half
      as long as they should have. The warranty was found/discovered by the dealership
      tying to help them out.

    21. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I remember Hot Rod magazine back in the 70's talking about rebuilding an old car being better for the environment than collecting tons of aluminum cans. They took a 4000 pound family car and built it for efficiency and power winding up with a car that could carry a family of 6, get over 25 miles to the gallon and turn 13's in the quarter mile. Not bad for 70's tech. I've thought about doing something similar with my 98 Grand Marquis. It gets 24mpg on the highway now I'd like to see if I can get it up over 30mpg. For around town though an electric vehicle might be okay if the price was reasonable. It's only a 15 mile commute so it wouldn't be a problem with the short range of those vehicles.

    22. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Volt is different because electricity alone powers the car. It carries a gas powered electric generator for the likely case that the battery runs out of power.

    23. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by bcrowell · · Score: 2

      The cost difference between a regular gas sedan and a hybrid of the same size is generally not offset by the savings in fuel costs for driving it. Why do it again if it didn't work the first time?

      It depends on the car, it depends on how long you own it, and it depends on the cost of gas in the future, which we can't predict. It also depends on how many miles you drive per year, and on how your local cost of gas differs from the price of gas elsewhere. The NY Times has a nice chart showing how long it takes for various hybrids to pay for themselves, compared to the similar gas-only model, assuming gas at $3.85/gal. For example, they compare a Toyota Prius (which I own) against a Toyota Camry, and find that it only took my family 1.8 years before our purchase of the Prius paid for itself.

    24. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by amiga3D · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oil is worth what they can get for it. If the price goes too high then alternatives become economically viable. The reason gas is king is because relatively speaking it's cheap. If they get greedy and drive it too high they'll cause other options to begin taking off and if the Oil people aren't careful one of those other options could take hold causing them a serious problem. I don't know that Oil could handle real competition.

    25. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by blind+biker · · Score: 2

      Yes because an electric car can really carry me 150 miles per day on my work commute. (Not.)

      Firstly, people that work 75 miles away from home represent a tiny minority, and will not determine the overall adoption rate of fully electric vehicles. IOW; just because you, in particular, aren't going to be served by an electric car, doesn't mean squat.
      Further to t his, though, there already are gas-backed electric cars - they have a small gas-fueled engine to get you through the last few miles, if you run out of electric charge.
      Finally, 75 miles is within the range of some electric vehicles already today. Once at your work, you can recharge the vehicle during the day.

      Off-topic: I wonder how much time do you spend just driving to work and back home?

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    26. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 5, Informative

      150 mile commute? There's your problem.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    27. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Necroloth · · Score: 1

      They all have their uses ... for example, people living in apartments on the 9th floor can't quite get extension cables long enough for their car ;)

    28. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by AngryDeuce · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you want a real green alternative, buy a bike.

    29. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I really don't think electric cars are targeted towards retards who like to spent 2 hours a day driving.

    30. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      Where I come from $700 is a lot of money. It must be nice to be so rich that you can just toss-aside $700 without blinking an eye. (Of course that's also why I don't have Cable TV or an unlimited cellphone plan..... the yearly cost is too much.)

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    31. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Honda and Toyota were selling Hybrids for a loss at one time. Don't know about now.

    32. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by rsborg · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The Volt is not really an electric car. It's better described as a plug-in hybrid -- i.e. a hybrid with a much bigger battery that can be charged from the wall. Chevy does a good job of obscuring that fact, though. My point is that the Volt would be counted as a hybrid in the referenced survey.

      BTW, don't get me wrong... I don't fault Chevy in any way for their marketing. They are very clear about what the Volt is and is not. They just have purposefully avoided using the actual terms "hybrid" or "plug-in hybrid".

      I say good for them. As a hybrid owner, I think the "hybrid" brand is wearing thin, after being abused by nearly everyone in the industry (and in general). The original and 2nd gen hybrids (Prius, Insight) were pretty sweet vehicles compared to the competition. Then you had the "mild hybrid" trucks and cars that just stopped the engine at the light and silly half-measures. Then you had "flex-fuel" which also got marketed as a "hybrid", "hybrid" sports cars that only added power and no

      The time has come for plug-in hybrids, and the Volt wherever I've heard it around here is not only incredibly silent (unlike my Prius when I accellerate from a stop), but damn quick. So the gas engine kicks in when driving past a certain range - that's a *feature*. Now whether it's worth the MSRP is another story entirely.

      Personally (back on topic), I won't buy another hybrid because my current hybrid is doing great and faring quite well in it's 7th year. Perhaps that's the reason - no need to upgrade. If I did want to buy another vehicle it would be a Volt (ie, plugin), or full electric with full commute range like a Tesla Model S (drool).

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    33. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 0

      it's becoming more and more obvious that hybrids are destined to be a short-lived stepping stone and not the long-term solution to our oil and pollution problems

      Yes because an electric car can really carry me 150 miles per day on my work commute. (Not.)

      What you really mean is "because an electric car can really carry me up the 15 steps from the basement to my mother's kitchen. (Not!)"

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    34. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      Not the only one. 1 hour commutes are pretty common in the DC-Baltimore area. Some "only" drive 100 or 120 miles per day, but that's still more than an EV can handle.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    35. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by dontmakemethink · · Score: 2

      Hybrid diesel is the holy grail of fuel efficiency for cars, however the diesel engine, electric motor, and battery charging systems are each more expensive than a small gas engine that gets ~40mpg.

      But what's missing from TFA is how hybrids are selling in Europe and elsewhere where gas is 3-4x as expensive as in the US. I can tell you they're on a steady rise in Canada, where there are substantial gov't incentives and gas is ~50% higher than the US.

      --

      War as we knew it was obsolete
      Nothing could beat complete denial
      - Emily Haines
    36. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Then I would have to guess you arent really the person to buy a new car, hybrid or not.

    37. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Apparently, you're out of the loop. Here let me educate you (and pay attention please, because you clearly think you know what you're talking about):

      Tesla Motors

      The technology (to provide a 150-mile round trip commute in an EV) has been on the consumer market since 2008. The consumer price is dropping like a stone (currently averaging around $7,500 per year) and at the current rate will provide desirable economy-priced EV's ($20,000) with 300+ (the breakthrough's in battery are the only limiting factor left) mile ranges within 8-10 years.

      The Tesla Roadster, Model S or Model X designs are sexy and desirable (hater's start taking notes because you're dead wrong) automobiles. Like it or not, Tesla Motors has already started an automobile revolution and, if they continue to succeed (which I hope they do, the American economy needs more of these kinds of pioneering, game-changing companies), they will have been an integral part of the most significant era in automobile history in over 100 years.

      This is a good thing. So don't hate and consider what this kind of thinking will mean for future generations. It's happening now and the old-schooler's and pessimists need to shut up and get on board. This kind of future only happens when people believe its possible.

    38. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by CSFFlame · · Score: 1

      can't live with the short range and abysmal interior space of of pure electrics

      The Tesla model S has great range and massive interior space. Remember, it doesn't have a driveshaft so you don't have a center console.
      The Model X has even more interior space.

    39. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nope. You'd have to pull out a number of safety features (likely illegal to sell, and possibly illegal to drive). Airbags that don't help belted passengers, bumpers designed to resist damage in 5 mph and slower crashes (yes, bumpers have damage resistance as a feature equal to or greater than safety), and loads of heavy and mostly ineffective sound deadening are burdening the modern car. The old ones had poor suspension, overly heavy bodies and such, but you could strip out almost everything (and even replace the frame with a light-weight tubular design), and have something lighter than today's cars.

      The only thing you get from today's cars is a smaller package with better aerodynamics. But the available improvements are smaller, so it's hard to get the same level of improvements. Intake/exhaust and computer change will get most non-turbo cars 10% to power and efficiency, but beyond that, it's harder to get more. I left out turbos because it's easier to trade efficiency for power or vice versa, and the percentages depend on the vehicles (you won't get much more efficiency out of Audis and Saabs with efficiency tuned turbos, but Chevy's turbo-Diesel trucks have loads of capabilities from things like a DuraMaximizer).

    40. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nope they are geared toward retards that think the end-all be-all to life is driving back and forth to work.

    41. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by the_humeister · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sorry, it won't be a Prius or Volt; much as I'd love to go the green route, they are not particularly green when factoring in the factory footprint, and I can't use them for much more than commuting.

      Actually, about 80-90% of a vehicle's environmental impact is due to the fuel usage over its lifetime.

    42. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by AK+Marc · · Score: 1, Informative

      Chevy wants it marketed as a pure electric vehicle that carries a gasoline-powered generator for occasional use. Most "hybrid" cars can drive the wheels directly or solely from the gasoline engine, rather than the Volt that's completely incapable of running on the gasoline engine and must use electric-only to move the car.

      It's a silly distinction, and they aren't selling the idea well, but it is distinct from all other hybrids.

    43. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Tesla model S has great range and massive interior space. Remember, it doesn't have a driveshaft so you don't have a center console.

      Front wheel drive cars don't have a drive shaft either.

    44. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by XaXXon · · Score: 1

      A volt is hybrid.

    45. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by joggle · · Score: 1

      People often look at the increased price and don't consider that they will also like sell it at a higher price. I bought a Prius in 2008 and it has only depreciated about $6000 since then, which isn't a bad depreciation rate over that time.

      If I were to sell my Prius today I would certainly come out ahead financially than if I had bought a standard hatchback in 2008 and were selling it instead.

    46. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's called a serial hybrid (energy flows from engine to battery to wheels). It is not "different" or new, but was invented nearly 100 years ago.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    47. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by minor_deity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're not counting the increased cost of the hybrid. If you spend $5000 more for a hybrid then you would for an equivalent car, save $3600/100,000 miles, and then drive 20,000 miles a year then you're losing a lot more then $700 in the first year. In order to break even by buying a hybrid with that cost structure you'd need to drive ~139,000 miles which would take you ~ 7 years. It's only *after* that point that you'd be saving money by buying a hybrid. If you factor in the rate at which fuel prices are rising and the cost of new batteries for the hybrid then the break even point may move forwards or backwards, but you're still spending more money up front in order to (hopefully) save some money later.

    48. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by mactard · · Score: 1

      Get a Nissan Leaf. Fully electric vehicles are exempt.

    49. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If his commute is at a busy time, as most are, he's likely commuting for 3+ hours each way, 6+ hours of driving a day, not 2. He's well above "average" mileage, even if he never drove anywhere other than work and back home. So he knows he's an edge case, and likes to be an idiot about it.

    50. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tesla Model S base range of 160 miles, with options out to 300 miles.

    51. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That really depends on the car. The Prius is a big, useful car. It has a ton of space for people and cargo and it's priced comparably with a similarly equipped Accord. It also depends on gas prices and how much you drive.

    52. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      better than my 2006 that seats 5, turns 13s in the quarter mile and gets over 13mpg

    53. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Nimey · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's just it - I'm not likely to buy another hybrid for quite some time because my '05 Civic is absolutely trouble-free; it's at 128,000 miles, all by me, has never had any work done on it besides maintenance, has gotten 46.5 MPG over its lifespan, and has absolutely paid for itself by now in terms of fuel savings.

      When I bought this car in April '05 gasoline was ~$2.10/gal and at that price it would have taken ~8 years to pay for itself. Now that fuel is locally $3.60 and the car's paid for, it's all gravy. The question is how long my battery pack will last - it's warranted for 100,000 miles but seems to be holding a charge OK, however replacing it at the dealership seems to be around $4k, which is a lot of gasoline.

      Assuming that we haven't advanced much in alternative fuels by the time my car is ready for the scrapper's, I certainly would buy another hybrid then, but I think I'd go for a parallel hybrid system that can run the electric motor independently, rather than the Civic's serial system which uses the motor only as a booster for the gasoline engine.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    54. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by AK+Marc · · Score: 0

      Well, there is the consideration that you are saving $700 per year, but you had to spend thousands for that.

    55. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Idbar · · Score: 1

      Not sure if 100 years ago. But isn't this the same principle used in most data centers today?

      powerplant -> rectifier -> batteries ----> ( DC equipment or Inverter and AC equipment )

      So depenting on the electric motors they are using... sounds to me it's the same issue.

      I asked once here why if diesel was better for generators (torque), was not being used in these types of hybrids and someone said they couldn't turn on/off as frequently, not sure still why that would be the case and if a TDI car would just break if I commute for shorter periods of time.

      Anyways, It's still in my mind that diesel engine would be better for generation and then use that serial hybrid architecture. We'll see if VW (and their diesels) bring that idea to the table.

    56. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Dahamma · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wrong. Check out my new 2012 Mercurock Sabletooth.

    57. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by lkcl · · Score: 2

      So, basically, hybrids aren't cost effective enough for people buying primarily on cost, and they're not green enough for people buying primarily on environmental friendliness. As all-electrics continue to improve, the age of the hybrid will come to an end.

      the CURRENT design of hybrids aren't cost-effective enough nor are they green enough.

      the reason is very very simple: if the car has the same size as an ICE equivalent, has the same aerodynamics as an ICE equivalent, has the same weight as an ICE equivalent, has the same tyres as an ICE equivalent, and has an on-board charging system that's still basically no more or no less than an ICE (with a generator attached to it in the case of Series Hybrid), where the bloody hell do you imagine that *any* significant energy savings could possibly be realised?

      the energy savings have to come from somewhere. the one biggest saving by a long long margin is aerodynamics. the second is weight (rolling resistance, friction, intertia and gravity). it's basic physics, and it's completely unavoidable!

      i don't know why anybody's surprised that if you don't reduce energy losses, you don't make any savings, regardless of the components that go into the vehicle. which is why i've been doing a "money where mouth is" thing and actually designed an ultra-efficient hybrid electric vehicle - http://lkcl.net/ev. it's 350kg, it's a Category L7E, and the target is 5kW energy consumption at 60mph. it's not hard to do. the key is in the aerodynamics.

    58. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Dahamma · · Score: 2

      carry a family of 6, get over 25 miles to the gallon and turn 13's in the quarter mile.

      Pick one in that list at any particular time, of course ;)

    59. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've shied away from hybrid cars because of things I've heard from other owners. I drive a LOT of miles. Typically around 200,000 before I trade to the next car. I typically own the car about 6 or 7 years. I've been told by other hybrid owners that the battery pack is only good for about 100,000 miles and then has to be replaced. I'd be curious as to the experience of other hybrid owners.

      Yea?
      Nay?

    60. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Xenx · · Score: 1

      Anyone stupid enough to buy a car that will get them 150 miles deserves to be stranded in the middle of nowhere to freeze to death. Seriously, how IN THE FFFF am I supposed to charge my car when I get to work? LOL. Idiots like you are hilarious. You probably aren't even old enough to drive a car your mommy and daddy didn't for you yet you think when you grow up you can just show up to work with a god damned electrical cord and plug it in. Good luck with that.

      Some people can.. As an example, at my company's main office they have free charging ports... for public use. Anyone at all can come down to the middle of the town and charge up as they go out for lunch or whatever.. Granted, there are only a couple spots to charge at. Every company has it's own take on this, but I know we're not alone in it.

      That being said, you would need to know what your options are before choosing to buy an all electric. Your company may not doing anything, but does it hurt to ask?

    61. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by lkcl · · Score: 1

      We have a couple of problems here: As you point out, hybrids are more expensive than they should be for purely cost-concious consumers. Secondly, though, with all-electric cars (or even gasoline-assisted electrics like the Volt) coming out, it's becoming more and more obvious that hybrids are destined to be a short-lived stepping stone and not the long-term solution to our oil and pollution problems.

      no - they won't. illustration: if you converted all cars in the world over to electric, the national power grids of every country - those that had reliable ones - would instantly overload and shut down.

      that's for the countries that had reliable power grids.

      for those cities and countries where power is a serious problem (bangalore, beijing) and where they have to operate on a rotating basis (beijing: 3 day week), you'd cause massive problems because all of a sudden a random and very large percentage of the city's population simply wouldn't be able to get to work, even if the factories were actually operational.... and they'd probably have to go to a 2 day week due to the extra loading on the grid!

      like many people, eln, you simply haven't thought this through properly. batteries are a STORAGE mechanism, NOT a power source. you STILL have to actually get the power from somewhere. and no, solar panels or wind farms (which are sucking up the supply of neodymium faster than EV cars are) are not the answer.

    62. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will that car make 200k miles?

    63. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      My guess is government subsidies ran out. Haven't done the math, but I'm betting the slight improvement in gas mileage takes too long to recoup the cost now before you have to pay to replace the batteries.

    64. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ecoomics shouldn't be called a science. You just demonstrated why.

    65. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by therealslartybardfas · · Score: 1

      It is a hybrid, but it is possible to drive one completely on electricity if you have trips less than 35 miles between charges. Some people can go months without using gas.

    66. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

      It's also useless since it costs so much. Why not just remove the ICE and add more battery? For $50k you could get massive range.

    67. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

      Considering the Leaf's battery costs around $6000-7000, and the rest of the car is infinitely easier to build than an ICE-carrying car, in 5 years mass production and falling battery costs will make 150-200 mile cars quite cheap.

    68. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Living in the US, gas prices is my least concern. $4.50 per gallon? That's ridiculously cheap - far less than I paid in the 90s back in Europe.

      What's a gallon again?

    69. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by karnal · · Score: 1

      Every 200lbs should save you 1mpg (well, I'm taking the opposite of what I read somewhere - adding 200lbs decreases mileage by 1mpg.) So, lose 1200lbs, gain 6mpg. Easy!

      Of course, I owned a 99. Was a decent enough car, roomy, nice ride. But a full frame car is going to weigh a lot. Not to mention an undecidedly weak 4.6l v8. Torque was pretty nice on that vehicle, but my newer-to-me car has more torque, horsepower and less weight with fewer cylinders. And it nails 32mpg on the highway (per my actual observations; EPA says 28.)

      --
      Karnal
    70. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

      The batteries aren't the problem. Even in the Leaf the battery costs around $6000. The rest of the car is infinitely easier to produce than an ICE. The insanely high cost of EVs can be attributed to manufacturers requiring extremely high margins to "recoup investment", and a lack of mass production and economy of scale. Once China gets involved EV prices should drop off a cliff.

    71. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you realize how much CO2 bicycle motors put into the environment???

    72. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Lando · · Score: 1

      Isn't the plug in for the volt an optional feature? I seem to remember that the volt doesn't come with a plug in standard and has to either be specially ordered or converted.

      --
      /* TODO: Spawn child process, interest child in technology, have child write a new sig */
    73. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what is the environmental impact of producing electricity from coal, and what is the environmental impact from digging for coal.

      A?

    74. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by zigfreed · · Score: 1

      Hybrid CNG and electric is greater than the holy grail of fuel efficiency, but you'd have to get a double station: one to compress piped CNG to the auto's tank, and another to charge the battery.

    75. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by amRadioHed · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ... and loads of heavy and mostly ineffective sound deadening are burdening the modern car.

      Why do auto makers include so much ineffective sound dampening material? Seems it would be a no-brainer to leave it out if it could make a difference in gas mileage.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    76. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, they can be green on the outside.

      It's not easy being green.

    77. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by j-beda · · Score: 3, Informative

      I've shied away from hybrid cars because of things I've heard from other owners. I drive a LOT of miles. Typically around 200,000 before I trade to the next car. I typically own the car about 6 or 7 years. I've been told by other hybrid owners that the battery pack is only good for about 100,000 miles and then has to be replaced. I'd be curious as to the experience of other hybrid owners.

      Yea?
      Nay?

      I'd question "owners" who told you that the battery pack is only good for that long. That's typically the warrante time, and the reported lifetimes seem to be significantly above that. Basically, the battery pack seems to last at least as long as typical transmission lifetimes.

      Vancouver seems to have completely switched to Prius taxis. A taxi driving pattern is probably one of the toughest you would typically find, so they can't be too bad for more regular use.

      http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1023454_toyota-prius-taxi-tops-340000mi-dispels-battery-myth

    78. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by MattW · · Score: 1

      It's actually probably because the subsidies have expired. I bought two hybrid cars in late 2006 - one 06 prius and one 07 camry hybrid. First, I've been very happy with the cars in general. Nothing has ever gone wrong with either, at all. Looking at the '12 models, there is basically a $4k difference to get a hybrid.

      Assuming your mileage is ~50% city vs highway (and mine isn't; it was, and remains, more like 80/20 city/highway, because I don't have a commute) then you get a est MPG difference of 11 miles per gallon (41 vs 30). 894 gallons of gas is somewhere between $3k and $4k depending on where you live, I think. (Here I think it was ~3.60 last I checked; when I filled up a rental in CA last week, I think it was more like $4.50). That covers ALMOST all of the difference, and if you are a heavy city driver, it does cover all of it.

      When I bought our cars, however, there was also a tax credit - something on the order of $3k per car. It appears, glancing at the IRS site, that the last year of car this was available was model year 2009.

      Anyhow, gas was a lot cheaper when we bought ours and with the credit I still expected to make it back. When gas went through the roof, it made the value proposition much more attractive, of course. (In fact, about a year after we bought them, I got an offer to buy the Prius back for more than I'd paid for it, because gas prices had gone up so much, it had driven demand for used cars through the roof.)

      So in a sense, it DID work the first time, but the lack of tax credit makes it unworth it for some buyers.

    79. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Tesla model S has great range and massive interior space.

      Great! Where can I buy one?

      Oh, it's still vaporware. Never mind.

    80. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      Are you counting in the Li-Ion batteries' impact in the case of Hybrids and Electrics? If not, your figures are off.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    81. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calling a Volt a hybrid is the same as saying a Hydrogen/Electric car is a hybrid.

      Yup. Toyota, in fact, calls its hydrogen fuel cell car the Toyota Fuel Cell Hybrid Vehicle (FCHV).

    82. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      It is new as far as modern cars go. No other 'hybrid' is serial in nature. They all have some propulsion done via the gas engine. (Technically so does the Volt at speeds over 55mph I believe).

      The point being that the generator can be swapped out with whatever you want for your 'extended range module'. Or will be in future versions. It is a huge step forward and Ford was the first to do it.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    83. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ford Fiesta road test - Top Gear
      (Especially apropos at the four minute mark.)

    84. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, about 80-90% of a vehicle's environmental impact is due to the fuel usage over its lifetime.

      Doesn't that depend a whole lot on how much you drive? My car is 15 years old and will soon be clocking in it's 30,000th mile, but there are plenty of folks with a 5 year old car with 100,000 miles. I do buy gas every couple months, but does that really account for 80% of the environmental damage? I think the $2,000/yr I send to the insurance company has to represent more of the environmental damage than the $300/yr I spend on gas.

      I mostly use my car for trips to the grocery store and a few trips to the nearby mountains and beaches in the summer. Getting a hybrid wouldn't save me more than a $100/yr on gas, which isn't even worth worrying about expense wise; I could just work harder to avoid the $500/yr in parking tickets. But if you can convince me there is an environmental benefit to my next car being a hybrid I would consider it.

    85. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      You do realize Ford was the one auto-maker who DIDN'T take the bailout money right?

      At least get your stupid conspiracy crap facts right....sheesh

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    86. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by tepples · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you want a real green alternative, buy a bike.

      I own one. But in practice, green ideals must be evaluated against one's needs. A car puts a barrier between the driver and the weather; a bike does not. A car has enough metal surface to trigger induction loops connected to traffic signals; a bike does not. A car can carry passengers larger than 50 lbs (22 kg); a typical bike trailer cannot. A car can travel on controlled access highways; a bike cannot.

    87. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a bit harder to take a late 1990s car engine and upgrade to 2010's than it is a 1970's car engine to late 1980's or early 1990s one. Mostly to do with computer controls, forced induction, variable valve timing, and direct cylinder injection. (VVT and direct injection seem to be reasons for the biggest gains in the last 10 years. The reason fuel economy hasn't gone up noticably is that most manufacturers decided to up the HP while keeping the economy numbers steady. Vehicle weight gain also didn't help much, and explians why the better numbers aren't that noticable behind the wheel.) Not quite as easy as swapping out a carburator for a computer controlled throttle-body fuel injector and upgrading the ignition system to advance 1970's tech nearly 20 years forward. For all the custom stuff needed which still isn't on the market yet (latest gen heads unlikely to bolt to the old blocks, etc.), you may as well just swap out the entire old powertrain with a modern one. And even that would usually take some customization. Considering the cost and jury-rigged nature, you may as well buy a new car engineered around the newer powertrain and have something better in the long run. (However that still doesn't stop people from doing stuff like this simply because they can. Particularly if you have the fabricating skills and tools to DIY, maybe then the costs become more reasonable.)

      If you really just want to keep an old car going while minimizing its operating cost, it would actually be an easier goal to convert an old car to full electric. If it's just something for show and cruising around town, this might not be a bad thing to do.

      Or the cheapest way may be to strip the interior, remove noise insulation, remove any seats not used, and get rid of the spare, and have whoever rides in it go on a diet. Less weight will make the car more efficient. However it's likely to be much less comfy to drive in as well.

    88. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by tepples · · Score: 1

      You do realize Ford was the one auto-maker who DIDN'T take the bailout money right?

      Yes I do. You do realize Volt is a Chevrolet product right?

    89. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work 9 miles from my house.
      My wife work 1 mile from our house.
      My oldest daughter works 2 miles from her house.
      My youngest daughter works 5 miles from our house.

      We could all use electric cars with no problems.

    90. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by rachit · · Score: 5, Funny

      Bikes are definitely not green.

      If you take into account the increased lifespan the rider gets because of more exercise and the amount of CO2 he would generate for that time period due to his need of food, shelter and fuel during the increased lifespan, you come out with more CO2 than if you let the rider die an early death.

      Studies have shown this. The only way to make bikes come out ahead is to mandate that the rider not wear a helmet.

    91. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Chuckstar · · Score: 1

      They are differentiating it from the traditional "hybrid" (as distinct from "plug-in hybrid").

      Having said that, I hadn't seen that statement from Chevy before. I agree that is pretty disingenuous of them.

    92. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by fragzilla · · Score: 0

      Someone had to say it. Thanks for taking the hit for the rest of us.

    93. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Volt isn't completely incapable of running on gasoline, it uses the engine directly at highway speeds.

    94. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by damnbunni · · Score: 1

      Depends on the hatchback. For some reason VW Golf/Rabbits are in insane demand - I get letters from dealers out of state with written offers for my 2007 model for about $5000 less than I paid for it. Crazy.

      (I'm not selling it, because I like the car. Though if that's typical, maybe that's why there's such a shortage of used ones on the market.)

    95. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Because people want quiet cars these days. Sit in any new car and compare to a 20-year-old car of the same price (after adjusting for inflation); new cars are much, much quieter. That material isn't "ineffective".

    96. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      The EPA mileage methodology changed back in 2008 IIRC; now for highway figures they leave the A/C on full blast. Most cars probably get another 2-4mpg if you go by the old methodology.

    97. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by marcosdumay · · Score: 0

      Well, ok. I don't even own one anymore (I do walk 3km to get somewhere, but you won't see me in a bike), but...

      A car has enough metal surface to trigger induction loops connected to traffic signals; a bike does not.

      And so what? That trafic signal is there only because a car is a danger for everything around it. There is no need to control the bike (and the ciclist will even control hinself if he wishes to live - what's not granted).

    98. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Screen404-O · · Score: 1

      The biggest problem with Tesla, Nissan and even Volt is general lack of charging stations. Every one keeps saying "drive to work plug it in" well I work in DC, my office building is LEED sertified, there are no charging stations. There are no charging stations at any major metro stations that I have seen. I live in at townhouse/rowhouse with out a parking garage, so parking is of the street - no way to legally run an extension cord. In fact I have been looking around an have not seen any communities (rentals) that would even offer charging stations. So first you must be a home owner with the garage. To charge it overnight. Second, office charging is at least 10 years of in the future. Marker would have to be saturated with %10-15 of electric cars before major office buildings and rentals start to offer it as an insentive. Infastructure is just not there. Being a home owner in today's job and real state marker is not easy. As for Volt. I like how it looks, I like how it drives. But lack of public charging means that I will just bun gas to charge it. So what is the point then.

    99. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by guru42101 · · Score: 1

      The Civic Hybrid used to be comparable to the EX (mid range) for features. Now it is the LX with all the options. Apples to apples you should compare the Civic LX to the Hybrid, not the base model manual transmission Civic.

    100. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      They don't, but they do have an exhaust system, so they still have to have a central tunnel for that. However, that tunnel doesn't significantly affect interior space at all; why the OP thinks it does I have no idea. And why wouldn't you want a central console between the front seats, unless you're one of those losers who likes having a shifter on the steering wheel and bench seats? Those are things I hope never to see in cars again.

    101. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by erikscott · · Score: 2

      I doubt any Grand Marquis versions had the Taxi package. What you want is the 2.73:1 axle gears out of the taxi version of the Crown Vic. The easiest way is to swap the entire axle (unless you have rear air suspension, in which case, yeah, you're going to have to either take the axle apart and switch gears, or chop the air suspension out of the Marquis de Sade and switch to springs. And, if you have air suspension, you're going to have to replace or repair it eventually and it isn't cheap. Anyway, the 2.73:1 gears will turn in about 30 mpg on the highway and the car will run quieter to boot.


      Fastest way to spot a Taxi version is to look for "P71" in the VIN on the dash through the windshield. When you find one, then you can crawl under it and read the numbers off of the sheet metal tag attached to one of the differential cover bolts. You're looking for "73" or "273", depending on the year. P71s are taxis, but quite a few of them got used as police cars by more cost-conscious departments.

    102. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      No, gas is cheap because it's subsidized by the government and the military: 1) roads for cars using it are provided only partially by gas taxes, and largely by other (income) taxes; 2) the military is used to guarantee access to oil overseas; any time a government threatens to start trading oil in Euros instead of Dollars, the military invades.

    103. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it is. But so is the 8 grand you would have to pony up to cover the price difference in engines. It would take you 11 years to get it back at that rate, assuming your batteries will last that long without needing to be replaced. (They won't)

    104. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Grishnakh · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      What kind of moron drives 150 miles a day to work, instead of moving to a house closer to work?

    105. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spend some time driving a lotus exige, older z06, or any manner of late 60s/early 70s pony car and you'll understand the sound of silence.

    106. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You missed the point. The cost of oil doesn't take into account the environmental damage it causes, if it did it would be somewhat more expensive.

    107. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead, they made the program for full-electrics only.

    108. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pretty sure no one buys the 15K civic.

      So lets compare 2 cars with similar trim. The EX & the Hybrid
      The EX gets 28 mpg and costs 22,105. The Hybrid gets 44 mpg and costs 24,200.

      9% greater cost and gets 56% greater mileage.

      That is a valid comparison and it excludes the increased resale value and approximately $3,000 you will save on 100,000 miles of driving

    109. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by RoccamOccam · · Score: 2

      What's a gallon again?

      4 quarts or 8 pints or 16 cups. It's part of the cool new power-of-two based measurement system that makes many everyday tasks much easier than the old power-of-ten system.

    110. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by gnapster · · Score: 1

      0.465 cubic mili-furlongs.

    111. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      It's ineffective because it's cheap. Spray tar is common, nearly free, but adds weight and deadens vibration, not sound, but helps with sound.

    112. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by vistic · · Score: 2

      As a 2010 Honda Insight driver, I'd buy another hybrid again... I don't see why not?

      I wonder if a lot of these people bought crappy "hybrid" models of 20 mpg sedans and SUVs that only bump them up to 30 mpg. For those of us who got a "real" hybrid like a Prius or and Insight... I imagine we're happier.

      As for cost difference, if you compare a $25,000 hybrid to a $25,000 non-hybrid, the features are pretty much the same.

    113. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Missing the point. The 700 would not cover the difference in your car payment. And hybrids cost significantly more to maintain. everybody I know with a hybrid also has a SUV.

    114. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      If $700 in a year is that much money to you, then you're probably not in the market for a $30-40,000 new car.

    115. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Provide me with a bike that will convey me, my wife and our three children in air-conditioned comfort to our destination 100 kilometres away in about an hour and you have yourself a sale.

    116. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd do it again even without the carpool pass. The Prius is practically tailor-made for Los Angeles traffic - drifting along at 15mph, up to 30 for a bit, down to a stop. Rinse, repeat. My '05 gets an easy 52+ mpg in these conditions. Compared to my old Civic, it gets me there and back on half the gas.

      It really depends on the circumstances.

    117. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Jeremi · · Score: 5, Funny

      Studies have shown this. The only way to make bikes come out ahead is to mandate that the rider not wear a helmet.

      Can I bike if I promise to eat a lot of extra ice cream between trips?

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    118. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      The elephant in the room nobody talks about is the energy return ratio, IIRC gas gets you around 30 EOI (I believe that is the correct term) for every unit of energy you expend. frankly we just don't have anything else that gives close to that ratio. all you are doing with the electrics is moving where the energy is made, and with a coal plant it wouldn't surprise me if its worse. then you have to figure in the impact of mining all that l-Ion, disposal of batteries, how long the batteries will last in real summers and winters VS garages (since most don't have garages), etc.

      Personally I think a better direction if we truly anted to save energy is we need a true "people's car' that gets say 40MPG and sells for preferably under $10k. you could then offer a cash for clunkers style program to help the really poor get rid of all those gas hogs that are currently on the road, that would do MUCH more IMHO than some $40K+ hybrid that few will be likely to buy.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    119. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1

      You must be short. I had a '90 Lumina with 60/40 bench front seats and the shifter on the steering column. I'm about 6'3. That car.. was *comfortable*. I could stretch my legs out. I slept in it, numerous times (I had it from 16 to 23, camping trips were great. Where's MY tent? You're IN it). Long drives? No problem. Left leg had room, right leg I could stretch with the cruise set. My knees never hit anything.

      I don't like sitting in a cramped bubble when I drive. I'd like to have some room to move around. Cars aren't designed with people my height in mind -- and goddamn I feel bad for the taller ones. It's terrible enough just finding a car I can sit in upright without my head hitting the ceiling of the cabin as it is.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    120. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by garyebickford · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sorry, I've seen studies that go just the opposite. Got data?

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    121. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by tlambert · · Score: 3, Informative

      And so what? That trafic signal is there only because a car is a danger for everything around it. There is no need to control the bike (and the ciclist will even control hinself if he wishes to live - what's not granted).

      That's incorrect; bicyclists tend to believe it, but there are a lot of pedestrians getting run down by bicyclists. Here's an article on a fatality in San Francisco last year, resulting in vehicular manslaughter charges:

      http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/03/12/bicyclist-sentenced-to-probation-in-fatal-sf-embarcadero-crash/

      And here's a study About pedestrian-cyclist accidents from 2007-2010 in New York state. Basically bicycles send ~1000 pedestrians a year to the hospital in New York alone. Also, it's mostly kids and teens being run over.

      http://gothamist.com/2011/09/19/pedestrians_are_hit_by_more_bicycli.php

      -- Terry

    122. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Jeremi · · Score: 2

      It's also useless since it costs so much. Why not just remove the ICE and add more battery? For $50k you could get massive range.

      But you can't fill up your massive battery in 5 minutes at any standard gas station. You can argue the tradeoffs one way or another, but certainly there is room in the market for both hybrid and full-electric models, and the public will decide which suits them better.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    123. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by toddestan · · Score: 1

      In theory you could simply run the Volt off of gasoline and never plug it in, but then you'd have a very expensive and heavy compact car that only gets compact car-like mileage.

      You're probably thinking of the several thousand dollar charging station that you have to buy and have installed if you want to recharge the batteries in a reasonable time. You can change the Volt off of a standard 110V outlet but it takes a long time (I think on the order of a day or so).

    124. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by hal2814 · · Score: 2

      Especially when you're returning to the market so soon. This is only counting those who are already moving on to new cars, ignoring those who are trying to be more environmentally friendly and not buy a car every 5 years. Maybe the folks who are happy with their hybrid are actually holding onto the one they have instead of wasting resources on a new one?

    125. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by russotto · · Score: 2

      The elephant in the room nobody talks about is the energy return ratio

      A lot of people talk about it, then get shouted down with screaming about Bush, blood for oil, being told we're lacking in imagination, etc.

    126. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by garyebickford · · Score: 1

      ??? Why not? It's not billiard-ball physics, but it is complex adaptive systems, which are increasingly well modeled by computational (numeric) models. It's at least as much science as weather, or ecosystems, or neural networks, all of which depend on similar computational models and none of which can be well defined by billiard ball physics or exact equations. Much of the understanding of all of these areas of study have advanced hugely since large parallel computing systems have opened up numerical approximations to the field. The example you deride is a fairly classic example of finding the minimum error locus (or maximum energy locus) of a multidimensional surface in a dynamic environment - like a ball running down the hill to the bottom of the valley.

      Now, economics as it is presently practiced in the popular political and social world, based on 40 year old rules-of-thumb and linear approximations - you've got a point. But I would argue that those older models were equivalent to chemistry and physics, before the atomic and molecular models were well accepted and the periodic table was developed. Early chemistry was still chemistry, and the mathematical models developed by economists has driven a surprising amount of other science over the last 200 years. Just for two examples: Pareto and Bayes.

      Just think of an economy as a kind of social ecosystem, or as a decision/neural network (many tiny nodes, all sending signals to each other), and look up complex adaptive systems, and your eyes will be opened - or at least I hope. :D

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    127. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, motorcycles are the way to go.

    128. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Kreigaffe · · Score: 2

      The roads provide for commerce as well. Trust me, every dollar sunk into infrastructure like that is returned multiple times in increased tax revenue.

      Oil should be a far sight cheaper than it is, you seem to have that backwards. It's trading so highly right now just the same as it was before the oil bubble burst -- speculation, peak oil, civil strife in.... god knows or cares what country. If the nation's name is hard for Americans to pronounce and there's unrest and violence, oil shoots up, because clearly.. CLEARLY.. it must be connected.

      The world is not so significantly different than it was 11 years ago when gas was under $1/gal that it should now be $4/gal.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    129. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Crosshair84 · · Score: 2

      That WOULD be possible. Something like a Chevy Sprint would work reasonably well. My dad had one. That 1 liter 3 cylinder engine could deliver 50 MPG without trying too hard and had reasonable acceleration if you didn't load it down. Bit of a deathtrap for people in the back seat, but people in the front weren't that badly protected in a crash.

      The problem is that it is simply impossible to deliver on that price point with the current regulations in place. Airbags are a failure from a cost/benefit standpoint, a point the government would rather you not know about. (Benefits are only about one third of the cost. http://www.swov.nl/uk/research/kennisbank/inhoud/50_maatregel/50_voertuig/airbags.htm ) Sure they save lives, they also kill people and their high cost per life saved, high cost per vehicle, and mandated use has delayed other, potentially superior, passive safety features into cars, like metal foam crumple zones which would increase the effectiveness of seat-belts and other passive safety systems by improving structural integrety and lowering g-loads on the occupants in a crash.

      In the end we have to ask ourselves what is better: For the working man/woman to be driving 20 year old cars with 20 year old safety systems or driving more modern cars with better passive safety systems, but without the expensive active safety systems that push those cars out of their price range. Let the buyer decide what they want and the car insurance companies set rates for cars with and without those systems and if the Ralph Naders of the world have a problem with that then let them convince people to change their ways on their own dime rather than forcing things upon them.

      The simple fact is that by mandating all these new safety systems the government is forcing more and more people into older and less safe cars as the price for new and newer used cars gets pushed higher and higher, meaning cars that would have been scrapped in the past are kept on the road. The average age of a passenger car in 1995 was 8.4 years. In 2011 it is now 11.1 years. Part of that is because of improved quality, but part of it is also due to the increasing cost of new cars.

      https://www.polk.com/images/uploads/20120117-tablea.jpg

      If I had to be in a car crash with only seat-belts and the cars structure to protect me, I know I'd rather be in a car made in 2005 than 1995.

    130. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or just move to a place where you can walk pretty much everywhere you need to go, with occasional public transportation. I started doing that in a very big city, did it an even bigger city, and now I'm finding it's perfectly convenient in a town of less than 250k. (I might give biking a go in warmer months, but biking through snow drifts isn't my cup of tea. Plus, a lot of bicyclists act like self-righteous assholes while also often breaking the law and that puts me off from joining the club.)

    131. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Like a modern locomotive.

      Yes, do wake me up when a diesel-electric car is available. Even better, a pickup truck.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    132. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I paid $4K cash for a used Focus in 2008 and I'm still driving it everyday and put almost 40K miles on it myself. I average about 32MPG of mixed driving. I've done nothing to it other than wear items (tires/brakes/fluids). I could probably sell it for $2500-3000 as it sits.

    133. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      For example, they compare a Toyota Prius (which I own) against a Toyota Camry, and find that it only took my family 1.8 years before our purchase of the Prius paid for itself.

      Except the Prius spec's very closely to the Corolla, not the Camry (go ahead, try their online comparitor).

      The Camry vs. the Camry hybrid is 6 yrs. Looks like Corolla vs. Prius is about 12 yrs.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    134. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by DiSKiLLeR · · Score: 1

      Auckland, New Zealand has a very very high number of Prius Taxi's, too.

      Fuel is also ridiculously expensive here, at NZ$2.20/L. (My quick calculation says that's about US$6.85/US Gallon)

      --
      You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.
    135. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by kwalker · · Score: 1

      I wish I could find a small diesel engine car in the US. Even after-market! The sad fact is (And I'm challenging anyone here to prove me wrong) you cannot buy a small (less than 3-ton) diesel automobile unless you happen to really like (And can find) the VW Golf TDI or maybe you can find an old Mercedes diesel. The only diesels I have been able to find are equivalent or larger than a Ford F350, Dodge Ram 3500, or Chevy Silverado.

      I've got a project car that I would like to put a small 4-cyl diesel into, but I. Can't. Find. One.

      --
      ... And so it comes to this.
    136. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by garyebickford · · Score: 1

      A co-worker's neighbor drove 100 miles each way, 2.5 hours THROUGH DOWNTOWN L.A., for years. If he left the house by 5AM he got through downtown L.A. by 6 or 6:15 and made it to work in Ventura by about 7:30. If he was 15 minutes later, he got hung up in the AM commuter traffic, and got to work about 9:30.

      In his case, he lived in a very nice expensive suburb (Mission Viejo CA), had several kids in school etc. He was a doctor. He got a new job, and spent 5 hours a day commuting so he didn't have to uproot his family. That was his choice - probably not the one I would have made, but hey. IMHO he should have gotten a helicopter!

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    137. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      OK, you've ridden your hyperbola up its asymptote, now come down and talk sensibly with the rest of the environmentally conscious folks.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    138. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Funny

      You can paint them green inside, too.

    139. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or how about a motorbike or scooter as a compromise?

    140. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 1

      $4.50 per gallon? That's ridiculously cheap - far less than I paid in the 90s back in Europe

      So? Many places in Europe don't suffer from (or benefit from, depending on your point of view) suburban sprawl. In addition, many places have poor public transit, partially because the cities aren't populated enough to make it efficient (look at Omaha, Nebraska).

      The question is, how long will a gallon last you in those regions?

    141. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      300 miles for top of the line model is not great range, sorry. It's somewhere around "tolerable". Great range is 900-1000 miles you get from VW diesels.

      Of course, the bigger problem is that if you need to go further than that, you'll need to recharge somewhere along the way - and good luck finding a charging station on a random route.

    142. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or how about a motorbike or scooter as a compromise? While it may or may not trigger induction loops, it can carry a passenger. It is also allowed on all HOV lanes in US by federal law.

    143. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It might not be new as a concept, but I haven't heard of a production car marketed like that.

      And yes, it's a big deal - since you can use batteries alone to drive for about 30 miles, which covers work commute and grocery shopping for many urban guys - so it gets used as a pure electric car in practice, with gas only a fallback for when greater range is needed (say, weekend hiking). For myself, I don't see any point in buying a Leaf or even a Tesla as my only car - but a Volt, now, I can certainly see myself driving that (and mostly in pure electric mode).

    144. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      An excessively noisy car would be a distraction in itself. It is not the outside you hear so much as the engine and vibration of the vehicle. There is no safety benefit to hearing excessive road noise from the rolling friction of your tires.

      Insulation also saves money not unlike as with your house. Cars used to be A LOT hotter but with better glass and more thermally isolted exteriors, - well it still sucks before you get some air flow or AC - but it is much better.

      Most insulation is light. E.g., a cubic foot of aluminum is 169 lbs. And that is a light metal. The lightest insulation (typically sold) could be 1/2 lb/cu.ft. A heavy insulation 6 to 16 lbs/cu.ft. I can't speak about sound-dampening rubber, but I suspect it may have some other benefits that make its weight negligible.

      There are assholes that will tear out the carpet in their car to lose weight for a race. They're assholes not automotive engineers making real-world tradeoffs.

    145. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Most "hybrid" cars can drive the wheels directly or solely from the gasoline engine, rather than the Volt that's completely incapable of running on the gasoline engine and must use electric-only to move the car.

      I think it makes more sense to put that around: Volt is the only hybrid that's capable of driving the wheels from batteries alone, while other hybrids require the gasoline engine to be running.

    146. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by iamwahoo2 · · Score: 1

      Maybe it depends on the class of car, but having just performed the cost analysis in detail recently, I believe that the Prius represents the best value in its class by a landslide. The only cars that I looked at that I found to be comparable were the Mazda 3 and Honda Civic. I assumed that gas would be an average of $4.20 per gallon over the life of the car, and right now that is looking like a very conservative guess. In another class of cars, I know that the Camry hybrid only costs a few thousand more while delivering around 40 mpg vs 30 mpg for the regular Camry. I have not done the analysis, but it looks like it would easily pay for itself with the gas savings.

    147. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      By the way according to the GREET study performed by the government, the most efficient car would be a Hybrid diesel.

      If that's the case, VW might have something on their hands. Though, from what I've heard, they kinda skimped on batteries.

    148. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by donaldm · · Score: 1

      What's a gallon again?

      4 quarts or 8 pints or 16 cups. It's part of the cool new power-of-two based measurement system that makes many everyday tasks much easier than the old power-of-ten system.

      Depends which country you are living in. Most countries use the Metric system where the "litre" is the standard volume measurement. When someone asks "What's a gallon" you need to know if they are talking about the US or the Imperial Gallon where 1 US gallon equals 0.833 Imp gallon. Of course "quarts" and "pints" are normally related to the Imperial (UK) measurements so the US versions are relatively smaller. As for "cups" (0.5 UK pints) the metric system can use these but they are normally 250 ml.

      Lets bring in "pinch", "hogshead", firkin", "drops" and "teaspoon" and confuse the issue no end :) Is it any wonder most countries in the world have shifted to the Metric System.

      --
      There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
    149. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by guises · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The roads provide for commerce as well. Trust me, every dollar sunk into infrastructure like that is returned multiple times in increased tax revenue.

      The point he was making was that money spent on infrastructure could just as easily be going to railroads or the like, but instead it all gets spent on cars.

      Regarding the cost of oil, the world is significantly different than it was 11 years ago - the high cost of oil is thanks to the Arab Spring. The OPEC countries (primarily Saudi Arabia) need money to keep their citizens from revolting. Simple as that. I've even got a reference for you:

      http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/04/02/149684373/the-real-reason-gas-costs-4-a-gallon

      As for how much gas _should_ cost: frankly, it's still too cheap. It's my opinion that commodities should be taxed when they themselves, through use, cost taxpayer dollars. In other words, gas needs to be taxed at a rate which will offset the environmental damage that's done by using it. This is true regardless of the cost of crude oil.

    150. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He may've meant a motorbike, which invalidates most of your points and gets more ladies. Also goes fast.

      Oh and, offtopic, but they get a lot of MPGs.

    151. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by green1 · · Score: 1

      The public will only decide if the car manufacturers let us. And so far there are no electric vehicles available here. Only hybrids.

      Chevrolet bragged about being the first electric vehicle to market, but still haven't offered one, only a different form of hybrid.

      There's a huge market for electric cars, too bad nobody is willing to sell one (I'm ignoring the Tesla roadster due to price and availability, it's just not in the attainable range for the average person)

    152. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by guacamole · · Score: 1

      You should go check out the "base" Civic at a local dealership. For a lot of brands, the base stripper configuration is created for the sole purpose of attracting the buyer into the dealership. If you try to test drive the advertized stripper car, it will be almost certainly available in a scary color and in low number/options. Dealerships don't really like those cars. Today, no one really buys a stripper car to begin with. People want even the budget car to come with electric everything, USB/MP3/bluetooth compatible audio system, AC, reasonable interior quality, etc. For compact cars, I suspect that $20K or higher is probably the typical price people pay. In the light of this, the Prius family does not seem to be that overpriced (Honda is not really a great benchmark for hybrid cars, as Prius trumps Insight in pretty much every category)

    153. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by tftp · · Score: 1

      my current hybrid is doing great and faring quite well in it's 7th year.

      Same here. I bought a new Gen. II Prius in 2005. It has about 44,000 miles on the odometer, and at that rate I don't expect to need a new car for another 30 years. Perhaps I'll need a new battery in 3-5 years from now, but that battery is not too expensive, compared to Volt's battery.

      If I had to look for another car right now I would have bought the latest new Prius. I like it, and it is very comfortable for me. I will never go back to a car with a gearbox (be it manual or automatic) - you just can't do that after the CVT.

      I wouldn't buy a Volt or a Leaf today. They cost too much and they have too small battery range. Leaf is not even in the running, and Volt is overpriced for what it delivers. It might be a good car if you live on a flat land and only go to a corner store, but it's hills everywhere around, and hills are bad for battery range. Some of my trips are 420 miles one way (8-9 hours of driving.)

    154. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by green1 · · Score: 1

      The only current mass produced electric car (the tesla roadster) brags a range of over 300 miles... so I'm not sure what you're comparing to.

    155. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Prius has a transmission in it that lets it be powered by gasoline-engine alone, or batteries alone, or some mix of the two. The Volt is the one sold by GM as being battery-only at all times, though they later revealed that it is gasoline-engine driven in some cases as well.

    156. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by silverhalide · · Score: 2

      Wrong. You should learn about the technology before you go and shit on it.

      The Volt is not a true serial hybrid - that would imply the engine is decoupled from the wheels. While the volt typically operates in that mode, its transmission/motor/engine configuration is similar to the Prius, where the gas engine can power the wheels directly in case the battery is dead. It's arranged in a planetary configuration. This results in much better fuel economy when operating in the gas mode. This has the added benefit of providing some extra "emergency" power if you really get on the gas pedal - the engine will kick in for wide-open-throttle highway accelerations.

      No, there has never been a production vehicle like the Volt to date. The plug-in Prius releasing this year will be close contender but has a much smaller electric-only range.

    157. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by tftp · · Score: 1

      It's also common in SF Bay Area - lots of people have a house in San Francisco and work somewhere in Silicon Valley. You can't just sell a house and move, it costs very big bucks. Today you probably can't sell a house at all unless you are willing to recover only 30% of what you paid for it. Jobs are transient, homes are permanent - that's why people spend hours in traffic, not because they love it.

    158. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Doesn't that depend a whole lot on how much you drive?

      If, on average, the usable life of a car can be measured in miles, then no, it doesn't depend on how much you drive. If the usable life of a car is measured in years, then yes, it does.

    159. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      That's called a serial hybrid (energy flows from engine to battery to wheels). It is not "different" or new, but was invented nearly 100 years ago.

      The Diesel electric train is hardly new.
       

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    160. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Is there any way to force Prius into battery only mode while driving at a reasonable speed, though? And how far does it get you?

    161. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      A car has enough metal surface to trigger induction loops connected to traffic signals; a bike does not.

      A bike does. You only need to know where to position your bike (There are only 2 types of inductors I have seen in the bay area. One is the large circle, which can be triggered if your bike is chord on the circle (they are usually marked well, and you cannot miss it), the other is a sort of two rectangles placed next to each other, you can be on the sides of any of the two rectangles to trigger it). This is assuming you have you dont have a pure carbon fiber wheel (if you do, just a get a copper cable along the wheel, and it will trigger signals better than cars). Some signals even have cameras that detect headlights, just to make this even more easier.

      I agree with you on the rest of your post. Bicycling is not for everyone, but signal triggering is not a problem at all.

    162. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by MillerHighLife21 · · Score: 1

      My Volt is pretty much awesome. Gives great acceleration, range and plenty of space. My family uses it for everything after I get home and it literally paid for itself in gas savings. Granted, I went from an Expedition to a Volt...but still I could have a payment on 2 Volts for what I was spending in gas. Power bill will go up less than $15 / month too. I was paying between $400-600 a month on gas alone.

      --
      "Don't teach a man to fish, feed yourself. He's a grown man. Fishing's not that hard." - Ron Swanson
    163. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by HereIAmJH · · Score: 1

      There is also the Jetta TDI. Used ones aren't cheap, but they are out there. I have one in my driveway right next to my 7.3 F350. It would be nice to have more options out there, I'd like to repower an S10. The Cummins 4BT is too big, and I think the VW 1.9 is going to be too small. The 1.9 would be a really nice engine if it had a timing chain (instead of the belt) and the IP was a little cheaper to rebuild.

      --
      Another day, another update to a Google android app.
    164. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by slackware+3.6 · · Score: 1
    165. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's wrong with a Volt, so far as cargo space/acceleration/range? It strikes me as just being... a car. Not really extraordinary, but not shabby either.

    166. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by IBitOBear · · Score: 2

      Atually the Prius B (e.g. second gen) is pretty peppy if you punch it, and the guys at the dealership have had them up to the 100+ miles-per-hour range with multiple passengers. Most gas cars will beat me from zero to sixty. Few will beat me from zero to 15 or 45 to 60. I have no willing declaration to make about getting from 55 to 85 on the grounds that I am making public statements concerning actions of interests of legal authorities... 8-)

      The acceleration curves don't "feel the same" as a gas car, and you dont get the same "throat" out of a prius as a straining gas mahine with an automatic 3-speed transmission, but it ain't half bad really.

      So no, my Prius B donesn't have the "performance feel" that a twenty-something who cannot use the break with any subtlty (hi Xue) so is constantly gunning it and then breaking harshly. But driven with subtlty and predictive awarenes of changing conditions, well it will "road rally through traffic" rather better than you probably have expected.

      I also tend to end up speeding if I don't pay attention because decades of training to match engine feel to road speed between spedometer checks keeps getting foiled by the way the speed-MG will trade off with the torque-MG. So after I set my mental speedometer to the engine speed, the same engine speed will often lead to a creeping-up of the actual speed. Then you look down and Gah!... 8-)

      --
      Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
      --"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
    167. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Macman408 · · Score: 1

      I've seen similar figures, and yes, they include the battery (which isn't necessarily Li-Ion; hybrids tend to use NiMH because of the lower cost, while electrics need to use Li-Ion for the the better energy storage per pound, in order to keep the vehicle at a reasonable weight).

    168. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I suspect because the hybrids don't need replacing yet. Seriously, people who keep a car only this short a period of time aren't all that interested in value over time or environment anyway. Basically if you only care about up front cost then hybrid is not a good choice, if you only care about saving some gas because it's cheaper for you then it's not a good choice. They are a good choice though if you care about the environment or are hoping to advance the technology of autos so that efficiency is a standard feature.

    169. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Bikers are far more militant and in your face with verbal abuse than any hybrid owner.

    170. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      The public will only decide if the car manufacturers let us. And so far there are no electric vehicles available here. Only hybrids.

      Dunno where "here" is for you, but where I am (near Los Angeles, CA) there are plenty of electric vehicles available. I see them zipping around town on a near-daily basis now.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    171. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Galestar · · Score: 2

      Oil is subsidized by the government. The price does not reflect the fair market value, it is far too low.

      --
      AccountKiller
    172. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      I agree the term is over used and abused. I've seen big SUVs that get an extremely lousy 15MPG being marketed as hybrid and the green alternative to the competitor. Maybe technically they are hybrids but...

    173. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by ppanon · · Score: 1

      In another slashdot article a few days ago, somebody claimed that the impact of producing electricity from coal to recharge the battery was about the same as the power generation used to refing enough gasoline for traveling the same distance. So the electrical power consumption is about the same either way, but (for the electric/hyrid) without the additional CO2 generation from combustion of gasoline/diesel. That's assuming you're not using biodiesel, which, depending on the source and processing, might be quite lower in terms of processing power.

      --
      Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
    174. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by tftp · · Score: 1

      Considering the Leaf's battery costs around $6000-7000, and the rest of the car is infinitely easier to build than an ICE-carrying car,

      I didn't know until now that Leaf is selling for the same $16,500 as Ford Fiesta. Or even cheaper, down to $6-7K, since "infinitely easier" has a limit of zero. Where can I get one for that price?

    175. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by jaymemaurice · · Score: 1

      The junior scientist in me encourages you to take out the sound dampening material and test your hypothesis... :)

      --
      120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
    176. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by ryanov · · Score: 1

      Not reasonable speed... but I believe you can force it up to 35. I don't recall how long it lasts. My father has one and this is something that you can do, though I don't know about the utility.

    177. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by ryanov · · Score: 1

      So a lot of people are really dumb. That's no reason for the rest of us not to move on with our lives.

    178. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by jaymemaurice · · Score: 1

      Except the carbon expelled comes from the carbon we eat right? We eat mostly things that mostly pulled the carbon from the air less than 200 years ago... we are not releasing new carbon except that which was used to cultivate the food from fossil fuel.
      Your argument seems short sighted... add to that the decomposition of the dead bodies will probably release green-house gas too (including methane) unless you burry them right away, and even then you will probably parade the body around first and dig a hole with a back-hoe...

      --
      120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
    179. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by jaymemaurice · · Score: 1

      And with that said... I wonder if its better for the environment to eat free grazing cows or wheat?

      --
      120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
    180. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      That's also fairly rare, mercifully.

    181. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bumpers designed to resist damage in 5 mph and slower crashes (yes, bumpers have damage resistance as a feature equal to or greater than safety)

      Bumpers are SOLELY for damage reduction. They are NOT safety features, as per the NIHS.

    182. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by ryanov · · Score: 2

      And some of you could get off your ass and walk/bike.

    183. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      It's not *my* hypothesis that the sound dampening is ineffective.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    184. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do auto makers include so much ineffective sound dampening material?

      Speaking as someone who drives an old econobox without ANY sound dampening at all (ignoring the carpet on the floor pan)... It's no big deal until you hit highway speeds. At 70MPH, you can't hold a conversation, you're just shouting. It makes driving actually, physically painful.

      I don't know how effective each ounce of the sound dampening materials are, but I can tell you, modern car cabins are whisper quiet, and road noise without it is like being on the tarmac at a major airport.

      Yes, I do get very good gas mileage.

    185. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Reprint001 · · Score: 0

      $4.50 is ridiculously cheap! In the UK we're currently paying £1.44 per litre for unleaded. If my maths is still good, on current exchange rates, that's $8.65 per US gallon - almost twice what you've stated you're paying. To fill the 60 litre tank in my 2001 Honda Accord it costs me approx. £86 or $137 When your gas is that expensive you might see more uptake and re-uptake of hybrid and electric technologies - or even an increase in sneaker purchases.

    186. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by w0mprat · · Score: 1

      The cost difference between a regular gas sedan and a hybrid of the same size is generally not offset by the savings in fuel costs for driving it. Why do it again if it didn't work the first time?

      Maybe not in the US which enjoys unusually cheap prices. But about 80% of Taxis in my area are hybrids with a few companies going exclusively "green" vehicles and being able to offer cheaper rates due to the fuel savings. Taxi drivers kind of look at you blankly if you question their choice, for them it pays for itself in a year or less it's a complete no-brainer. My neighbour who's a taxi driver is on to his second Prius and you'd have to prise it from his cold dead hands. Many of the remainder are LPG or Diesel.

      Personally I am pro-diesel or pro-electric. Hybrid is a cop out by the auto industry.

      --
      After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    187. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Only if you are an environmental extremist. Most of us don't advocate going back to a horse and cart, we just want something less bad than an SUV. We are moving towards ever greener cars, mostly due to the price of oil, and while it would be nice if we got there a bit quicker hybrids and EVs are very much welcome (as are high efficiency petrol cars).

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    188. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Why was this modded troll? I am an avid cyclist myself I can attest that both cyclists and pedestrians underestimate the danger. What they see is an average human and they dismiss the bike itself. But take the weight of a grown man, add 11-15 kilos of metal, accelerate it to 15-30 kph (or more - a good cyclist on a good road bike and straight road can overtake a moped) and suddenly the possibilities of hurting someone are very real.

      Especially when you take into account that many cyclists are careless, riding in the dark without proper lights, or, worse, without lights at all.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    189. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But take the weight of a grown man, add 11-15 kilos of metal, accelerate it to 15-30 kph (or more - a good cyclist on a good road bike and straight road can overtake a moped) and suddenly the possibilities of hurting someone are very real."

      Ask any stoned American tourist, who is in Amsterdam for the first time, how it feels.

    190. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You can change the Volt off of a standard 110V"

      That's 'standard' only in backwards countries like the US.
      Modern countries have 240 and 380 Volts.

    191. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      Not everyone wants to listen to the roadway noise while driving, or have our stereo up to insane levels to overcome it.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    192. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Doh! That would be correct. I blame the percoset and valium ;-) Fine drugs if I do say so myself...lol

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    193. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by w0mprat · · Score: 1

      Nope. You'd have to pull out a number of safety features (likely illegal to sell, and possibly illegal to drive). Airbags that don't help belted passengers, bumpers designed to resist damage in 5 mph and slower crashes (yes, bumpers have damage resistance as a feature equal to or greater than safety), and loads of heavy and mostly ineffective sound deadening are burdening the modern car. The old ones had poor suspension, overly heavy bodies and such, but you could strip out almost everything (and even replace the frame with a light-weight tubular design), and have something lighter than today's cars. The only thing you get from today's cars is a smaller package with better aerodynamics. But the available improvements are smaller, so it's hard to get the same level of improvements. Intake/exhaust and computer change will get most non-turbo cars 10% to power and efficiency, but beyond that, it's harder to get more. I left out turbos because it's easier to trade efficiency for power or vice versa, and the percentages depend on the vehicles (you won't get much more efficiency out of Audis and Saabs with efficiency tuned turbos, but Chevy's turbo-Diesel trucks have loads of capabilities from things like a DuraMaximizer).

      Some ugly-ass backyard Aerodynamic modifications can get 45% improvement in fuel economy http://www.aerocivic.com/ Also modifying a engine computer will get you much more than 10%. Properly done lean-burn might get you 25% or more.

      Intake/exhaust will net you effectively zero efficiency improvement under economy driving conditions. This is much debated and the verdict is MPG improvement of such mods is marketting BS. You might seem some benefit if you have a turbo diesel or some unusual high-load application.

      As for weight, yes that's a tough one to beat without compromising safety etc.

      --
      After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    194. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by dargaud · · Score: 1

      Why don't they use active noise cancellation like in high-end earphones or in modern helicopters ? It's now a proven technology that works very well for a fairly large range of frequencies.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    195. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by dargaud · · Score: 1

      I own one. But in practice, green ideals must be evaluated against one's needs. A car puts a barrier between the driver and the weather; a bike does not. A car has enough metal surface to trigger induction loops connected to traffic signals; a bike does not. A car can carry passengers larger than 50 lbs (22 kg); a typical bike trailer cannot. A car can travel on controlled access highways; a bike cannot.

      You stop at lights with a bike ? Maybe if you need to cross a high-traffic road, but that's about all. As for highways, if you are in Australian you can bike on them! PS: I bike to work, and so does my wife. When we last moved, we had biking in mind for commuting, so that's one more consideration that people often won't take.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    196. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      The only current mass produced electric car (the tesla roadster)...

      Don't forget the Nissan Leaf. Only a range of ~100 miles on that one.

    197. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Even now diesel puts out more pollution than petrol, which is why hybrids have generally stayed away from it. Remember that at first the main marketing point was their low emissions, not their really good mileage. Petrol was/is cheap in the US, compared to Europe where MPG (or rather KPL) has been a big deal for much longer.

      In the UK diesel is more expensive than petrol, so not everyone will make a saving by going to diesel anyway. It depends on your commuting habits.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    198. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by andyteleco · · Score: 2

      Except for some lucky owners of modern Lamborghinis, BMWs and some other high-end cars, who actually miss the good old roar of their powerful engines and have it piped in the cabin through the stereo system:

      http://www.bmwblog.com/2011/09/23/active-sound-design-brings-the-m5-engine-sound-into-the-cabin/

    199. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by CaptSlaq · · Score: 1

      That's called a serial hybrid (energy flows from engine to battery to wheels). It is not "different" or new, but was invented nearly 100 years ago.

      And not what the volt is. The engine does offer mechanical assist to the driveline. Brought down to basics, it's just like a Prius. Just the first link I grabbed from google: http://gm-volt.com/2010/10/11/motor-trend-explains-the-volts-powertrain/

    200. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by BlueParrot · · Score: 1

      But you can't fill up your massive battery in 5 minutes at any standard gas station.

      This is true for the time being, but likely to change in the coming decades. There's newer forms o batteries that can recharge in 5-10 minutes, and several companies are designing electrical systems that can supply the necessary power. Now, these battery types are fairly new ( and hence expensive ), and it would probably take something like a government mandate to start retrofitting existing gas stations with the necessary electrical equipment, but technologically speaking it can be done.

    201. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by CaptSlaq · · Score: 1

      I would be surprised if that passed any .gov safety standards, unless you can register it as a cycle.

      I do appreciate what you're trying to do, tho. Have you considered any of the design inspiration offered by the old Morgan 3 wheelers?

    202. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      The only way to make bikes come out ahead is to mandate that the rider not wear a helmet.

      Last study I read showed that people who wear a bike helmet have a slightly reduced chance of death but a significantly increased chance of permanent paralysis (a bike helmet only protects you from a small number of collision types, but a big bulky weight attached your head makes spinal injuries more likely). Oh, and people wearing a helmet were more likely to be involved in an accident in the first place (not sure why, possibly slightly reduced ability to turn their head, or to hear, or maybe the feeling of safety from the helmet overriding normal caution). So maybe wearing a helmet is a better option...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    203. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      The question is how long my battery pack will last - it's warranted for 100,000 miles but seems to be holding a charge OK

      You probably want to try doing complete discharge cycles regularly and storing it somewhere warm. With luck, you can get it to fail just before the warranty expires, get a free replacement, and then actually look after that one...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    204. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Living in the Europe at the moment. It's the same as it always has been. They are driving plenty of diesels, with efficiency being a primary goal in design. I see very few hybrids.

    205. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Hybrids doesn't sell very well if at all in Europe. Diesels are cheaper, more reliable and has WAY better mileage .

    206. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by arth1 · · Score: 1

      The Tesla model S has great range and massive interior space.

      Several times a year, I load up the car with dogs and luggage and drive on a 12 hour trip.

      Now think how that trip would work in a Tesla.

      Where can I recharge, twice? Is there a hotel room that allows dogs next to the recharging station? What happens when I leave the highway and hit potholed roads, cattle grates and gravel country roads with the painted-on tires? Or need to park out in a field?

      Yes, I'd love to turn more green. But not if it means giving up an important part of my life, and pay through the teeth for the privilege.

      I don't even expect luxury. Manual windows, no 7 speaker stereo, no GPS/OnStar/iPod dock is just fine - as long as I can get a car that can do all that a 70s Lada could do: Get me from A to B and back again, and not have to plan the journey based on the limitations of the car. Cars today are supposed to be better, right?

    207. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Captain+Hook · · Score: 1

      The wheat because there are less changes of state. With a food crop for humans, you grow a crop and then eat the edible bit.

      With a cow, you have to grow a food crop (which in fairness is probably cheaper to grow than a plant crop we would eat directly), the cow eats a small portion of that food crop, it digests it at less than 100% efficiency. We then eat a small portion of the cow and digest that at less than 100% efficiency. etc.

      Water is a particular problem with animal farming, take far more water for the same amount of calories to reach the person at the end of the chain.

      The only way I can see meat might be better is because it's more energy dense it could be cheaper to transport than a plant crop, but then meat needs to be chilled for it's entire journey while only some food crops need to be so I would assume even that doesn't work out in meats favor.

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    208. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      A taxi driving pattern is probably one of the toughest you would typically find, so they can't be too bad for more regular use.

      Taxis are pretty much the ideal usage pattern for a hybrid. Taxis spend most of their time starting and stopping, which means that they're constantly using the electric motor for short periods. Normal driving patterns won't see such a benefit.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    209. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I've raced before, and plenty of people I know pulled out the entire interior of their car and put back in the seats and nothing else. It was still relatively quiet, for all the sound deadening material being removed.

    210. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Apparently your what's called a problem finder not a problem solver, just for you, http://www.webcarhire.com/

      You could hire a vehicle most suited to cross country family trips without having to drag it around the rest of the year.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    211. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1

      Whoever's hypothesis it is it's demonstrably untrue - the other day I took the sound proofing out of the back of my Subaru Legacy wagon to do some welding, and drove it to town and back and the road and exhaust noise coming up from the back was an alarmingly cacophonous racket.

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    212. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want a real green alternative, buy a bike.

      Spoken like a true kid living in their mom's basement. I guess I could put each kid on the handlebars, and the wife can balance on the rear axle while holding the groceries between her teeth?

    213. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God I HATED mine. Maybe it's because I've always driven Subarus in the past (at least that preconditioned me to accept the shitty interior) but I've never driven a car so crappy in the snow. The problem was the unpredictability when stopping. You'd be attempting to stop sometimes and the ABS was so aggressive it was like not having brakes at all. All winter, the thing rattled and squeaked like 10 year old Corolla. Put winter tires on it and the mileage drops precipitously. Oh, and the requirement for full synthetic made oil changes a $100.00+ affair every time. It was tolerable in warm weather but that's about it. It was a noisy, uncomfortable rattletrap with a penchant for bouncing off of snow banks that I got rid of after one year. Never again.

    214. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Trouble is that to get the battery fully discharged, you'd have to drive in a way that results in lousy gas mileage.

      So that plan would be an own-goal.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    215. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The world is not so significantly different than it was 11 years ago when gas was under $1/gal that it should now be $4/gal.

      China put 100m extra cars on the road, god knows how many in India. Demand is vastly higher, supply is getting harder, so obviously the price is going to go up.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    216. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by pugugly · · Score: 1

      Given that the motive force is entirely electric, I'm not sure I see this as disingenous or marketspeak. It's an electric car with a gasoline generator providing the extended range. If someone invented a Shipstone tomorrow you would be replacing the batteries and generator with a Shipstone and you'd be done.

      Pug

      --
      An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
    217. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      1. Because most of us don't wear headphones in the car.
      2. Because you would risk cancelling out emergency vehicle sirens, car horns, and the screams of the people you are running down.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    218. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. I put every gram of it there myself.

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    219. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by tepples · · Score: 1

      A car puts a barrier between the driver and the weather; a bike does not. A car has enough metal surface to trigger induction loops connected to traffic signals; a bike does not.

      He may've meant a motorbike, which invalidates most of your points

      How so? A motorcycle still leaves the driver in the weather. And even a bicycle and motorcycle put together can't trip one of the signals where I live.

    220. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by kaizokuace · · Score: 2

      this is so dumb! When we started using cars and not horses we didn't make the car simulate the galloping of a horse! The way something looks and feels and sounds should be appreciated for its own qualities.

      --
      Balderdash!
    221. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by type40 · · Score: 1

      And why wouldn't you want a central console between the front seats, unless you're one of those losers who likes having a shifter on the steering wheel and bench seats? Those are things I hope never to see in cars again.

      Yes, I'm one of the losers that likes the column shift and bench seat in my truck. Mostly because long drives with my SO turn into quality time with my SO with a, "Hey [pet name], slide over here."
      And
      If SO is inclined and the road is sufficiently deserted, quality time can turn into sexy time during that same drive.

      --
      "You can see I know very little about pimp policy." George McGovern.
    222. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      There are assholes that will tear out the carpet in their car to lose weight for a race.

      They are assholes because they have different objectives than a typical Ford engineer? Are the engineers that design F1 cars also assholes? Don't see much carpet in those...

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    223. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's what I was thinking... why would you care about safety at 5 MPH? Sure you can get hurt, but that's literally walking speed and most of the collisions at that speed are parking or drifting a bit in traffic. If you are belted I don't think there is any way to get hurt at 5 MPH.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    224. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by type40 · · Score: 1

      (Technically so does the Volt at speeds over 55mph I believe).

      70mph, in charge sustain mode. In battery mode it will go from 0 to the speed limiter on battery only.

      --
      "You can see I know very little about pimp policy." George McGovern.
    225. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      In the UK diesel is more expensive than petrol

      Diesel is more expensive than petrol if you measure by volume, it isn't if you measure by energy value.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    226. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by mellon · · Score: 1

      Car accidents send 30-50k people per year to the *morgue*. Life is dangerous, but that doesn't mean that every activity is equally dangerous.

    227. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by mellon · · Score: 1

      That's what I do. Ride to eat, eat to ride...

    228. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by necro81 · · Score: 1

      Assuming that we haven't advanced much in alternative fuels by the time my car is ready for the scrapper's, I certainly would buy another hybrid then, but I think I'd go for a parallel hybrid system that can run the electric motor independently, rather than the Civic's serial system which uses the motor only as a booster for the gasoline engine.

      You have your serial/parallel definitions backwards. The Honda powertrain is a parallel, because the driveshaft for the wheels receives power directly from the ICE and the electric motor. The fact that the motor and ICE are mounted on the same driveshaft is immaterial. Toyota's powertrain is more or less parallel as well, relying on complicated mechanical differentials to shuttle power among the motor/generator, ICE, and wheels.

      This is in contrast to the Volt, or a diesel locomotive, which are series hybrids, where the wheels are driven only* by the electric motor, and the ICE is used to supply electric power for that.

      * The Volt has some special operating modes, too, that allow the ICE to get coupled to the wheels directly, in parallel with the electric motor.

    229. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by j-beda · · Score: 1

      A taxi driving pattern is probably one of the toughest you would typically find, so they can't be too bad for more regular use.

      Taxis are pretty much the ideal usage pattern for a hybrid. Taxis spend most of their time starting and stopping, which means that they're constantly using the electric motor for short periods. Normal driving patterns won't see such a benefit.

      Sure, they have the greatest benefit, but this type of usage also has the greatest wear and tear on all the systems, so is a useful metric to gauge the longevity and reliably of the system as a whole.

    230. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by type40 · · Score: 1

      No. Its not.
      from your link:
      When the car reaches 70 mph the main motor spins too fast to be maximally efficient, and a clutch disengages the ring from the case. This allows the second electric motor to participate and both motors act in parallel to reach speeds of 101 mph with adequate power.

      In charge sustaining mode, the gas engine goes on and clutches to the generator causing it to produce electricity to continue powering the main motor.

      However of particular interest, when going above 70 mph in charge sustaining mode, and the generator gets coupled to the drivetrain, the gas engine participates in the motive force. GM says the engine never drives the wheels all by itself , but will participate in this particular situation in the name of efficiency, which is improved by 10 to 15 percent."

      Reread that last sentence a few times
      At about 60 mph the Prius is powered almost exclusively by the ICE.
      So, its not like the Prius.

      --
      "You can see I know very little about pimp policy." George McGovern.
    231. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Admiral_Grinder · · Score: 1

      A car puts a barrier between the driver and the weather; a bike does not.

      Never heard of a rain coat? When I was riding my bike to work I would have to look at the weather, and add 10 degrees to determine what to wear because I would be warmer riding. In the dead of winter my car heater didn't even kick in until I pulled in my driveway.

      A car has enough metal surface to trigger induction loops connected to traffic signals; a bike does not.

      FALSE. My bike triggers the loops all the time. I did find one that didn't trigger, but a quick email to the city and a day or two wait fixed that issue. He said that it needed tweaked and that my 30lb bike with aluminum wheels wasn't an issue.

      A car can carry passengers larger than 50 lbs (22 kg); a typical bike trailer cannot.

      FALSE. My trailer supports 100lb, and it is a toys-r-us special. My rear rack has a 50lb limit.

      A car can travel on controlled access highways; a bike cannot.

      Big deal, a bike can travel on a MUT, a car cannot

    232. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by tepples · · Score: 1

      I did find one that didn't trigger, but a quick email to the city and a day or two wait fixed that issue.

      Four calls to the city and two calls to the state didn't fix the intersection at West Coliseum Blvd and Speedway Dr, Fort Wayne, Indiana. After the sixth call, a representative of INDOT called me back and told me that nothing could be done to adjust the intersection to pick up bicycles, and that I should just right turn on red, U-turn, and right turn again.

      My trailer supports 100lb, and it is a toys-r-us special.

      The instructions for my Walmart special state that the trailer supports up to 100 lb, but only 50 lb per child.

    233. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think "free grazing" refers to cows that eat food that has not been "cultivated" by humans.

    234. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Check out my new 2012 Mercurock Sabletooth.

      Green? Please. I can look at that thing and litterally count the number of trees killed to make it

    235. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      How so? A motorcycle still leaves the driver in the weather.

      You can wear enough kit to where it's not really a problem, except for your visor, which you can and should treat with Rain-X. But it's still less safe in inclement weather; you can buy a car with yaw control but the best you can get out of a bike is traction control and ABS.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    236. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by johnpaul191 · · Score: 1

      The article says "people buying a car in 2011". Maybe the shoppers either had not had the car long enough to see the difference, or had older hybrids that were not as magical. He is in the cult of Prius, but my brother did the math and his car would pay for the hybrid upgrade if he keeps the car for a certain number of years. Not 20 years, but more than 2 or 3 for sure. Less time than he expected to keep the car. I know his math was also based on fuel prices less than we have seen in the few years he has had his Prius, so he should be ahead of the estimates. He's also somebody that does not flinch at the concept of keeping a car for 10 years. One thing environmental car people say is that the more efficient car is probably the one that already exists, and not the one you are building from scratch. Buying a new Prius every 2 years is maybe not the best thing for the world (unless the used car is trickling down to somewhere replace super gas guzzlers). In the purely environmental impact sense you are better with an 80s VW diesel or an older little Honda.... because they are already built.

    237. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      But instead of putting asphalt back in you can put in Dynashield, a spray-on version of Dynamat, and you can get the same soundproofing with far less weight — at a significantly higher cost than a new asphalt mat. Or were you just talking about the foam and carpet, which is not what the rest of us are talking about?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    238. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You could hire a vehicle most suited to cross country family trips without having to drag it around the rest of the year.

      Car rental is least available during holidays, when most people want to and have time to make family trips, because everyone else has the same idea, too. And if you live in bumfuck like I do there's only one car rental place and it sucks balls.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    239. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (yes, bumpers have damage resistance as a feature equal to or greater than safety)

      That's because bumpers serve no safety feature. That's handled by things like airbags and crumple zones. The only real purpose of a bumper is to minimize the damage done to a vehicle in a very low speed impact. Well, that and also as a place to put your stickers.

    240. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Or you could have bought a used Prius and converted it for a lot less and got a lot better car. Remember Saturn? That was GM's attempt to build a Toyota. They are inferior to Toyotas and now the marque is gone. Now GM is attempting to build a Prius and it's called a Volt. Do you really want to repeat history?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    241. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      So you're the one that makes Algore cry and kills all the polar bears...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    242. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think the "buy a bike" guy started the journey up the hyperbola, which is kind of the AC's point. For most people, a bike is not a realistic alternative.

      We bought a house almost equidistantly between my wife and my workplace, as much as school systems and personal safety would allow. Still, my commute is 10 miles (5 of those highway) and my wife's is 5 miles (no highway). My wife could ride her bike in to work, except that she rides through the worst area of Philadelphia. Driving is unnerving at certain hours - biking is out of the question. Even public transit is out of the question unless it is daylight, and even then it is a bit dicey. I could ride to work, avoiding the highway in favor of less-direct back roads. However, there are no "bike lanes" that can get me to work, and so I'd be sharing some roads with no shoulders in parts. I see people biking and I see how close cars get to them. I've been there... no thanks.

      If it were just laziness, people would ride motor scooters or motorcycles - it's not laziness, it's fear. Cars are safer than motorcycles or bikes. I think I read that cars are safer per-mile than walking (because people get hit by cars).

      What I would pay for is a $20,000 economy commuter car that ran on electricity and got 40 miles per charge. This isn't absurd. The Nissan Leaf has a 24kWh battery and does about 80 miles on a charge. So I only need a 12kWh battery. Assuming the cost of batteries to be around $700/kWh, that gets me a $8400 discount on my Leaf... they might even be able to cheapen it further by switching to a lower density storage solution and maybe reducing the cooling. I'd also be willing to go even cheaper and use a manual gearbox so they don't need an AC motor. So a $35,000 car could almost trivially be reduced to $25,000. I'm sure you could cheapen the Leaf even more to get to my $25,000 number :)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    243. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      (yes, bumpers have damage resistance as a feature equal to or greater than safety)

      Don't discount DR 5/+1, those 5's it reduces build up over time.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    244. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      And why wouldn't you want a central console between the front seats, unless you're one of those losers who likes having a shifter on the steering wheel and bench seats? Those are things I hope never to see in cars again.

      Spoken like a geek that never had a date and makeout session in a car... Ahh, the joys of a big bench seat in early 60s iron!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    245. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The problem with a hybrid diesel is the massive weight. Subaru has a boxer-layout diesel that might help with that problem, but will we ever see it in North America?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    246. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In relationship to gas mileage, I've never understood what all the fuss was about. Diesel cars have been getting comparable mileage forever. I'm old enough to remember the 1981 Volkwagen rabbit being in the mid-to-high 40s/low-to-mid 50 mpg range. I would think that biodiesel would be a better stepping stone in that it can be used in unmodified diesel engines and the fact that you don't have to be Exxon-Mobil to make it. (A plus)

    247. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Hybrid was always a stop gap. But it's not just a stop gap because Electrics are coming out. It's a stop gap because there's no infrastructure in most of the country to support Electrics. If you need to drive across country, an Electric Car is a total non-starter.

      Full disclosure: I'm a Prius owner and I live in Florida. Apparently I'm pre-disposed to buy another one and sure enough I fully intend to, at some point. There are no charging stations anywhere. I can drive from my house to Disney World and back on half a tank of gas. But there's not one place I could charge if I had a full Electric.

    248. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by arth1 · · Score: 1

      It's also less of an option if you have large dogs, like I do.
      The one I tried required crating of all dogs, plus a $75 surcharge for allergy cleaning. With my own car, I just don't have these problems.

      And yes, of course having dogs and going on long trips is going to influence my upcoming car purchase too. I'd love to get something green, but I will buy what works.

    249. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      We eat mostly things that mostly pulled the carbon from the air less than 200 years ago...

      I'm not sure that's true - modern fertilizers are made from fossil fuels, and all of the farm equipment runs on fossil fuel, and the delivery trucks all run on fossil fuel - as do the supermarkets and storage facilities. I'd bet most of the carbon cost of food comes from fossil fuel. The only carbon from the air is the actual carbon in the food itself - which is usually just a fraction of the overall plant.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    250. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by dargaud · · Score: 1

      I wasn't clear enough. First I don't wear headphones in the car (it's actually illegal where I live). Second, you put the active noise cancellation on key points of the car (above the shocks, at the engine attachment points, etc) to seriously dampen the vibrations (=sound) coming through them and keeping them from reaching the people inside. Sound coming from the outside is unaffected..

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    251. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      This worked for me, too... while I was single. Now my wife and I work 15 miles apart - and that was actually a happy coincidence... it could have been much worse. And of course I have kids to deliver to summer camp/school and preschool. We moved to a place that is walking distance to both the preschool and the elementary school, but no such luck on the summer camp. And of course we both have to drive to work.

      Ask my wife - I hate to drive.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    252. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by dr2chase · · Score: 1

      As others have noted, rain coats for weather, and bikes trigger inductive loops all the time (with some notable, broken, exceptions). It does help to know how the loops works, and it helps to have a bike with conductive (aluminum) rims. And for ice, studded tires.

      Cargo, it depends on the bike. Mine is rated to carry 200lbs (in addition to me) and has done so. I've hauled 100lbs up hills. It's easy to find pictures of boring 3-speed city bikes in other countries hauling a second person on the rear rack (and those other countries have the safety stats to prove that it's not a dangerous thing to do).

      Bikes are good for getting through traffic jams (even cargo bikes, like mine), and they're much easier to park than cars. My wife and I once had a "race" to an office in Cambridge (car, bike) and the bicycle (me) won, mostly because she first got stuck in a traffic jam, and then had to go find parking, and then had to walk to the office from parking. Shopping at the local mall, I always find parking, and if things are so busy that all the carts are in use, I can easily spot a spare cart out in the parking lot and drag it in while riding the bike.

      As far as controlled access highways, do not confuse may not with can not. It's against the law, but a bicycle is perfectly well capable of traveling on that surface or the shoulder. Note that we're pretty lax about enforcing/observing many traffic laws, so this is not even really the law, it is more a matter of policy. If I thought that no-bikes-on-freeways would be enforced as well as no-speeding-on-freeways, I'd use the shoulder without a second thought.

    253. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hybrids are an alternative for drivers who want to be green, think of diesel as the soot spewing lorries and buses of yesteryear, can't live with the short range and abysmal interior space of of pure electrics, and can afford the price premium.

      Living in the US, gas prices is my least concern. $4.50 per gallon? That's ridiculously cheap - far less than I paid in the 90s back in Europe. So sell me a car I can like, with decent acceleration, cargo space and range. Sorry, it won't be a Prius or Volt; much as I'd love to go the green route, they are not particularly green when factoring in the factory footprint, and I can't use them for much more than commuting.

      Actually, it's not really $4.50 per gallon when you factor in the cost in blood and treasure of our wars in the middle east. Oh yeah, I keep forgetting... we're there to bring "freedom" to the people :-( We need to leave this 100+ year old technology behind so that we can re-examine our international priorities. Electrics could provide an answer in the future, but only if we give the technology the opportunity to unimpress us in the present so that it may one day surprise us in the future.

    254. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Much of an automobile's pollution footprint is in its construction. (Sorry, don't have time to cite anything specific on that) The "green" thing to do is buy an existing car and keep it running as long as possible.
      Buying a new fuel efficient car to be "green" would be like throwing out all your stuff and replacing it with environmentally friendly stuff. You completely defeat the purpose.

    255. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that with the cost of those battery packs, you can bet they will get collected and recycled. Even the lead-acid batteries from traditional cars are collected and recycled.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    256. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      God I HATED mine. Maybe it's because I've always driven Subarus in the past (at least that preconditioned me to accept the shitty interior) but I've never driven a car so crappy in the snow.

      The Prius is shittier in poor traction conditions than anything else, period, because it not only has narrow high-mileage tires but it's also heavy. That means that the narrow tires that would be an asset in wet weather or even snow on a lighter vehicle are simply inadequate to handle the mass of the vehicle. This is why they can't go around corners worth fuck. Well, that and being a Toyota; Toyota handling has always been inferior to their Japanese competition with Nissan and Subaru fighting for the lead and Honda inhabiting the middle. (Race versions don't count.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    257. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Politburo · · Score: 1

      In reality, hybrids cost less to maintain. There is no real maintenance for the hybrid system (a fluid change at 60k, same as any transmission), the engine takes less oil and doesn't need to be changed as frequently. Brake pads last significantly longer (>100,000 miles) due to regenerative braking.

    258. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Today, no one really buys a stripper car to begin with. People want even the budget car to come with electric everything, USB/MP3/bluetooth compatible audio system, AC, reasonable interior quality, etc.

      It's pretty normal to get all that stuff except for the last one now, though, even in a fairly budget auto. I don't know why anyone would want power windows on a cheapass car — they are going to fail eventually if the budget is poor — but I think most of us would like to see AC with climate control by now, what year is it?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    259. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      FWIW, I had an S-Blazer with a 2.8L gasoline engine. It was horribly underpowered... reminded me of a Dodge Aries when trying for highway speed.

      On the other hand, this guy stuck a 1.9L VW engine in his Vanagon.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    260. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by hsqueak · · Score: 1

      I always stop at red lights with a bike. I'm a road user, and the rules of the road still apply to people on two wheels. Cyclists who don't annoy pedestrians, motorists and other cyclists. It's safer for everyone when we all obey the rules (I'm including car drivers who run red lights) not just because you're stopping but because you're *predictable*. Unpredictable moving objects are more likely to be involved in collisions, and as a cyclist I'd prefer not to be colliding with anyone or anything else (particularly as it's likely to do me a lot more damage).

    261. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Politburo · · Score: 1

      The government provides no warranties for any vehicle.

      Failure before expected-life happens. That's the whole point of the warranty. The ignorance of the dealer and owner seems irrelevant.

    262. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The easiest way to increase gas mileage is to decrease the weight of the car. I seem to remember that from the 60s into the late 70s, they began shinking cars. In America, I never thought I see a car smaller than a Volkswagen bug/Squareback/Ghia... and then came the Honda CVCC. From the mid 80s on, cars (even the formerly tiny Japanese cars) started getting bigger again. The advantage we have today is that we have more advanced materials. If engineers put the kind of thought into reducing the weight of cars as they do into reducing the weight of aircraft, we'd have lighter/more advanced vehicles that got better mileage as a function of being lighter.

      I personally think that there are closed door agreements between the auto manufacturing industry (who makes the cars), the oil companies (who fuel the cars), and the finance industry (who speculate about everyone involved) There are technologies out there already that could put a dent in the oil drama we experience. I don't think we'll see them in cars because there are too many powerful interests that would lose money if they did

    263. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by godefroi · · Score: 1

      And what is the environmental impact of producing electricity from coal, and what is the environmental impact from digging for coal.

      Producing electricity from coal: 12
      Digging for coal: 8

      Those are precise measurements, by the way.

      --
      Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
    264. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by mdarksbane · · Score: 1

      Re: Hybrid sports cars that only add power.

      You talk like this is a bad thing?

      I drive my Toyota Celica because it is a) sporty and fun to drive b) gets over 30 mpg and c) has a hatch big enough to put stuff in (if not necessarily good seating for people). There is at least something of a market for people who don't want to waste a ton of gas but also don't want to drive a car without any soul.

    265. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      And neither are all electric cars. Over a 100,000 mile lifespan @27mpg average (not too difficult with sedans these days) you will buy 3,700 gallons of gas over about 7 years. Estimates for the Nissan leaf indicate an electric cost of about $400/year (15K miles) at 11c/kw which is a rate not seen in most major metro areas which are order of 20c. Split the difference and call it $500/year for $3,300 over 100K miles compared to $18,500 for gas @$5. Thats about $15K difference in 'fuel' costs and ignores present values. If you are buying the car you pay up front so the price difference must be less than $15,000 to be indifferent.

      And then there is the big unknown. What will the ongoing maintenance and repair costs be for electric vehicles? You are pretty much stuck going to a dealer ($$$) and there certainly seems a lot that can burn out or break compared to a traditional car.

    266. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      So your argument is that bench seats are good because you can drive recklessly? Great.

      Bench seats are good for work. You sit higher, and you can seat three. A quad cab is better, though.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    267. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by mu51c10rd · · Score: 1

      Thank you, I'll third your opinion. My 5 year old Ford Escape is doing just well. I have an SUV that gets me 30-36 miles per gallon, that runs great. I have no reason to buy another one. Contrary to the FUD, I paid off the "premium" extra price over the non-hybrid version in 2 years due to the gas price spike in 08. The car is paid off, and I get almost twice the fuel efficiency of the standard gas only version. There is so much FUD about hybrids out there...seems only the owners really can see the benefits of them.
      On a side note, no, I did not buy one to be "green". I bought one for the fuel efficiency.

    268. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With my hybrid..I have surpasses 100,000...and no battery issues to be found.

    269. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      you put the active noise cancellation on key points of the car (above the shocks, at the engine attachment points, etc) to seriously dampen the vibrations (=sound) coming through them and keeping them from reaching the people inside.

      Does that work?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    270. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by AngryDeuce · · Score: 0

      Or you could man up and go grocery shopping by your fucking self without dragging a car full of people with you? Or send your wife? Or are you one of those couples that are incapable of doing anything alone and require the presence of your spouse at all times for moral support?

      Or even better, you could all get bikes and ride them together? Then you could even split the load among all of you. Amazing, I know...

      I've heard all the excuses, so spare me. You're not helpless. If you live too far from everything so that you need to drive everywhere you go, well, you made a choice there, too, didn't you? Believe me, you wouldn't be the only one; I've heard plenty of people whining and bitching about their 40 minute commutes as gas prices went higher and higher, but nobody forced them to move 40 minutes from their job. Most of those people would constantly tell me what a fool I was for staying in the city near where I work, how much "cheaper" everything is when you live way out in the 'burbs, how much bigger a house you can get, how much less property taxes are, etc. Guess what? I don't hear that anymore, because all that money they saved, they're dumping into their gas tank, and I'm laughing my ass off the whole time as I pedal on by the gas station.

      No, now I get the bitterness and anger that I'm not in their special club of morons that thought gas was going to be cheap forever and I'm not being bent over like they are. I actually had someone once tell me that I was hurting the fucking economy by not being assraped at the gas pump like "all Americans." How twisted can you be?

      Automotive culture is dying. You can either start adapting now, or you can be one of those idiots screaming that the Federal Government should subsidize your unwillingness to move the fuck on and deal with life. If you live too far from anything for biking, walking, or even mass transit to be efficient, then you've got a choice, huh? Get used to paying out the ass for gasoline, or sell your shit and move back to the city like everyone else. The suburban sprawl only existed in the first place because gas was cheap and plentiful. It never will be again.

    271. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1

      Another "it's too hard" excuse.

      If it's too much work for you, that's fine, but don't expect sympathy from anyone else when you're taking out a second mortgage to fill the tank on your Canyonero.

    272. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      You know, I was about to post a scathing reply about your lack of sources, then I realised you weren't serious. (You weren't were you?)

      I think I need another coffee.

    273. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 2

      The spray tar does actually add some sound deadening but not much. Manufactures do add some real sound deadening material but it is also cheap and not the best but is better than spray tar. This is typically some compressed felt like material or open cell foam (cheap) that does do a fair amount sound deadening. The problem with those is that they hold water and thus increase rusting. Also the carpet, and head liner help deaden the sound. All of these add weight but probably only on the order of 30-50 pounds on average per vehicle.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    274. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      I'm a pedestrian mass transit user, and I can verify without a doubt that the moment someone gets on a bike they take on the same "I own the road" mentality that car drivers have.

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    275. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 2

      You people are fooling yourselves. Its not the weight or the aerodynamic that are the biggest waste in a gas car. Drive your car a mile or so, then pull over and open the hood. Feel that heat coming off the engine. There is your biggest waste of energy.

      I've read that piston engines as they currently stand are only 25% efficient. Might be time to get rid of the piston engine all together and come up with something totally new.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    276. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      You seem to have a very narrow definition of "green".

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    277. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Living in the US, gas prices is my least concern. $4.50 per gallon? That's ridiculously cheap - far less than I paid in the 90s back in Europe.

      What's a gallon again?

      3.78541178 liters

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    278. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      None of that is all the impressive. 13's in the quarter isn't hard, my current car does that (just barely but it does), carries 5 people comfortably (if I don't have those giant child seats in it), and gets upper 20s for MPG on the highway (typically I get 27-28 mpg on road trips), the car also weighs close to 4,000 pounds empty and has modern safety equipment like front and side impact air bags, traction control, ABS, as well as modern emissions equipment. It is a very detuned engine (factory stock 4.4 liter V8) from it's potential as the overlap in the cams is non existent and doesn't even need an EGR valve and doesn't have variable valves (I am glad as the early VANOS sucked for reliability).

      --
      Time to offend someone
    279. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      Or maybe just look at what the differences are between the Grand Marquis and the Lincoln Town Car. Cause the 94 Town Car (that we beat on, read drive hard as hell) got 28 MPG all the time. It was the LS model with the dual exhaust. We knew people who had single exhaust who got lower mileage. The best was we got better mileage then the Toyota Camry of that year. Too bad Ford didn't keep on improving those big car's mileage. Instead they went the SUV route.

    280. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you provide any to support your rebuttal as well?

    281. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 1

      I have a Honda Civic Hybrid. It is a 2005 that I bought in November of 2004.

      At the time I bought it, I got a $1500 tax credit and no excise tax. As far as features, it was comparable to the EX (top line Civic) so the price difference I paid to get the hybrid wasn't all that much.

      I got 50-54 miles per gallon (honest) during the time I had the stock Goodrich tires on it but mileage took a nosedive (44-46 mpg) when I put Michelins on it. I'm now on Yokohama tires and am back up in the 46-48 range. I think the Goodrich tires were an especially hard (high mileage) compound and know they were a bit slippery feeling but the mileage was incredible.

      I ran the numbers and tried different grades of gasoline and it is most economical to feed it mid-grade instead of regular. It is not enough to just hunt for the cheapest gasoline because it is almost always crap and the mileage really drops off. With mid grade the mileage peaks and it actually costs less per mile to run with that. Also, the best mileage will come from different gas stations in the winter and summer as apparently not all winter and summer formulations are created equal.

      For most of the car's life gas has been in the $3-$4 range and I kept track of the savings over driving a regular Honda. I used to have an HX (the high mileage version) so know what the best I could get would have been. My car broke even for me (remembering the tax credits as well as the price difference being between an EX rather than a DX (as most like to mistakenly compare)) at 27,000 miles.

      I now have well over 100,000 miles on it and it just keeps paying dividends. I did have to have the hybrid battery replaced at 67,000 miles but that was under warranty and didn't cost me a cent. There are companies that disassemble, match cells, and rebuild hybrid battery packs for the Civic Hybrid for about $700 - you don't need to pay the retail price for a new pack (another oft-cited but erroneous argument against hybrids). I wouldn't be surprised if I need to replace the pack again in the not too distant future but $700 is quite reasonable. It certainly beats the $5000 that the replacement pack I got at 67,000 miles was valued at. But again, you don't have to buy new packs. The battery technology has improved and now Hondas have lithium packs instead of the older NiMH (what I have now).

      The only unknown is the electronics package and the IMA motor itself. If one of those fail, I do not know the price to fix but it should be easy enough to find a replacement at the junk yard or some such if necessary.

      I plan on replacing this hybrid with another fairly soon. I need to be able to rely on my car and at about 120,000 miles, it is probably a good time to swap it out for a new one. What I haven't been able to decide is Honda Civic Hybrid or Toyota Prius.

      If people would actually run the numbers instead of listening to the people with bones to pick against hybrids, they might have a more valid conclusion. The "Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves" thread title is just plain and categorically wrong.

      We live in a $3-$4 per gallon gas world now and the advantage hybrids have over conventional engines is even more when gas prices go up. Instead of having all the inefficiencies of a big engine for acceleration when all you need it for is cruise, you get an optimized engine for cruise and the battery assist for acceleration with recouping the energy from braking.

      Make up your own mind. I have a hybrid and the numbers are way in the plus column. I will be buying another.

      As an aside, I also have a Volkswagen Jetta TDI which gets basically the same mileage as the HCH - 44-46 mpg. Diesel is more expensive than gas so it is a bit more expensive to drive. Volkswagen is coming out with a TDI/hybrid soon and that ought to really kick for mileage.

    282. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by PyroMosh · · Score: 1

      It has been done but is not very widely adopted.

      I've never experienced a car equipped with it first hand, so I can't give any insight as to why it's not more widely deployed.

      http://www.gizmag.com/noise-cancellation-improves-fuel-efficiency/19826/

    283. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      Last time I looked at buying a car - in 2007, a diesel was more fuel efficient than a hybrid, and cheaper to buy as well; so that's what I bought.

    284. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 1

      Nimy - there are companies that rebuild hybrid packs for about $700.

    285. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure about everyone else but when I go car shopping I basically have a budget of what I am going to spend and the unfortunate reality is that I don't end up spending less than that budget. That said If my budget is enough for a hybrid I am generally not comparing it against the non hybrid version of the same car (as that falls too far below what I have budgeted). Also some hybrids have more hp/better performance than the most efficient gas only model. And Finally, some people keep their cars for more than 5 years, personally I like to buy new and drive them for 10-12 years.

      I drive roughly 1200 miles a month and here is how I figured it for my purchase (yes I would buy another hybrid) -

      2011 Camry XLE (Camry Hybrid performs and his a trim level more like a 6cyl than a 4cyl):
      Guessing the total out the door purchase for a new one (inc TTL) was 26k
      est: 27mpg average
      Gallons per month needed (1200/27): 44.4
      Monthly fuel cost at $3.50 (44.4x3.50): $155.40

      2011 Camry Hybrid:
      My out the door cost: 29k
      According to the computer I have averaged 33.8 mpg over the last 15,000 miles.
      Gallons per month needed (1200/33.8): 35.5
      Monthly fuel cost at $3.50 (35.5x3.50): $124.25

      So the difference in purchase price is 3,000 and I "save" $31.15 a month (assuming fuel price stays constant at $3.50/gallon), in 96 months I will hit break even. Of course I am not counting the compund interest I would have accrued on 3k over 8 years, because we all know how well interest rates are paying and I would most certainly have done that instead of buying a different 29k car or go buy a new TV and some other crap with that extra $3k.

    286. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by bcrowell · · Score: 1

      go ahead, try their online comparitor

      URL?

    287. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or assume company's will start adding charging stations. Because, done right a daily charging station can make money.

    288. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      You can get better than a 10% boost in power and efficiency, but it isn't easy as you state. A proper 3 angle valve job with porting and polishing of the intake and exhaust manifolds, higher compression heads or pistons, headers, lighter internal engine components (pistons, crank, valve train, etc), electric water pump, dry sump, all can lead to impressive gains. There is still more that could be done to increase vehicle mpg such as the low friction coating (various DLC and nitride coatings). Most if not all passenger cars made today are unibody designs instead of the older body on frame which does add a lot of weight savings. Additionally manufactures are still using mostly steel in vehicles when they could use aluminum or light weight composites for the majority of the vehicle instead.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    289. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      I very rarely see a hybrid car in the UK. Most new cars in Europe are diesel. It varies by country, on average it is just over 50%, but in France, 90% of new cars are diesels.

    290. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by operagost · · Score: 1
      Being alive isn't green, as you exhale carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas.

      "Green" is relative.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    291. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      www.toyota.com/compare

      I chose the LE trim level for each.

      Of course they don't give you an easy way to share URL's with parameters...

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    292. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hybrid diesel is the holy grail of fuel efficiency for cars, however the diesel engine, electric motor, and battery charging systems are each more expensive than a small gas engine that gets ~40mpg.

      But what's missing from TFA is how hybrids are selling in Europe and elsewhere where gas is 3-4x as expensive as in the US. I can tell you they're on a steady rise in Canada, where there are substantial gov't incentives and gas is ~50% higher than the US.

      Peugeot even sells a hybrid diesel, the 508 model.

    293. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering the Leaf's battery costs around $6000-7000, and the rest of the car is infinitely easier to build than an ICE-carrying car, in 5 years mass production and falling battery costs will make 150-200 mile cars quite cheap.

      How many times are you going to post the same damn thing in the same damn thread?

    294. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by operagost · · Score: 1
      So you're saying it's ineffective, because instead of deadening sound, it deadens vibration-- which is sound. Got it.

      If sound deadener was ineffective, it wouldn't be used-- because you can't see it. Car manufacturers have trouble selling anything you can't see or hear as it is. Why would they spray on crap that didn't do anything, then advertise it? That would only work if no one took a test drive. They might do things that are ineffective in the long run, which is not immediately perceivable, but a loud car is immediately noticeable.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    295. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by operagost · · Score: 1

      Some do. Electronics also use energy; it's not "free".

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    296. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by I_Wrote_This · · Score: 0

      They do in the UK.

      Additional cost ~£2,000.
      1 year saving (fuel and Road Fund Licence) ~£650.

      ROI - ~33%.

    297. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by dr2chase · · Score: 1

      It would help if you provided a link to your studies. A simple back-of-the-envelope check on how much is added to our lives (2-5 years) and how much of our CO2 footprint is from "personal vehicle use" (out of 5718 Tg total in 2010, 1128.4, = .65 times 1736, pages 4 and 8 (pdf)) suggests that the answer is not so clear-cut.

      (Your remark/snark about bike helmets suggests you are just casually quoting something you heard, and have not really looked into the issue. Other people have. Helmets are not a large factor in cyclist life expectancy compared to the health benefits of cycling itself.)

      The high-end expected extra life is 7% (if you are male, and ride vigorously, assume expected life span of 74.7 years), but with "average" exertion, only 5% (3 years). Cycling extends female expected lifespan by only 2.7% to 4.7%.

      20% of our CO2 emissions come from personal vehicle use. If you ride a bike instead of driving, your yearly footprint will not be as large, and thus the total footprint will not be as large, either.

      Suppose you use a bicycle to displace 50 miles of "personal vehicle use" per week. That's 2500/year. If you assume the maximum extra life from cycling, and would otherwise drive your car 7500/year, it's a wash (7500/2500=3; 20%/7%=3). If only average (and 50mi/week is not that big a deal), then 10000/year, and it's a wash. For women, displacing 2500 a year with a bike puts them ahead if they would otherwise drive less than 10,600 to 18,500 miles per year.

      For the male half of the population, cycling is probably a net environmental loss, for the female half, it is probably a net win. This is obviously crude -- we don't drive our entire lives (so the percentage added is larger), but we don't drive as much when we are old, as we do when we have a commute and kids and etc (so extra years are not as costly). The car miles displaced by cycling also tend to be the least efficient (slow, stop-and-go, short trips), which slightly favors cycling.

      Human-fuel also enters into it, but on most foods our full-cycle energy cost is pretty good (equivalent of 780mpg on potatoes; 145mpg on skim milk; 1500-3000mpg on oats). Beef is not a good plan, but a steady diet of beef-for-bike-fuel would probably negate the health benefits of cycling anyway (too much protein for too long, not good for your kidneys).

      This claim also assumes that people won't pursue other steps to live longer lives. If there was a pill that would extend people's lives by five years, and had good-sized health studies as evidence, it's a safe assumption that people would take it (provided, of course, that the pill did not make them sweat or have wind-blown or helmet-hair). And if/when such a pill is found, the extra-years environmental "cost" of cycling disappears (unless the pill and exercise have non-overlapping physiological benefits).

    298. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>someone said they couldn't turn on/off as frequently

      The Lupo 3L is a diesel and turns-off every time you stop. As long as the engine is warm, it's not an issue to start/stop whether it's gasoline or diesel.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    299. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $24,200 for a Honda Civic Hybrid that gets 44mpg?

      Lame.

      $25,210 for a VW Sportwagen TDI that gets 48mpg (I own one, the 42mpg on the sticker is only true for the first 10k miles, then it goes UP) is awesome. The VW doesn't have a goofy overly complicated drive system or CVT, but it does have a heavy duty engine with more power and torque, better suspension, better steering, and is a larger, more useful vehicle than the Civic Hybrid.

      The major difference is diesel. When gas prices get stupidly high, there's really not much we can do. However, we have technology to make diesel fuel less expensive. We can synthesize diesel fuel from a variety of sources using a variety of methods.

    300. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by operagost · · Score: 1

      I imagine that if you ran into an uncooperative stop light, you could dismount and hit the pedestrian button instead.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    301. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      So sell me a car I can like, with decent acceleration, cargo space and range.

      I'm of largely the same mind, but slightly different reasons.

      I've never owned anything but 2 seat sports cars....I'm interested in something FUN to drive....0-60times....torque, fun 2 seater convertables...roadsters.

      They don't make a 'fun' hybrid or electric car that is within reasonable range to buy.

      The Tesla has pretty much been the only non fugly green car put out....if they could have put that in the price range of a Vette....well, we might be talking there.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    302. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      He's just pissed that he keeps losing to cars much, much cheaper and older then his.

      Hence Assholes: Someone who knows how to make a car go fast. (Hint to GP: It's not buy paying $100K plus to a dealership).

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    303. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1

      At no point during the thread that i replied to did anyone state, or even imply, that they were referring to a specific type of sound proofing, because they weren't.

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    304. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by pluther · · Score: 1
      A lot of companies already have charging stations, actually.

      I was surprised to see them at Cisco five years ago, but now at pretty much any large company (at least anywhere on the West coast), there'll be at least a couple of "Electric car only" parking spots in the lot.

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    305. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by operagost · · Score: 1

      I won't feel sorry for you when the pawn shop only loans you $25 on your bike to buy your next straw man argument.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    306. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Or you could man up and go grocery shopping by your fucking self without dragging a car full of people with you? Or send your wife? Or are you one of those couples that are incapable of doing anything alone and require the presence of your spouse at all times for moral support?

      I'm single....but I still have no idea how I'd make it from my shopping trip back home with all my groceries on a fucking bicycle?!?!

      Let's see...typical Sat or Sun shopping. I got to Sam's club, and stockup on my bags of frozen fruits (3lbs each) for week of breakfast smoothies...I often like to throw those in the ice chest so they don't melt on way home. I get boxes of spinach, maybe a pack of steaks or if smoking that weekend a 14lb brisket....case of V8 Juice....

      Then, after that I usually hit one or two grocery stores on the way home, to get what's on sale...and maybe a 12 pack of beer...stock up on kale, bananas, cantelope (hey, watermelons are coming into season too)...

      To put it easily. my grocery trip weekly takes me a number of miles from my house, I usually hit 2-3 of them to get what's on sale, and I fill the trunk and passenger seat full with my 2x seater sports car.

      How am I supposed to do that with a bike? I'm single....a family of 3 or more...how can they do it?

      Geez, be realisitc when it comes to thinking of just basic food shopping in the typical US city, that isn't all compact, and has virtually no public transportation. A bike in most cities, is a recreational vehicle to have fun and get exercise, but it is not a major mode of transport.

      Ever change jobs?

      That is just a fact of life in the US, especially if you want to progress and earn more money. And it isn't exactly easy to buy and sell a home each time you change jobs, just to be close enough to walk to the job.

      Also, often...you may have to work in areas that just aren't safe for a family to live....what's your answer for that.

      If you're just a single guy, that doesn't cook and eats out every meal, sure, you can get away with how you describe your life....but that's a small niche of how american families are and must live.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    307. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      How far can Prius go on its battery pack alone? Chevy claims 35 miles for Volt.

    308. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by CaptSlaq · · Score: 1

      No. Its not. from your link: When the car reaches 70 mph the main motor spins too fast to be maximally efficient, and a clutch disengages the ring from the case. This allows the second electric motor to participate and both motors act in parallel to reach speeds of 101 mph with adequate power.

      In charge sustaining mode, the gas engine goes on and clutches to the generator causing it to produce electricity to continue powering the main motor.

      However of particular interest, when going above 70 mph in charge sustaining mode, and the generator gets coupled to the drivetrain, the gas engine participates in the motive force. GM says the engine never drives the wheels all by itself , but will participate in this particular situation in the name of efficiency, which is improved by 10 to 15 percent."

      Reread that last sentence a few times At about 60 mph the Prius is powered almost exclusively by the ICE. So, its not like the Prius.

      You're talking semantics: The volt was pitched as a series-hybrid, and it's quite simply NOT. It's more like a Prius than this mythical 'series-hybrid'. Just because it does it differently doesn't escape the fact that the ICE still has a direct connection to the driveline (as indicated by the line you quoted "GM says the engine never drives the wheels all by itself , but will participate in this particular situation in the name of efficiency", which is a mealy-mouthed way of saying "well, it KINDA is...") , unlike the advertising seems to indicate.

    309. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by HereIAmJH · · Score: 1

      I had an S-Blazer with a 2.8L gasoline engine. It was horribly underpowered...

      The fuel injected 2.8l only had 125hp, the carb'd only 110hp. I had a 1st gen S10 truck with a carb'd 2.8 for years that had plenty of power, but it was also 2 wheel drive standard cab and lighter than the blazers. And I had an S15 with the 2.5 for a couple years. Even though it was only rated at 92hp, it drove about as well as the 2.8 because it was injected. And of course, the 2.5 was new and my 2.8 had 180k miles on it. Neither compares with the FI 4.3l though.

      I'm looking to repower a 2nd gen 2.2l 5spd extended cab truck. They came from the factory with ~120hp. I know from driving my Jetta that it's 1.9 would not be suitable for that truck without using a rear end gear ratio that would kill highway fuel economy. And even though Wikipedia says the 1.9 has 105hp, my owners manual says 90hp. Maybe one of the newer 2.0l TDIs would work, they apparently come in 140 and 170hp. 170 is putting you in the 4.3l range. But I don't think those are mechanical diesels and I like the dependability of my 1.9l and 7.3l mechanical diesels. It's also a more difficult swap having to deal with ECUs that weren't designed to run in non VW chassis.

      BTW, the results he got from the Vanagon wouldn't be suitable for me. Top end was 78 mph, and I drive on the Interstate where traffic regularly runs 75-80. I'd either have to run it at maximum output or get used to having someone 10 feet off of my back bumper all the time. I'm also less than impressed that it couldn't maintain speed on a 6% grade. The Grapevine is steep, but I wouldn't be interested in doing a mediocre repower.

      --
      Another day, another update to a Google android app.
    310. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by tripleevenfall · · Score: 1

      The old canard about how much more expensive gas is in Europe...

      In Europe you also have mass transit options which don't exist in the US except in a handful of places, and people don't commute as far on the average because Europe is more densely populated.

      It's not like we in America like dumping $50USD into our car's gas tank and then spending 30 minutes in the car in the morning to get to work. I'd sacrifice a goat if it would get a subway system in my city, but it's not practical in most areas.

    311. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by tripleevenfall · · Score: 1

      Who the hell wants to listen to the droning of an engine or uniform wind noise for hours on end?

    312. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      And so what? That trafic signal is there only because a car is a danger for everything around it. There is no need to control the bike

      Independently of why the signal is there and whether there is a need to control the bike (which, by the way, you are quite wrong on, as you would know if you'd ever been anywhere with large numbers of bikes and paid any attention), the fact is that the traffic signal is there, and actually affects the ability to operate any vehicle through the intersection. Consequently, there is a substantial practical disadvantage to a vehicle that will not be detected by mechanisms designed to provide traffic-responsive behavior for the signal, even if it is not the kind of vehicle that motivated the placement of the signal.

    313. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      This is /. Didn't anybody take physics? Put a big damn magnet on the bottom of your bikes frame.

      Sucks if you paid hundreds to shave off pounds, sucks even more if you paid thousands to shave ounces.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    314. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      And that is largely an engineering issue. Most Hybrid designs have thought "low power electric drive train linked to high power conventional drivetrain through complex transmission" when the design really should have been "high power AC electric drive train linked to dedicated generator and batteries". I still don't understand why the major car makers decided to sabotage the actual invention of a hybrid vehicle with such a goofy design- but almost all of the performance issues (whether gas mileage, cost, or even driving performance) are linked to this problem.

      Like your next responder- the design I predict will win out in the end will be the short (under 50 mile) range commuter electric with the Type I trailer hitch for pulling a gas generator. But I've yet to see any car company even attempt that- even though it's OBVIOUSLY a way to cut the apparent investment cost in half.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    315. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      I'm a pedestrian mass transit user, and I can verify without a doubt that the moment someone gets on a bike they take on the same "I own the road" mentality that car drivers have.

      I think it's far more prevalent among bicyclists, and I speak as a semi-avid cyclist.

    316. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Oh, now it makes sense. I was thinking about the sensors installed on lights to fine the car that cross a red, not the sensors used to discover when to turn the light.

      In the end, that later kind of sensor isn't pedestrian friendly either (pedestrians too have to cross streets) thus they aren't used around here anymore. That's why it didn't occour to me.

    317. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      There is a demand for the "hot hatch" cars of which the VW Golf and Rabbit qualify. With my previous BMW (a 96 318ti) I saw this. I got a few hundred less in insurance than I paid for it even though I had owned it for 4 years and put almost an additional 100,000 miles on it. It got totaled with 179,XXX on it and was an 11 year old car at the time. It was in great shape until it got rear ended and spun around into a fire hydrant.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    318. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Aside from Cash for Clunkers cars, that's not entirely true. A new car purchased doesn't mean your old car is crushed into a cube and dumped into a landfill. Look at it this way: You replace your midsize sedan with a midsize hybrid. Your old car is bought by somebody else used, whose old car is likely bought used by somebody else. The vehicles that are junked are in general quire a bit older and typically beyond economically feasible repair. Those junked cars also aren't languishing in a landfill, they are salvaged for scrap, metals recycled, etc.

      You can argue that cars in general are not "green," and sure that has some merit. But cars are a fact of life right now. Old cars wear out and new cars need to be purchased.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    319. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      As long as you don't mind using a forklift to attach the 000 gauge wires for recharging.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    320. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it can in fact work out. We bought a Prius in 2002 and drove it for 9 years. Penciling out the price differential and assuming a worst-case gas price of $1.50/gallon (heh!) we had expected a break-even at year 7. Since gas stayed well above $1.50 almost the entire time we owned the car, AND we got an excellent price when we sold it ($6500) we came out WAY AHEAD.

      We did buy another hybrid in 2004 (Ford Escape) which was at the time the only hybrid vehicle which had the capability to tow a trailer (Toyota Highlander was not yet out).

      Our new vehicle is however not a hybrid, but rather a Nissan Leaf.

    321. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by hacksoncode · · Score: 1
      Yes, that's cute, but the differences are *far* more than just the hybrid system. The $16k Civic has a manual transmission, a different body style, no Bluetooth, no auto-up windows, no power locks, no cruise control, a much less sophisticated information cluster, and it doesn't even come with a *radio* or *air conditioning* standard.

      In order to get anywhere close to the same car minus the hybrid system, you have to go up to the EX level, which starts at $20,655.

      The hybrid system itself, therefore, is about a $3500 premium.

      Now, of course, you may not *want* all those extra features (though most people want most of them)... and if so, then the Civic Hybrid model isn't for you... but it's not because a hybrid costs 50% more for 13% extra mileage. It's because of marketing.

    322. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by raygundan · · Score: 1

      That's called a Serial Hybrid, but the Volt isn't that, either. It has a system of clutches that let the engine drive the wheels directly in an arrangement very similar to a Prius-style planetary-gear drivetrain. There was a surprising amount of outrage over this-- it's an optimization that makes the car more efficient in some driving modes, but "purists" who expected a straight-up serial hybrid were for some reason offended.

    323. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      And again... EVs are not a grand solution for everybody. In any discussion about them, there's always a big portion of people who say "but what about *my* needs?" Well, you can (very easily) have your needs fulfilled by somebody else. Nobody is telling you to buy an EV.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    324. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Best repower I ever saw for an S10 was a guy who used a sledgehammer on the firewall to squeeze in a small-block V8!

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    325. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Seriously, how IN THE FFFF am I supposed to charge my car when I get to work

      Some companies (like mine) have recharging stations. It's not especially common, but if you can rely on it, it's not a bad option.

      You probably aren't even old enough to drive a car your mommy and daddy didn't for you yet you think when you grow up you can just show up to work with a god damned electrical cord and plug it in. Good luck with that

      There's nothing like seeing someone laugh at someone else's foolishness when he is the far greater fool.

    326. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by raygundan · · Score: 1

      I've got a 2010 Ford Escape Hybrid, and I really like it-- but I bought it because it was the most economical vehicle that did what I wanted at the time. I wanted something that had enough ground clearance to do light offroad driving, and was practical enough to use as a daily driver. You'd think a little Subaru would have been perfect, but in 2010, their most efficient car had gas mileage in the low 20s. So I ended up with the Escape, which was larger and less aerodynamic than I'd prefer, but which fit my requirements.

      Things change, though. If I went shopping this year, Ford has discontinued the Escape Hybrid and Subaru has finally brought their engine designs into this decade... and the non-hybrid Crosstour XV will get 33mpg, doing slightly better than my Escape Hybrid.

      I can't be the only one in a position like this-- until there's a hybrid version of every car, some people will go car shopping and find the most economical car that meets their needs is actually not a hybrid. Even some people who already had a hybrid they liked, like me. I love my hybrid, but if it up and died, its replacement would not be a hybrid, at least for the foreseeable future-- because the most efficient replacements on the market right now just aren't hybrids. That, too, will probably change in another few years when somebody else introduces a small AWD vehicle with ground clearance and a hybrid drivetrain.

      So it's not a question of disliking hybrids, it's that hybrid buyers' primary loyalty isn't to a particular technology... it's to efficiency.

    327. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Oops, meant to reply with this as well:

      The Dodge Sprinter had a diesel version with a 2.7 liter Mercedes engine in it - either the OM612 or the OM647. Not sure if it would fit, since it's a 5 cylinder it is probably too long.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    328. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you've completely failed to count the cost of maintenance. Hybrids are massive wins compared to regular gas vehicles as you start to hit 80 and 100k miles. Check the recommended maintenance schedules for both types of vehicles some time, then add up what it costs to have it all done. There's also parts that don't exist on hybrids that can and do break on regular gas, it only takes one of those to put you in a massive hole compared to the hybrid. Hybrid battery packs are so far outlasting their estimated lifespan by factors of 1.5 to 2 times.

    329. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      So based on your engine it's a late-90's 540/740i? Plenty of websites list 1/4 times for those and none break 14s. And BMW quotes the mpg as 14/21. It does carry 5 comfortably, though.

      But regardless of the questionable numbers, you are comparing a rebuild of an existing car in 1970 getting the same (better, really) stats as a relatively modern BMW 25 years newer? Yeah, sure, not impressive at all...

    330. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Most of us don't advocate going back to a horse and cart, we just want something less bad than an SUV.
      I think you would find if we all drove horse and carts, that an SUV is environmentally friendlier.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    331. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by arth1 · · Score: 1

      The old canard about how much more expensive gas is in Europe...

      In Europe you also have mass transit options which don't exist in the US except in a handful of places, and people don't commute as far on the average because Europe is more densely populated.

      The old canard about how the US is so less densely populated...
      I came from Norway, with 35 people per square mile, to Connecticut, with 739 people per square mile. Please explain that one to me again!

      Yes, mass transit was better there. Given that this lowers demand without changing the supply, that should make the gas prices cheaper, not more expensive.

      People drive a lot in the US because they have a culture for driving a lot. At lunch, people head out to their cars and drive somewhere to buy lunch. That would never happen in Europe. People even drive to the bar to drink here in the US, for cripes sake!

      You either have to be willing to pay the costs of decent public transportation, or use a lot of gasoline. You can't have it both ways.

      The prices are low here in the US, because the oil companies are subsidized by lower taxes.

    332. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      I'd say bike riders often have a *worse* "I own the road" mentality since many of them don't obey the stop lights/signs in the first place. (They deserve to get tickets.)

    333. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by arth1 · · Score: 1

      I seldom agree with you here, but yeah, if I were to buy a second car, it would have been a Mazda RX-8 or Mitsubishi Eclipse GT, simply because they're so FUN to drive, yet affordable. Sure, ricers, but fun.

      110 grand for a Tesla Roadster? Get real. It's a Lotus Elise with an electric motor. I can get its big and naughty sister Lotus Evora and a second car for that price!

    334. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      As for highways, if you are in Australian you can bike on them!

      Others already responded that bike riders are required to follow the same laws as cars.

      I'm not sure if you're using highway the way Americans do. Wikipedia says this about highway: "In American English, the term is common and almost always designates major roads. In British English, the term (which is not particularly common) designates any road open to the public."

      As a generalization, in the U.S., you can't bike on freeways, but can on other "major roads", like expressways. (But I personally wouldn't want to bike on many expressways.)

    335. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      My 2002 Concorde that I bought in 2007 is rated at 35 mpg highway. I got 36 on a trip back from St Louis, according to its built-in mileage calculator, when I had a blowout and had to drive back on its donut spare at 50mph.

      So it is possible to do better than even the old ratings.

    336. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      My daily driver is a 97 540i. I thought that the 540i was just in the 13 (as in 13.9x) I guess I don't know for sure as I never bothered to take it out to the strip but even then 13s on the drag strip aren't difficult (12s are and it only gets harder). Yes the EPA quoted mileage is 14/21 but I have never gotten that bad of mileage, the car even qualified for cash for clunkers getting a combined 18 mpg. I have averaged 22.1 mpg over the last 5 years and 133,xxx miles most of which is my rush hour commute to and from work as well as the gas eating short trips to pick up the kid and go to the local stores. Out on the highway at consistent speed it gets much better than that. Two summers ago when I went out to Denver and back I put just over 3,000 miles on the car and it got 27.8 mpg for the whole trip. Also last November I went way up in northern Minnesota for deer hunting and stayed at a resort (targeted towards hunters and fishers so I didn't need all of my gear) and that trip was about 700 miles round trip and got 28.3mpg round trip. The reason for the better mileage going up north can be explained by the slower average speeds and I didn't do any in town driving like I did when I went out to Colorado. I keep detailed records of mileage and maintenance and have noticed various trends, like the slightly worse mileage in the winter, due to the longer warmup cycle, as well as a very slight drop off in mileage shortly before I do an oil change probably due to the oil starting to thicken. Also the engine doesn't have the very slight stumble that a number of owners have reported and I don't seem to go through expansion tanks every 50,000 to 70,000 like every one else seems to do either.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    337. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by tingentleman · · Score: 1

      Here in the UK we are running at about $10 / gallon (assuming £1.40/ltr) and so fuel costs are actually a big deal for us.

      I'm a Prius driver, and conversely couldn't imagine going back to petrol / diesel - in fact, I will almost certainly trade-up to the plug-in Prius (that comes out July 2012) so that my daily 10miles round trip commute can be entirely on cheap electric.

    338. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So you're saying it's ineffective, because instead of deadening sound, it deadens vibration-- which is sound. Got it.

      Vibration isn't sound. Sound is vibration. You have everything backwards, not just that one point, but everything else you say after as well.

    339. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What?

    340. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Much of an automobile's pollution footprint is in its construction. (Sorry, don't have time to cite anything specific on that)

      You can't, at least not if you want to cite anything credible. The only source for it is a rather notorious "study" put out by a conservative/libertarian think-tank which sought to discredit the Prius by trying to make a (rather absurd) case for it being less environmentally friendly than a Hummer.

      That paper has been thoroughly debunked. One of its problems was pushing this idea that most of the lifetime energy budget for a vehicle is in its construction. It simply isn't true -- the generally accepted figures are more like 70-80% operating energy costs (fuel), 20-30% everything else (construction and recycling mostly).

      (To give you an idea how absurdly slanted that paper was, it blatantly cooked the books in its lifetime energy estimates by assuming every Prius would live a short, sad life before being crushed, and every Hummer would be in service for 300K miles or so.)

      The "green" thing to do is buy an existing car and keep it running as long as possible.
      Buying a new fuel efficient car to be "green" would be like throwing out all your stuff and replacing it with environmentally friendly stuff. You completely defeat the purpose.

      Yes, it's good to extend the life of a vehicle, but there are limits. Especially when the old vehicle develops enough problems that it starts producing more pollution.

      Also, you're creating a false equivalence. Buying a new fuel efficient car to replace your existing, relatively young car is in no way comparable to throwing out your stuff. You don't have to "throw away" your old car. Sane people trade them in or sell them, you know. Somebody else buys it and keeps it running. The energy which went into constructing it doesn't go to waste just because you personally are no longer involved.

    341. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying it's ineffective, because instead of deadening sound, it deadens vibration-- which is sound. Got it.

      Vibration isn't sound. Sound is vibration. You have everything backwards, not just that one point, but everything else you say after as well.

      sigh

      You: "deadens vibration, not sound, but helps with sound"

      If sound is vibration, then deadening vibrations deadens sounds, no? You're trying to make some kind of irrelevant, pointless, and deeply spergy distinction.

      The path for road and air noise to make it into your car is that vibrations -- sounds -- conduct through various paths to interior body panels. These vibrate the air inside your car, which transmits vibrations to your eardrum, which conducts them to the inner ear via bones, yada yada yada.

      If you damp the response of key pieces of that pathway by adding mass (e.g. adding tar to interior panels), you can in fact reduce the magnitude of the audible vibrations (AKA sounds) transmitted into the interior of your car. Which means that deadening materials are, in fact, effective at reducing sound inside your car.

      That famous quote about everyone in the room being dumber for having listened to someone's nonsensical speech? You're kinda uncomfortably close to that territory right now, chum.

    342. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by samwichse · · Score: 1

      Undoing my moderation here, but DO NOT pay the stealership $4000 for a NOS NiMH battery. Hybrid Battery Repair sells cells (tee hee) that are actually new, and higher capacity than the original packs (8 ah vs 6.5 ah in the original/honda replacement pack). And they charge $1800 +$200 shipping for the assembled pack. And it's pretty easy to do the swap yourself.

      Seriously, replacement packs from Honda for their gen1 hybrids are failing at less than half the mileage the original batteries did. Just search around the InsightCentral.net forum (nearly identical IMA to the HCH1)... some people are getting only 40k miles out of their replacement Honda packs. Ugh.

      On that note, as a fellow HCHer and being geeky enough to read Slashdot, definitely check out the OBDIIC&C gauge:
      http://www.insightcentral.net/forums/modifications-technical-issues/20488-obdiic-c-gauge.html

      Gives you detailed info on the IMA (especially battery temp, shows background charging, the lean-burn light is amazingly useful), and I'm currently guinea-pigging using it to give you manual control of the IMA system:

      http://www.insightcentral.net/forums/other-honda-hybrids-discussion/21887-imac-c-hch1-civic.html

      Sam

    343. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's just pissed that he keeps losing to cars much, much cheaper and older then his.

      Hence Assholes: Someone who knows how to make a car go fast. (Hint to GP: It's not buy paying $100K plus to a dealership).

      You know, the funny thing is, I read that comment and thought "eh, he's kind of an asshole himself, lots of people tear out their carpets without suffering in any way from the delusion that what they're doing is generally desirable". But then you come along and provide the perfect example of the kind of idiot he was skewering. Good job having no self awareness, asshole!

      (hint: he doesn't care about going fast or "winning" or "losing")

      (yes I know that is incomprehensible to your breed of asshole, trust me on that though)

    344. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by samwichse · · Score: 1

      If it's a Honda Civic Hybrid, that number may be correct.

      Honda is being sued for this. My HCH1 has a failing battery right now (heavy recals since 95k miles, I keep resetting the SOC low to force more charge in to keep it from throwing the error light currently ~106k).

      Sam

    345. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by samwichse · · Score: 1

      Hahaha! A 1 hour commute ?= 100 miles a day in the DC-Baltimore area. Coming up 66, that could be a 10 mile round trip! :).

      My commute was was usually 50-55 minutes one way, but 27.5 miles... exactly the kind of driving electrics excel at.

      Sam

    346. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by khipu · · Score: 1

      The point he was making was that money spent on infrastructure could just as easily be going to railroads or the like, but instead it all gets spent on cars.

      The cost of oil doesn't affect the railroad/car tradeoffs much, since one way or another most railroads also run on fossil fuels. And railroads are only fuel and cost effective on the very busiest of lines; on all others, buses and cars are better. Even on the busiest lines, the difference isn't all that great.

    347. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by samwichse · · Score: 1

      Of course, the base model doesn't even have an automatic (not necessarily a bad thing) or even AIR CONDITIONING.

      Once you appoint a gas only Civic similarly to the hybrid model, the price differential is far smaller than 50%.

      The real question is, why don't they make a base-model hybrid? I've got the old manual transmission civic hybrid from the first generation, which I can never replace because I'd be stuck with an automatic.

      Yuck.

    348. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Wrong again! Those may look a lot like branches but they are actually dinosaur bones. Little known fact, Mercurock is also the primary supplier of brontosaurus burgers to the greater Bedrock metropolitan area.

    349. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by green1 · · Score: 1

      I'm in Canada, but the situation in the US is very similar to Canada (give or take a year)

      As for your "plenty of electric vehicles available" article...

      You list the Leaf... available "by the end of 2012"
      the Volt, not an electric car, it's a hybrid
      "several" ford vehicles also "by the end of 2012"
      the Mitsubishi i which can "now be reserved" (but not yet bought)
      A toyota rav4 electric "summer 2012"
      a Honda for the 2013 model year
      The tesla roadster I already covered in my original comment
      The Smart which will only have 300 electric cars on one specific lease program in one city
      and the Fisker Karma which competes directly with the tesla roadster (same problems I listed for it)

      So your own article claiming how many electric cars there are backs up my point that there aren't yet any available.

    350. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by green1 · · Score: 1

      Leaf is almost available... I was only counting ones I could go to a dealer and buy today and drive home tomorrow.

    351. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by WMD_88 · · Score: 1

      I came from Norway, with 35 people per square mile, to Connecticut, with 739 people per square mile. Please explain that one to me again!

      Well, most of Norway is desolate Arctic wasteland. The populated parts of Norway are more densely populated than the United States.
       

      Yes, mass transit was better there. Given that this lowers demand without changing the supply, that should make the gas prices cheaper, not more expensive.

      The mass transit is paid for from very high gasoline taxes, without which gasoline there would actually be pretty cheap.

    352. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Sound hits the car, the car vibrates and re-transmits the sounds. The sound deadening does little, if anything for that. It's designed to hide drivetrain vibrations (primarily), and has some effect on all vibrations, and to a lesser extent, sound.

    353. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Well pick up at a larger city new you the day before, a nice luxury minivan, just the thing for a family drive but a real pain for the rest of the year, and book early. Lot's of large suv's available and you definitely don't want to pay for their fuel during the rest of the year. Of course if your running a hybrid it makes no difference, just keep fillings it's gas tank.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    354. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No! Don't!
      http://www.snopes.com/autos/cursed/green.asp

    355. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and loads of heavy and mostly ineffective sound deadening are burdening the modern car.

      Why do auto makers include so much ineffective sound dampening material? Seems it would be a no-brainer to leave it out if it could make a difference in gas mileage.

      For 50 cents they could supply you with a couple grams of foam earplugs that would do the job better.

    356. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Patch86 · · Score: 1
    357. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Well, most of Norway is desolate Arctic wasteland. The populated parts of Norway are more densely populated than the United States.

      You obviously have no idea. You must be American. No, people live all over Norway. Really. Long commutes are common. Often extremely long, due to having to drive around fjords and cliffs. But if there is a beautiful spot on an island or a mountainside, someone will have put up a house there, lives there, and have godawful commutes. This greatly upsets the (mostly younger) Americanophiles in the cities who understand neither the concept of solidarity nor the Norwegian desire to be close to nature and not each other, and bemoan the amount of money spent on roads, bridges, tunnels and utilities to reach all the far-away populated places.

      I have been to the rural US. I live in the rural US. And people here clump together, and could not imagine living an hour's drive from the post office and supermarket. It's Americans who clump together. The traditional lack of desire for Norwegians to clump together like Americans do is why Norway has close to 100% geographical cell phone coverage, where in the US, you only focus on population coverage, and the geographical coverage is abysmal.
      So, in short, you have this exactly the wrong way around.

      And even if your ignorant guess about Norway had been true (which it so isn't), the population density still would be lower.

      For the Oslo metro, the population density is 420 people square mile. That's lower than six of the US states including the rural areas.
      Boston, the US city closest to Oslo in size, has a metro population density of 1002 people per square mile.

      Gas price in Boston today: $3.90 per gallon
      Gas price in Oslo today: $10.45 per gallon.
      If anything, it seems that gas prices are inversely proportional to density!

      People drive more here in the US because it's their culture. Not because they have to. And they bemoan their subsidized gasoline prices as horribly expensive, because they are used to even cheaper gasoline and are unwilling to or incapable of comparing themselves to the rest of the world.
      Then they believe outright lies like "you can't compare with gas prices overseas because our country is so sparsely populated".

    358. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Strangely, if I charge up a Volt and drive it within its battery charge, I'll never need fuel in the tank at all, not when I accelerate, not ever.

      The Volt is an all electric car with a portable generator to charge the battery, it is not a traditional hybrid at all. The fact that the generator uses gasoline is of no real importance in fact; the drive train would be identical if it used diesel or solar to charge the batteries as all actual power delivery is done from an electric motor.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    359. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a hybrid owner, so let's see what I think:
      1) If the only choice was a hybrid or a gas/diesel only car I would buy another hybrid (Hyundai Sonata). But, I am a careful buyer. What I bought was the best value, and I have no interest in selling it until I have gotten full value out of it. (BTW, why are these people selling them now, like, the value for thisa kind of car only kicks in after years of savings, not a year or two)

      2) But, there now are other choices which are very interesting to me. My brother's Nissan Leaf is nice, but requires a 2 car family right now, or a lot of money on rentals for long trips. The Chevy Volt is more interesting because of that. And what is coming over the horizon? Hopefully higher efficiency, lighter, more powerful and safer batteries. Electric charging with replacement or high-speed chargers. People who are not getting on the bandwagon might just find themselves with unsaleable POS cars that are hard to refuel because the gas stations have stopped carrying gas any more. Or, worse yet, only carry gas that is stored in leaky antique tanks.

      3) I think those of you holding out run the risk of being stuck with an old clunker that has $0.00 value because nobody wants one, no matter the price of gas or the hulk, they just aren't useful any more. Think about how fast things are changing right now and project that rate into the future, thenplot the expected changes in auto tech on that line and think about how useful your Hummer will be in the short term, never mind the long.

    360. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The requirement for a bumper to resist 5MPH damage-free was instituted sometime in the 1960s or 1970s.. It was relaxed to 2.5MPH, then eliminated, in the 1980s. A bumper now can completely shrapnelize at 0.1MPH, and as long as that shrapnel doesn't injure a passenger, its legal. That said, it's true, the "low hanging fruit" of improving an old 1960s or 1970s vehicle don't really exist on a modern vehicle. I could actually re-gear my car pretty inexpensively (not using the final gear, which is hard to get to, but the GM automatics have an intermediate gear set that is easy to get to and change out). But I'm quite unsure if this would improve mileage, or if the engine would simply struggle against overly-steep gearing.

                Anyway, as for people not buyng another hybrid... besides the already mentioned reason of economics (MPG savings versus higher cost of the hybrid), there are two other reasons I can think of.

                1) MPG. I should note, Top Gear UK gave the Prius a poor rating about 5 years ago because you could buy cars in UK that got better MPG, while costing less and having better acceleration & "fun to drive" factor. The US market finally got these kinds of cars in the last year or two, so now someone interested in MPG can get a much cheaper car that gets almost as good MPG, if not better.

                2) I'd expect a lot of people who have a hybrid aren't buying another hybrid because their existing one is still running. With so few hybrid models on the market, why would they buy a newer verson of the exact same car when the existing one is working fine?

                Personally, I think the future for gasoline hybrid vehicles is a system like eAssist. Instead of a whole bank of batteries and heavy motors, this uses a single battery and replaces the alternator with a motor/generator; the whole system weighs 50 pounds. It will not move the car around on batteries only, but nevertheless gets about 90% of the benefit (in terms of capture/reuse of momentum) of a full hybrid, while saving weight of a full hybrid.

    361. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw that first-hand when I took a trip to California and i'm glad the program was ended. I was driving alone, and so not eligible for the carpool lane. But, I made *better* time than those using it. Why? The carpool lane had someone about every half mile blocking the lane with their hybrid going like 45MPH in an effort to maximize gas mileage, actually going slower on average than the prevailing traffic. What was real great is the bit where the carpool lane was physically seperated (i.e. concrete barrier between it and the rest) and there was just this big line of cars piled up behind a Insight... going about 35-40MPH. I was about about 75 at that point.

                Secondly.. if they did this kind of program it should be based strictly on MPG and not hybrid status. There are hybrids now that only get 25MPG highway (built to improve power), as well as hybrid models that only gained 1-2MPG over their gas equivalents (high 20s-low 30s MPG highway.) If a car can get 40 or 50MPG with a plain gas engine, it should have as much of a benefit as one that gets 40 or 50MPG because of a hybrid drivetrain.

    362. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They give it a name: "extended-range electric vehicle". It's just different from the name that everyone else gives vehicles of the same type, "plug-in hybrid". Why GM prefers their name for it, I'm not sure.

    363. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Tweezak · · Score: 1

      One issue in the US is that there's no incentive to use diesel in hybrids because we don't use "Euro diesel." Our diesel still uses sulfur as a lubricating agent which is part of what makes it such an extreme polluter and would raise the emission level of a hybrid thereby eliminating any government subsidies. And while we are on the topic of diesel cars in Europe...nothing pisses me off more than seeing 70-80+mpg diesel cars (NOT hybrids) that you can buy all day long in the UK while we have to struggle to get 40-50mpg here. Granted, Euros get better fuel and pay a lot more for it but it's just another indicator that the American auto industry is holding back on what they will develop in the US because they aren't done milking old technology and marketing to the "muscle car" mentality.

      Back on topic. I bought my Prius in 2009 and while the financial bottom line may not work out to my advantage I sure like not having to spend $100 every week or two to fill it up. Besides, I really like the car and unless it gets destroyed, stolen or starts having lots of problems I'll keep it.

    364. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Millions of motorcyclists.

    365. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      It'd be nice if car makers would standardize on a certain battery pack design, enabling the construction of battery swap stations instead of having to charge them. Pull in, battery pack(s) are pulled out of standard side panel hole, freshly charged batteries are put in. It could even be automated like a car wash.

    366. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The original point of bumpers was safety, extend the crumple zone increases safety. In the old cars, the *only* crumple zone was the bumpers.

    367. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't get it, do you? We're all just saying you're stupid!

    368. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      The original point of bumpers was safety

      What do you mean by "original"? By the late 60s, most bumpers were mostly ornamental and had to grow immensely when they passed the law to handle a 5MPH collision without breaking headlights and fuel lines. In that era and especially before, cars were basically deathtraps.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    369. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Back in the 1930s, bumpers were functional. Then, the '50s styling craze hit, and they became solely ornimental, and with body-on-frame construction and not wanting to show damage in small crashes, actually lowered safety for occupants. The 5 mph rules were to protect the car at 5 mph and under crashes, which doesn't help the occupants. Later the IIHS pushed for a zero-damage at 5 mph and under standard, which is what most design to now.

    370. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      That's a bit before my time :)

      I guess the bumper helped - but they should have padded the dash, gone with a breakaway steering column, used tempered glass, and of course seatbelts :)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    371. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      In the end, that later kind of sensor isn't pedestrian friendly either (pedestrians too have to cross streets) thus they aren't used around here anymore.

      Frequently, intersections also have a push-button pedestrian crossing input so that they respond to the presence of pedestrian traffic as well as vehicle traffic.

      Those can be a kind of fallback for those on bikes, though they are pretty inconvenient in that role (especially, e.g., in a multilane intersection where you intend to make a left turn.)

    372. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      They did, eventually. They should have gone with 5-point seatbelts, rather than 3, and we'd be much better off (at least those of us who would have worn them.

    373. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I was nuts enough to commute that far to my current job I could do it in my Leaf. My employer was enthusiastic about setting up a charging location for my car.

    374. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by jaymemaurice · · Score: 1

      That's what I was thinking, but obviously I wasn't thinking too hard because I never thought of the energy requirements meat needing to be chilled... suppose we could shoot cows and turn them straight to jerky on site... only thing I know for sure is I don't know enough.

      --
      120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
    375. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      So your own article claiming how many electric cars there are backs up my point that there aren't yet any available.

      All I can tell you is that I see them driving around my neighborhood, so either I'm hallucinating or they are available here.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    376. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $4.50/gallon is not cheap. We have been conditioned to believe that. Prices used to be $1.30/gallon for 93 octane less than a decade ago and one or two stations had 87 octane under $1.00/gallon during the last major Asian recession.

    377. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      They are called bumpers for a reason. They aren't designed to absorb massive impact. They are designed to absorb bumps.

    378. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      You people are fooling yourselves. Its not the weight or the aerodynamic that are the biggest waste in a gas car. Drive your car a mile or so, then pull over and open the hood. Feel that heat coming off the engine. There is your biggest waste of energy.

      But given the same powerplant on vehicles of different weight and aerodynamics, you'll see drastic changes in the performance of said powerplant. Sure, the ICE is a wasteful resource, but you can't control that. You can control the other variables, though.

    379. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      I think the more important point "buy a bike" guy is making is that if you think being "green" is so important, then why do you drive a car? People on slashdot do tend to be quite binary at times, after all.

      That's why people like me who like cars aren't preaching to everyone else to be "green".

    380. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Few will beat me from zero to 15 or 45 to 60.

      You actually believe this statement? And this is why car guys like me hate hybrid owners. Not for their preachy 'green' stances, not for their desires to drive completely soulless cars with no charm, but because of their misinformed statements about automotive engineering at every level.

    381. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Doesn't "hybrid" mean the mix of two different things, such as an engine with internal combustion coupled with an electric motor? The Volt only has one power source...the battery. It's no hybrid.

    382. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      well, nix that. I was thinking of a different vehicle. The Volt is the one that has a small gas engine as well as the electric one.

      Where's the 100% EV, General Motors?

    383. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      I saw the full study somewhere else (the linked LA times story here is pretty slim). But your instincts are pretty close. The more satisfied hybrid owners are the ones driving pure hybrid designs, and the least satisfied ones where the people buy the knee-jerk reaction fake hybrid-assist vehicles, like giant SUVs that go from 12 mpg to 15 mpg (ok, I made those figures up).

      Simply slapping a hybrid badge on the tailgate of a gas guzzling SUV doesn't do much for customer satisfaction, evidently.

    384. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      The Civic SI costs more than a ivic Hybrid for even less fuel efficiency. Comparing a base Civic Sedan to a Civic Hybrid doesn't make much sense, in this regard, as I could easily replace Civic Sedan with Civic SI and immediately turn the tides on the argument. Civic Hybrid is cheaper AND gets much better gas mileage so it pays for itself over an SI as soon as you buy one. That is just a silly argument as the original.

      I hate it when people say, "but a Toyota Camry is cheaper than a Toyota Prius and would take 6 years for the Hybrid to make up the cost". That's not apples-to-apples, because there is no equivalent Toyota Prius gas model to compare it against. The better analogy would be Toyota Camry vs. Toyota Camry Hybrid (but then again, the Toyota Camry Hybrid is only hybrid-assist and doesn't enjoy the economy gains of a true hybrid design).

      In other words, people buy different cars for different reasons, and most people aren't nearly as logical as you lot here.

    385. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      My guess is government subsidies ran out. Haven't done the math, but I'm betting the slight improvement in gas mileage takes too long to recoup the cost now before you have to pay to replace the batteries.

      Sigh. Not the "you have to replace the batteries!" argument. Because I never have to replace anything in my non hybrid engine?

    386. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      If you think $700 is a lot of money, you probably shouldn't be contributing to a conversation about cars that cost roughly $25,000.

    387. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      No, but most of the parts that need to be replaced in the non-hybrid will need to be replaced in the hybrid as well - the battery is something extra (and often very expensive) to replace that should be factored in if you plan to own the car past it's warranty period.

    388. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Well, sure, but 1) I'll probably never buy a hybrid (or economic car for that matter), and 2) I never buy a car based on the total cost of ownership. To each his own.

    389. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I think the more important point "buy a bike" guy is making is that if you think being "green" is so important, then why do you drive a car?

      I agree that was his point, which is why I was critical. It's a ridiculous point to make :)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    390. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      While his is certainly a binary position, I do see the hypocrisy of most greenies I know when they climb into their 15mpg SUVs. Me? I drive a sports car. But then again, I don't pretend to be green either.

    391. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hm, he needs to go older. I get 30-33 mpg in my modern engine swapped (rb26det) 240Z. Although I had no safety features to begin with. Ooh! Wait, I have the list here.... I have a collapsible steering column!

      I think buying my used car saves quite a bit over new, as far as total energy input.

      Problem is, I have to watch out for all the idiots in new cars who are much less likely to die in a crash. They keep driving like they know it!

    392. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I also don't pretend to be green. But I think it is not always hypocrisy... Someone who puts 5000 miles/year on an SUV isn't really doing that much environmental damage. I know a family who have an economy car for commuting, their spouse takes the train, and they have a bigass Ford Explorer for trips and general hauling of kids and for when the weather turns to snow. They hardly put any miles on the Exlporer, and the commuting parent is a doctor and so needs the 4-wheel-drive so that they can make the snow-route commute to the hospital. They also don't preach "green" but I did talk her out of a Leaf recently... she leases a Versa and put 4000 miles on it in 2 years!

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    393. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      And dash boards aren't there to hold your sunglasses and instrument panel, they are there to prevent mud splash from the horses hooves.

    394. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      240Z would also have mandatory seatbelts, right? I thought the law changed in the late '60s, so a '70+ model would have them, though that's before my time, so I could be wrong.

    395. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      I talked to this owner before I wrote the above.

      Warranty was his word, I called him again to clarify after your reply
      he said he really wasn't sure of how it worked but appeared that
      the Government (program, subsidy,?)  told the auto dealership to "make it good."
      again his words, saving him well over three thousand bucks U.S.

      But no he would never own another one.

    396. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, same goes for me. My current Prius (2004) is doing just fine. Just reached 260000 kilometers (161500 miles or so) and no problems, apart from normal running costs like tyres. My next car? 90% chance is will be a hybrid or plug-in hybrid. I like hybrids and electrical cars.

    397. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      the battery might have bigger "wear" if you just left it sitting for the winter.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    398. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have an '03 civi hybrid. The battery pack was replaced by the dealer for $1400 at about 125k miles (throwing an error code and couldn't pass inspection, but still 'working'). I've currently got 185k on it and I expect the battery to go again in another 50k miles. We probably won't be buying hybrid again because we have our eyes on a CR-V because of it's AWD capability. Now, if it's available in hybrid when the battery dies again, we'll probably get the hybrid version.

    399. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You live halfway between your wife and your workplace? Wouldn't it just be easier to move in with her....

    400. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by foradoxium · · Score: 1

      I asked a friend who owns a Nissan Leaf and he's getting 100+, maybe it depends on what type of traffic (time spent on vs actual miles)?

    401. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by lkcl · · Score: 1

      yes, it's to be registered as a Category L7E (Quadbike), power restricted to 15kW (20HP). if you've ever looked up the specs on quad-bikes you'll know that that's more than enough to get to 70mph, even with a 4x4 quad with a CVT gearbox... eventually :)

      you're absolutely right, though: there's absolutely no chance it would pass as a standard car. paradoxically, however, analysis shows that quad-bike cars in Europe, such as the Aixam Mega, the Ligier and others, are involved in *less* accidents than standard cars. perhaps it's because they look so ridiculous that other road users give them a wide berth, just as they would a "Learner Driver"; perhaps it's because the 0-60 time is typically double or triple that of a standard car, the driver knows damn well that they can't take risks. all of which, as far as i'm concerned, is good news.

    402. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by lkcl · · Score: 1

      yes i looked at the 3-wheelers. i wanted to get 3 people in it. a 3-wheeler would be hard pushed to fit a 100kg 2ft x 2.5ft x 18in 5kW off-the-shelf Diesel Generator as well as the drivetrain *and* 3 people into the available space. a 2-seater is easy but that would make it a sports car. i want something that a young family such as ours (we have a 3-year-old daughter) could take seriously, and that really means 4 wheels, even if 3 is stable.

      plus, think about it from a safety aspect: 3 wheels means that there's less car. less car means that other road users *see* less car. that means that there's a risk that they might encroach on the space of the car, in crowded traffic. a standard-looking "box" design makes room for itself. the fact that the inner core is highly aerodynamic is what the patent's all about :)

    403. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I was just quoting the EPA. I'm sure you could drive conservatively and get the numbers up.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    404. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by CaptSlaq · · Score: 1
      If the support structure is stiff enough you could stretch to accommodate 3 and the drive-train. Think VW 1L, except with a wider front end. I'm not certain if you gain any aero advantage, and the extra length may mitigate the weight and complexity advantage you (potentially) get by losing a wheel.

      As for the "box", perhaps I'm jaded by the North American drivers but it doesn't seem to matter much WHAT you drive here, some drivers are just going to be jerks. As an example just yesterday someone was passing me at 60 with maybe 6" between the mirrors of either car. I'm driving a Subaru Legacy wagon/estate, so it's not exactly a small car that's easily lost.

    405. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by CaptSlaq · · Score: 1

      yes, it's to be registered as a Category L7E (Quadbike), power restricted to 15kW (20HP). if you've ever looked up the specs on quad-bikes you'll know that that's more than enough to get to 70mph, even with a 4x4 quad with a CVT gearbox... eventually :)

      you're absolutely right, though: there's absolutely no chance it would pass as a standard car. paradoxically, however, analysis shows that quad-bike cars in Europe, such as the Aixam Mega, the Ligier and others, are involved in *less* accidents than standard cars. perhaps it's because they look so ridiculous that other road users give them a wide berth, just as they would a "Learner Driver"; perhaps it's because the 0-60 time is typically double or triple that of a standard car, the driver knows damn well that they can't take risks. all of which, as far as i'm concerned, is good news.

      Is this how stuff like the Robin and the Piel cars still maintain number plates?

    406. Re:Because Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The paper "Dust to Dust's Assumptions About the Prius and the Hummer" uses the GREET model for lifecycle analysis over 160,000 miles and breaks down grams CO2-equivalent per mile into three categories: fuel production, vehicle production and vehicle operation. Overall the Prius emits about 65% as much per mile as the Hummer. Fuel production and vehicle operation account for eighty-something percent of the total CO2 for both the Hummer and Prius. The production of the Prius accounts for a slightly larger portion of the lifetime CO2 than for the Hummer and fuel slightly less:

      http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-Center/Library/T07-01_AssumptionsPriusHummer

      Similarly "Life Cycle Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Plug-in Hybrid Vehicles: Implications for Policy" finds that for a conventional vehicle about 87% of the grams CO2 equivalent per km come from gasoline (the rest from production), versus about 81% from a hybrid electric vehicle:

      solar.gwu.edu/index_files/Resources_files/LCA_for_PHEVs.pdf

      These papers doesn't give hard numbers so I made estimates from the graphs by counting pixels with Photoshop.

  2. Diesel by Stargoat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'd buy a diesel again in a heart beat. I get 40 miles to the gallon city in my Volkswagen Sportswagen. And diesel is 30 cents cheaper a gallon than petrol. Plus, the technology is robust. Diesel is definite the way to go if you want high gas mileage and low costs.

    --
    Hoist Number One and Number Six.
    1. Re:Diesel by simcop2387 · · Score: 2

      I'm likely to consider diesel myself, though in my area it's actually the other way around price wise, about 20-30 cents higher than gas but it's been far more stable and if you really do get that much better milage it'll still pay for itself given how long the engines usually last.

    2. Re:Diesel by eln · · Score: 3, Insightful

      From what I've seen, diesel prices tend to be more volatile than gasoline prices. Around here, diesel will range from around 50 cents cheaper to 50 cents more expensive than gasoline depending on a number of factors (including, as far as I can tell, a coin flip). So, the price of the fuel shouldn't be an overarching factor in deciding to go for one or the other.

      Having said that, though, diesels do get good mileage, and as long as you live in a decent-sized city or near a major highway there usually isn't too much difficulty in finding gas stations that sell diesel fuel.

    3. Re:Diesel by Iniamyen · · Score: 2

      I totally agree with you. Why there is not even ONE small/midsize diesel pickup on sale in the US is beyond me.

    4. Re:Diesel by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      Not around here. Gase averages around $3.90-$4.10/gal here and diesel is about $4.50-$4.60. When I was growing up, diesel was alwyas 10 cents/gal cheaper until around 2005.

    5. Re:Diesel by ducomputergeek · · Score: 0

      Ironically those high mpg diesels aren't available in the US due to emissions standards....

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    6. Re:Diesel by adturner · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, here in the Bay Area, diesel is often more expensive then premium and 30-40 cents more expensive then regular. Annoying since diesel is basically a by-product of refining gasoline, but the global market for diesel is exploding (the US is the worlds largest exporter of diesel) and the newer cleaner ultra-low sulfur formulations are sending the price skyhigh compared to what it used to be.

    7. Re:Diesel by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'd buy a diesel again in a heart beat. I get 40 miles to the gallon city in my Volkswagen Sportswagen. And diesel is 30 cents cheaper a gallon than petrol.

      People who use the word "petrol" often have a larger size gallon than people who say "gas."
      If you are one of those people then you are getting closer to 35 miles to the gallon of most slashdot readers.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    8. Re:Diesel by Sebastopol · · Score: 1

      Adding to the others' responses, in the US pacific NW, auto diesel is ,20~.40 cents MORE than super-unleaded.

      --
      https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    9. Re:Diesel by Sebastopol · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's what turned me off to diesel: the eco ratings are all super low, and the fuel efficiency doesn't even come close to making up for it.

      --
      https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    10. Re:Diesel by Tyler+Eaves · · Score: 1

      Yea there are.

      Modern "euro" diesels are available from a number of makes including VW/Audi (Golf, Jetta, Passat, Audi A3, Tuareg/Q5 SUVs), BMW (X5 SUV), and Mercedes (several sedan models).

      --
      TODO: Something witty here...
    11. Re:Diesel by CaptainLugnuts · · Score: 1
      Because it doesn't cost Ford or GM a significant amount more to make a full size pickup versus a compact pickup, assuming similar drive trains and amenities.

      Don't forget the Chicken Tax either, which keeps out small imported trucks.

    12. Re:Diesel by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>Ironically those high mpg diesels aren't available in the US due to emissions standards....

      You couldn't be more wrong. Look-up Volkswagen TDI. Last time I checked they were available in Beetle, Golf, Jetta, and Passat models.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    13. Re:Diesel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Diesel prices are much more seasonal than petrol. Diesel demand goes up in the winter because you are competing with heating and reaches a minimum in the summer.

      Historically, diesel has averaged lower than petrol, but there's certainly no guarantee of future price. If you can weather (hah!) the seasonality, a rough mpg to mpg comparison is pretty fair across several years.

    14. Re:Diesel by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Same in Southern California.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    15. Re:Diesel by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Almost all PickUp owners I know with Diesels bought them for towing heavy loads. Most people with small trucks use them for commuting to work. Why? I don't know. If I want to commute I drive a car. I have an old 77 GMC 4X4 that gets just over 12 miles to the gallon but it serves it's purpose perfectly and it's paid for. I only drive 300 to 500 miles a year in it so I'd never recoup costs for a newer diesel with fuel savings plus it's a real truck with massive DANA axles and built to be beat on unlike the shiny country Cadillacs.

    16. Re:Diesel by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      The emission standards for diesel fuel changed and since then the price went up a lot. Clean air costs.

    17. Re:Diesel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who use the word "petrol" often use the litre, unlike people who say "gas."

      FTFY.

    18. Re:Diesel by filthpickle · · Score: 1

      There was a garage kept diesel Datsun truck for sale in the town I live in. I walked away from it because he wanted $500 more than I wanted to pay. I should have bought the damn thing...I only drive when it's raining steadily, it would have lasted forever probably.

    19. Re:Diesel by dontmakemethink · · Score: 1

      It's even cheaper if you get a grease cleaning system using a Dieselcraft centrifuge. For roughly $1000 you can collect and clean waste vegetable oil for use in an unmodified diesel vehicle costing only pennies per tank in hydro and using absolutely no chemicals apart from cleaning the rig, which can be standard dish soap.

      The down side is that small diesel cars are all imports, so you're paying a diesel tax and an import tax if you ever need engine repair ($150/hr and up). Volkswagen and Mercedes both use proprietary bolts for example. Since the grease is so cheap to process, you can just get a larger vehicle, but then you're processing more grease to run it and creating more pollution etc.

      --

      War as we knew it was obsolete
      Nothing could beat complete denial
      - Emily Haines
    20. Re:Diesel by cvtan · · Score: 0

      I live in the US. Can you please define the following terms?
      1) Gallon
      2) Volkswagen Sportswagen
      3) Diesel is cheaper than petrol
      4) Petrol
      Thanks.

      --
      Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
    21. Re:Diesel by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Around here diesel can range from 50 cents to a dollar more per gallon than gasoline, and when you factor in that diesels cost a few thousand dollars more (turbocharger, etc.) it's hard to see that they're worth it in this area.

      Didn't used to be this way - when I was a kid and gasoline was $0.87/gal diesel was usually ten cents cheaper.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    22. Re:Diesel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Ironically those high mpg diesels aren't available in the US due to emissions standards...."

      You don't know what you are talking about.

      If that doesn't make you ashamed, it should.

    23. Re:Diesel by Xenx · · Score: 1

      People who use the word "petrol" often use the litre, unlike people who say "gas."

      FTFY.

      If they use the term petrol and gallon in the same sentence, chances are they're talking imperial gallon... which is what the GP was getting at. Thus, the amount of fuel in a gallon of petrol is usually greater than in a gallon of gas.

    24. Re:Diesel by Mishotaki · · Score: 1

      I'd buy a diesel again in a heart beat. I get 40 miles to the gallon city in my Volkswagen Sportswagen. And diesel is 30 cents cheaper a gallon than petrol.

      People who use the word "petrol" often have a larger size gallon than people who say "gas." If you are one of those people then you are getting closer to 35 miles to the gallon of most slashdot readers.

      That's why the rest of the world uses the Liter, no confusion about it!

    25. Re:Diesel by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      as long as you live in a decent-sized city or near a major highway there usually isn't too much difficulty in finding gas stations that sell diesel fuel.

      On the contrary, there isn't any difficulty finding Diesel fuel ever, without qualification. There definitely exist fuel stations that don't sell it, but there's invariably another one less than a mile up the road that does.

      Fuel availability was one of the worries I had before buying my VW diesel; I've since learned that my concern was completely unfounded.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    26. Re:Diesel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe there have been advances in the refinement process that mean less "waste" diesel gets produced and more of the oil is converted into gasoline, making diesel less abundant which makes prices higher.

    27. Re:Diesel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I own both a VW Diesel, and a Prius Hybrid and would get both again as well. They are comparable for MPG (our model years), but diesel is a bit more expensive right now (MN, US).

      If you buy a used Prius, a couple of years old, you can get a great deal. We looked at a lot of similarly priced cars, and one of the fully loaded Prius's have great interiors with a ton of cool technology, and as a benefit, you get pretty good gas mileage. They really aren't much more expensive.

      A VW diesel (Jetta Sportwagen...) definitely has a price premium in the US, but on the flip side, there aren't a ton of them around, so when it's time to sell they really hold their value well.

    28. Re:Diesel by petermgreen · · Score: 2

      Here in the UK (which is pressumablly what the GP meant by "people who use the word "petrol"") we buy petrol in litres but we measure our cars fuel economy in miles per (imperial) gallon.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    29. Re:Diesel by jmichaelg · · Score: 1

      Diesel is 35 cents a gallon more expensive in California and California has the most expensive gasoline in the country. Do we also have the distinction of having the most expensive diesel as well?

    30. Re:Diesel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is funny is that if you look at most any truck they all suck compared to any TDI vehicle,

    31. Re:Diesel by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      Loud, smelly, polluting, hard to start in cold weather... I could keep going as to why people dont buy them.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    32. Re:Diesel by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Almost all PickUp owners I know with Diesels bought them for towing heavy loads.

      No shit; that's because they have huge-ass V8s and they aren't good for anything else.

      But that doesn't answer the question of "why won't the car manufacturers make a smaller efficient truck that is good for uses besides towing?"

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    33. Re:Diesel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strangely in the UK, we fill up in litres, but still measure efficiency in miles per gallon.

    34. Re:Diesel by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      My 1998 Beetle TDI gets 40-50 miles per American gallon (and yes, that's several MPG better than what a brand-new "clean diesel" gets). It's also carbon-neutral and puts out zero PPM sulfur (not 15ppm), because I run mine on 100% biodiesel -- something the "clean diesels" can't do.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    35. Re:Diesel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're telling me. I moved to the bay from Illinois and in IL diesel was usually cheaper, and I loved it. Although it's not awful - diesel is usually neck and neck with premium here in east bay. But I love my Jetta TDI.

    36. Re:Diesel by sirambrose · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the cheapest diesel you listed is only $300 less than a Prius and gets worse gas mileage. Unless the prices come down, I can't see myself buying a diesel.

    37. Re:Diesel by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      There definitely exist fuel stations that don't sell it, but there's invariably another one less than a mile up the road that does.

      There are some very suburban assumptions there. I live in a census area with a quarter million people and it's still not uncommon to have 20 mile stretches between filling stations. If you're lucky one of them might be open on a weekend night. Nearly all of them sell deisel though, plain or red.

      One route I take through the next state over has a stretch that's 70 miles between stations, and that's all State Highway. Granted, the State is filled with NIMBY's, but that's the way they roll.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    38. Re:Diesel by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      But that doesn't answer the question of "why won't the car manufacturers make a smaller efficient truck that is good for uses besides towing?"

      You mean like the El Camino? The Baja only lived 3 years, but that had a pretty small bed.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    39. Re:Diesel by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, you misread my statement: if [and only if] there exists a filling station and it doesn't sell Diesel, then there exists another filling station within a mile that does sell Diesel.

      I made no claim about the availability of Diesel in areas where gasoline isn't available either! This should hold true in urban, suburban, and rural areas.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    40. Re:Diesel by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      By the way, don't all census areas have about a quarter million people? I feel like they're designed to have equal population, just like Congressional districts.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    41. Re:Diesel by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I mean like the Ford Ranger, except with a modern [I-4 turbodiesel] engine and chassis -- which the Ranger itself would have, if Ford hadn't purposefully neglected it for a decade in order to have an excuse to kill it off. Or I mean like an indestructible Toyota Hilux [again with a Diesel], a la Top Gear

      In other words, the kind of truck I want not only exists, but is popular -- but car manufacturers refuse to sell it in the United States!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    42. Re:Diesel by Crosshair84 · · Score: 1

      My guess is because the EPA keeps rewriting the diesel engine regulations every few years. Nobody wants to play poker when the dealer changes the rules every other hand.

    43. Re:Diesel by sheddd · · Score: 1

      I'm happy with my Sportwagen TDI too! I got it 6 months ago, ~8k miles so far. I'm a bit disappointed in the mileage @ interstate speeds (I need to check it without the bike rack)... I wish 6th gear was much taller.

    44. Re:Diesel by green1 · · Score: 1

      And that's the great thing about diesel, the further between stations, the more likely the station is to have diesel. The only stations I've ever found without diesel are in large cities where you have 4 gas stations within a block, and then only 1 of the 4 might have it, but as soon as you get out of town, almost every station has diesel.

      Where I am diesel is cheaper than gas in the summer, more expensive in the winter. but generally less volatile than gas prices. mileage is better, and the engine is more robust. I find it a real shame that it's so hard to find small diesels in North America.

    45. Re:Diesel by Crosshair84 · · Score: 1

      That's why the rest of the world uses the Liter, no confusion about it!

      No, they use it because they were forced at gunpoint by their governments to use it. If you doubt this, just try to sell using pounds and ounces in certain metric countries.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1078648/Victory-Metric-Martyrs-finally-win-right-sell-fruit-veg-pounds-ounces.html

      The metric system has its flaws, base 10 being only divisible by 10, 5 and 2 before having to use awkward decimals, since fractions are "officially" not allowed in metric measurements. (Though people use them anyway.) There is a reason that every civilization based its measurements using a number base that was divisible by at least 4 units, the foot is divisible 5 different ways without using fractions; 2, 3, 4, 6, and 12. Then metric unit sizes are often awkward for everyday use. Try building a shed or cut drywall using centimeters/millimeters vs feet and inches by memory. Metric units don't fit in the brains short term memory like imperial measurements do. Young carpenters in Canada still use feet and inches. No surprise given that it was designed by intellectuals who never worked a day in their life and who gave us other great things, like the Reign of Terror and Napoleon.

    46. Re:Diesel by green1 · · Score: 2

      Loud: only in North America. Seriously, North American manufacturers make awfully loud diesel engines, (Dodge being the absolute worst) modern small diesels made my all the other manufacturers in the world aren't noticeably louder than gasoline engines
      Smelly: give me the smell of diesel over the smell of gasoline any day. of course a reasonably tuned or modern diesel won't smell any more than a reasonably tuned or modern gas vehicle either.
      Polluting: less so than gasoline vehicles. more particulates, but those fall out of the air relatively quickly and aren't as harmful as some of the other chemicals that gasoline engines spew. (and if you are talking about clouds of black smoke, you're once again looking at poorly made/maintained diesels and not what a proper modern diesel does)
      Hard to start in cold weather: I'm Canadian, I'm on my third diesel vehicle, and the only times I've had trouble starting are when I've left the headlights on over night. In fact my diesel is more likely to start in the winter than either my fiance's gas car, or my company's gas truck.

      I can give you a few reasons people don't buy them though.
      1) manufacturers refuse to sell small diesels in North America (this is probably the biggest reason, it's hard to buy what isn't available for sale)
      2) people seem to buy the propaganda that diesels are loud, smelly, polluting, and hard to start in cold weather, even though modern diesels are none of the above.

    47. Re:Diesel by cbope · · Score: 1

      Except that most European diesel cars get from low 40's to high 50's mpg. Kind of kills that idea... hell, even my 3-year old Golf with a super-efficient TSI supercharged and turbocharged *gas* engine gets mid-40's mpg quite easily and still hits 60 mph in 7.9 sec with a top speed of 143 mph. Unfortunately, you don't get that engine in the US, because Americans don't want a 1.4 liter engine, even if it has more power, torque and gets far better gas mileage than a run-of-the-mill 2.5 liter.

      In America, it's still a numbers game with engine displacement, "bigger is better". 2.5 > 1.4 so the 2.5 must clearly be better. The end result is the most efficient and still powerful small European engines are kept out of the US market due to ignorance. At least it gives the European car manufacturers a place to dump large quantities of less-efficient 1990's-design gas engines. VW does this, almost every model sold in the US used the old, tired 2.5 liter engine design from the 90's as the base engine, while the same models here in Europe use one of several variants of the 1.4 liter TSI engine with far better gas mileage and power.

      Back to the original topic, my belief is that hybrids are merely a stop-gap technology at the moment. Plug-in hybrids are a tiny evolution from normal hybrids if you consider them to be separate technology. To me, it's all marketing. They both have a gas engine and an electric motor. HOW the drive power reaches the wheels is irrelevant and purely semantics. I believe the future will be all-electric, once we can solve the problem of an efficient portable power source to provide electric current to the motor that does not need constant charging.

    48. Re:Diesel by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Those are not the high-mpg diesels. Look-up bluemotion and note the lack of US availability.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    49. Re:Diesel by darrylo · · Score: 1

      Yes. For some reason, in the SF Bay Area, the price of diesel is quite high. Price-per-mile-wise, I'm guessing that the cost of diesel is close to the cost of gas. If I had to put on a fruitcake conspiracy tinfoil hat, I'd think that the gas companies are doing this to make people continue to buy gasoline.

    50. Re:Diesel by Alioth · · Score: 1

      Diesels haven't been loud, smelly, polluting (at least more than petrol cars) nor hard to start in cold weather here since the 1980s. Modern diesel cars here are barely distinguishable from petrol ones, except in that they use a lot less fuel.

    51. Re:Diesel by Solandri · · Score: 1

      From what I've seen, diesel prices tend to be more volatile than gasoline prices.

      It's volatile, but there's a pattern to it. When you refine a barrel of petroleum, depending on where you got it (i.e. light vs. heavy), a certain percentage distils into gasoline and a certain percentage into diesel. In other words, cars and trucks/machinery are in a symbiotic relationship keeping each others' fuel prices down. If all cars switched to diesel, then refineries would end up with a lot of excess gasoline. Gas prices would go down while diesel prices went up.

      Now the reason for the volatility: It is relatively easy to break down heavier fuels like diesel into lighter fuels like gasoline. You're just breaking up the hydrocarbon chains into shorter chains. It takes some energy to do this and thus costs more than if it's a natural distillate of the oil, but it can be done. Going the other way however - converting a lighter fuel like gasoline to a heavier fuel like diesel - is really really hard. You have to glue the hydrocarbon chains together somehow. That's why diesel prices are more volatile. When there's a shortage of gasoline, refineries can just process diesel into gasoline, and the price of gas stays stable. When there's a shortage of diesel, they can't turn gasoline into diesel (at least nowhere near as cost-effectively as going the other way).

      This is why switching all cars from gas to diesel simply won't work. You'd end up with the cost of a gallon of diesel being the cost of the diesel plus the cost of the unused gasoline. You need a certain percentage of motor vehicles (roughly half) to run on gasoline in order to sit at an optimal minimum of both gasoline and diesel prices.

    52. Re:Diesel by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      The great thing about Diesel, I've found, is that it is safer to store locally. We have a 550 Gallon fuel storage tank. To store that full of petrol would be a lot more risky than storing it with diesel.

      By buying it in bulk, when prices fluctuate down saves loads of money.

    53. Re:Diesel by Solandri · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Couple other factors:

      Diesel has about 14% higher energy density per unit volume. It weighs more and there are physically more molecules in it per gallon. So 35 mpg diesel is actually closer to 31 mpg in a direct comparison with gasoline mpg. The Union of Concerned Scientists recommends adjusting diesel mpg down by 20% when comparing to gasoline to mpg. And for emissions they recommend adjusting it down 25% when comparing to gasoline.

      Fuel consumption is actually the inverse of mpg. mpg is miles per gallon; fuel consumption is gallons per mile. This is why the rest of the world uses liters per 100 km to measure fuel efficiency. Since mpg is the inverse of what we're really interested in, the high end of mpg actually represents the smallest fuel savings. For a given commute, switching from a 15 mpg vehicle to a 25 mpg vehicle saves more fuel than switching from a 25 mpg vehicle to a 50 mpg vehicle. This is despite the first switch being an improvement of "only" 10 mpg, while the second switch is an improvement of 25 mpg. If you measure it in gallons per 100 miles, it becomes obvious:

      15 mpg = 6.67 gal per 100 mi
      25 mpg = 4 gal per 100 mi (improvement of 2.67 gal per 100 mi)

      25 mpg = 4 gal per 100 mi
      50 mpg = 2 gal per 100 mi (improvement of 2 gal per 100 mi)

      So sky-high mpg figures like 50 mpg or 100 mpg actually aren't that impressive in terms of fuel savings, the use of mpg exaggerates their benefit. Our research into more fuel-efficient vehicles really should be concentrating on improving the mileage of gas guzzlers like trucks and SUVs, not on developing super-efficient vehicles like the Prius.

    54. Re:Diesel by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      They still sound like a muffled tractor when idling though. It is a very distinct sound that doesn't really sound the way you "feel" a car should sound. Otherwise I agree. It is the sensible green choice, but not the "manly" choice ;)

    55. Re:Diesel by KillaBeave · · Score: 1

      The cost of building a compact truck is nearly the same as building a full size, so their prices wind up about the same. In the Ranger's case, the gas V6 gets WORSE mileage than the V6 F150 and is much less capable for nearly the same cost. The 4-banger Ranger does significantly better mileage wise, but those only get sold as stripper models to fleet customers. (I actually owned a '98 4cyl manual Ranger and loved it, but kids make a bigger vehicle necessary.) So the Ranger costs about the same as an F150, is smaller, less capable ... and if Ford were to keep building the Ranger, they'd have to keep another plant open to make it! Essentially, the profit margin on the F150 goes up if the revenue form those vehicles doesn't have to cover operating expenses for a Ranger plant. Google "chicken tax" to find our why they can't be imported. The only Ranger that makes sense, is a stripper 4cyl ... it's cheaper and gets better mileage, but there's almost no profit to be had selling them!

      Oil burners require a whole bunch of enviro-gadgets to make them pass US clean air standards on diesel, which are more stringent than the Europe's. That's why diesels aren't in 1/2 ton and smaller trucks in the states, too much cost and not enough benefit (just like they hybrids people aren't buying twice).

      If you like the Hilux, a Tacoma is what you want ... basically the same vehicle, you just can't get the diesel for the reason above.

    56. Re:Diesel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who use the word "petrol" also don't typically use miles, FYI.
      It really makes no sense to talk about mpg in terms of Imperial gallons.

    57. Re:Diesel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then metric unit sizes are often awkward for everyday use. Try building a shed or cut drywall using centimeters/millimeters vs feet and inches by memory. Metric units don't fit in the brains short term memory like imperial measurements do.

      As a European who has been using the metric system for over 30 years I have no idea what you are talking about. IMO the imperial system seems screwed up.
      I'm guessing it all depends with what you grew up and are accustomed to.

    58. Re:Diesel by johnpaul191 · · Score: 1

      In the Philadelphia PA (USA) region (burbs too) diesel is about 30 MORE per gallon than regular grade gasoline. I'm not sure if that is due to state fuel taxes or location or what.

    59. Re:Diesel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who use the word "petrol" often have a larger size gallon [wikipedia.org] than people who say "gas."

      We also know what a proper pint is.

    60. Re:Diesel by N1AK · · Score: 1

      It's ok. His brain has learnt a specific, outdated, measurement system and now he is extrapolating his limitation into a generic universal one. Personally as a child of the 80s in the UK I'd much rather use the decimal system for just about everything. Admittedly I'd have trouble converting to metric speeds and distances as they are still imperial and I've grown accustomed to them but give it a few years and it'd be fine.

    61. Re:Diesel by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's still not carbon-neutral, although it's closer. The production of the vehicle wasn't carbon-neutral, and there is input of acids etc made via industrial processes to produce the biodiesel. Presumably you're running synthetic crankcase lube (isn't that specified for your vehicle?) which is also made via industrial processes. So there's definitely carbon emissions involved. Heck, the power to mix the biodiesel...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    62. Re:Diesel by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Almost all PickUp owners I know with Diesels bought them for towing heavy loads.

      No shit; that's because they have huge-ass V8s and they aren't good for anything else.

      That is poppycock for two reasons. One, many of them have inline sixes, namely, if they say Dodge on the back. Two, they get better mileage than gasoline V6 trucks. Before I lifted it, with smooth tires, and on an old tired injection pump, I was getting 18 mpg on the freeway in my 7.3 liter (V8) 1992 F250 of 6600lb. With a 4" lift and mud tires (I live in bumfuck, the mud tires have come in handy several times already) I get maybe 15-16 MPG. This is still better than real-world mileage on a 4WD V6 Tacoma, which I found out when I drove down to Marin and picked up a used leather couch from someone who has one. So not only do they not all have V8s, but even the ones that do get far better mileage than you think. Not, granted, if you are sticking your foot in it all the time and making smoke come out of it, but most of us diesel owners would rather see our fuel turn into power than smoke.

      But that doesn't answer the question of "why won't the car manufacturers make a smaller efficient truck that is good for uses besides towing?"

      The Japanese manufacturers would love to sell us their small diesels. So would the Germans. However, we have stricter diesel emissions laws than the rest of the world. Some believe that this was done specifically to prevent small diesels from being viable. The filters and traps and whatnot that are used to improve diesel emissions are only cost-effective on very large vehicles with a high price tag, because otherwise the system can wind up being a ridiculous percentage of the sales price, let alone the cost of production. Automakers don't build these systems themselves, they purchase them from OEMs.

      Some believe that the particular emissions standards put into place were designed to prevent those small diesels from being sold here, but I'm not aware of any smoking gun in that case. If there is, I'd love to see it.

      In any case, some people swap diesel engines into other vehicles, but that's illegal in most cases. I don't know about federally, but in California you can't swap a truck engine into a car or a diesel into a non-diesel. I would love to try putting a VW TDI into a small Mercedes, say a 240D, but the engines are still prohibitively expensive. I'd love to put an OM617.951 engine from a 300SD into an F100 or similar, but I live in California so that would be illegal.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    63. Re:Diesel by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Oil burners require a whole bunch of enviro-gadgets to make them pass US clean air standards on diesel, which are more stringent than the Europe's. That's why diesels aren't in 1/2 ton and smaller trucks in the states, too much cost and not enough benefit (just like they hybrids people aren't buying twice).

      The europeans are starting to figure out how to make cost-effective emissions systems for small diesels so they're making noise about trying to sell some here in 2013. Unless we do something new to keep them out we might see a small truck with one by 2015. By which time, who knows how much crap I will have hauled in my 1992 3/4 ton diesel that STILL gets better mileage than most half-tons?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    64. Re:Diesel by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Polluting: less so than gasoline vehicles. more particulates, but those fall out of the air relatively quickly and aren't as harmful as some of the other chemicals that gasoline engines spew. (

      Gasoline makes more soot than previously believed, and we discussed it here on slashdot but I'm too lazy to find the link.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    65. Re:Diesel by Iniamyen · · Score: 1

      Almost all PickUp owners I know with Diesels bought them for towing heavy loads.

      Towing is most dependent on torque, which a small diesel engine has plenty of. A big gasoline V8 has plenty of power, but uses more fuel to get it. And their torque numbers are not impressive. A small diesel would be great for towing a small camper or boat, or hauling a small load in the bed, and wouldn't guzzle fuel like a gas V8.

    66. Re:Diesel by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I made no claim about the availability of Diesel in areas where gasoline isn't available either! This should hold true in urban, suburban, and rural areas.

      I actually remember on a family trip driving all over rural Pennsylvania for a few hours looking for diesel for my Dad's old Volvo 240. We finally happened upon a station just as he was about to buy some vegetable oil at a convenience store to limp along further (nice feature). But he started worrying at about 1/4 tank and we must've stopped at a dozen filling stations that were gas-only before rolling in on empty.

      Why a rural area didn't have diesel for tractors and such is something I can't understand in retrospect as an adult. Must've been they were closed on the weekend. I bet today with navigation systems we might have known about some additional filling stations that weren't on the main highway.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    67. Re:Diesel by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      In other words, the kind of truck I want not only exists, but is popular -- but car manufacturers refuse to sell it in the United States!

      Oh, you've got a government problem there. There are several models of vehicles sold abroad that I'd love to have an opportunity to use but the regulations to use them here are too onerous for the companies to be interested in anything but mass-market items. There are similarly onerous ways to get exceptions, but mostly not worth it.

      I don't care about parts either - I can get stuff from eBay from China and Japan faster than my garage can get parts from his dealer. The shipping really isn't that much either (to my pleasant surprise).

      The Dealer model is also somewhat obsolete too. In my area, there should be a vehicle dealer that sells most models of all-wheel-drive cars so people can easily compare them. The experts at fixing each type should be a separate business. That way, we could also have a dealer that specialized in interesting foreign imports - too small a business for most large dealers but still a viable business.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    68. Re:Diesel by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Or I mean like an indestructible Toyota Hilux [again with a Diesel], a la Top Gear

      I'd really like to have one of those for an insurance vehicle in case gas gets scarce!

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    69. Re:Diesel by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      Here in the UK, diesel tends to be about 5p per litre more than petrol; and all petrol stations sell diesel fuel.

    70. Re:Diesel by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      I like the sound of my hybrid while idling - i.e. no sound. Can't get greener than that.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    71. Re:Diesel by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you are only familiar with the really bad diesels that Oldsmobile made in the 80s. Those engines really did suck, but every non American manufacture knew how to build diesels at that time and they still do. Those engines are great, I just wish that BMW, MB, and Volvo would ship more diesels here to the US as they know how to make good ones.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    72. Re:Diesel by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Also we got better at getting more gasoline from thicker oil so the surplus of diesel and fuel oil went away thus making the refiners more profit.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    73. Re:Diesel by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I have never seen proprietary bolts and have worked on a number of VWs however they do like to use torx bolts. Its not like they are using Whitworth bolts or something most people haven't ever heard of or seen and can't find wrenches or sockets for. Beside why would you go to a mechanic that specializes in imports when a regular mechanic is fully capable of reading the same service manual, understanding it, and performing the work for much less.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    74. Re:Diesel by shiftless · · Score: 1

      In Afghanistan they have these bad ass four door Ford Rangers with short beds and 2.5L diesels. I think they're made in South Africa maybe? What I wouldn't give to have one.....

    75. Re:Diesel by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      By the way, don't all census areas have about a quarter million people? I feel like they're designed to have equal population, just like Congressional districts.

      Oh, good question - they do follow State boundaries so the number can't be always exactly balanced, but they might get rearranged from time to time. On the to-do list to check out sometime. :)

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    76. Re:Diesel by green1 · · Score: 1

      This is true, but when testing emissions the diesels consistantly have higher particulate emissions than gasoline, though generally lower in several other categories.
      Modern Diesel vehicles have no trouble whatsoever passing even the strictest vehicle emissions testing in the world.

    77. Re:Diesel by Stargoat · · Score: 1

      WHat? What is more manly than a diesel engine? Petrol is for women in their SUVs. Diesel is an asskicking fuel. It's what truckers use, and what is manlier than a trucker?

      --
      Hoist Number One and Number Six.
    78. Re:Diesel by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      I'd buy a diesel again in a heart beat. I get 40 miles to the gallon city in my Volkswagen Sportswagen. And diesel is 30 cents cheaper a gallon than petrol. Plus, the technology is robust. Diesel is definite the way to go if you want high gas mileage and low costs.

      Zero gallons of gas per mile is really good. :)

    79. Re:Diesel by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      That's because there aren't hardly ANY small pickup trucks for sale. Ford and Mazda are discontinuing the Ranger/B-series, leaving us with, um, the crappy GM Colorado/Canyon?

      Don't even try to convince me the Tacoma and Dakota are small trucks. Those things are as big or bigger than a mid 90s Ford F-150s. The Tacoma is bigger than last generation Tundras, F150s bigger than old F250s...it's a stupid trend that make me root for $8/gallon gasoline.

    80. Re:Diesel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Adjusting" the mpg is a very weird idea. In Europe, we just state the amount of CO2 generated per kilometer, in g/km (grams per kilometer, you can convert that to tablespoons per furlong or whatever, but the Units used don't matter at all, it's just a nice linear scale to compare emissions between vehicles)

    81. Re:Diesel by nblender · · Score: 1

      I'm also canadian, and also on my 3rd diesel. I don't know what part of canada you're in, but in my part (Calgary), it does get down below -30C and if my webasto doesn't come on for whatever reason, I'm not going anywhere. My neighbor with his 2010 Jetta TDI is also not going anywhere if he isn't parked in his garage.

      Not to mention that because Diesels are so damn efficient, unless you have a webasto, you're freezing your nuts off in stop/go traffic because the engine doesn't generate enough waste heat to bring the coolant up much above 0C..

      Don't get me wrong, I love my truck... But it's not for everyone yet.

    82. Re:Diesel by green1 · · Score: 1

      I too am in Calgary, Even at -30, run the glow plugs a couple of times and hold on the starter until it catches, My fiance's gas car, and my company gas work truck can't say the same. (I don't have a webasto, though I have considered it, and although I have a block heater, my trips are usually not planned far enough in advance to make use of it) A healthy diesel will give you some heat even in stop and go traffic, though not as much as a gas vehicle, make sure your thermostat and heater core are in good shape. I do however enjoy my heated seats on those days. On a side note, my father's Volkswagen TDI is also that reliable, and none of these vehicles have been garage parked (my last 2 would never fit)

      Of course I've never tried a north american made diesel in those temperatures, so it's likely that just like a lot of the engineering in them, it just isn't up to the german or japanese standards of the vehicles I have experience with. (Mercedes, Volkswagen, and Mitsubishi small diesels)

  3. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  4. Simple Solution: Rename the cars "iHybrid"... by dryriver · · Score: 1

    ...and thousands of Chinese boys will line up to sell their kidneys to get one.

    --
    Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
    1. Re:Simple Solution: Rename the cars "iHybrid"... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      yeah, well, the'll be back in an hour.

      (sorry.)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  5. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  6. expectations by amoeba1911 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It could be that people had unreasonable expectations from the hybrid to begin with, if you look at the advertising they promised a green car that doesn't use fuel and has flowers grow in its wake. In reality you ended up getting something that was marginally better fuel mileage than a compact car, but costs a lot more.

    I drive a prius, I am disappointed with the fact that they STILL use outdated nimh batteries instead of lithium. Afaik they also don't use any of these new awesome ultracapacitors, so what the hell are they doing? The industry's stagnation annoys me, and I doubt I am alone.

    1. Re:expectations by SJHillman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unreasonable expectations are most likely based on the fact you can't drive a hybrid like a traditional car and still expect to get more than minor gas savings. Even then, I mostly see hybrids advertised as 35-45mpg... not a significant improvement over traditional cars of similar size.

    2. Re:expectations by guru42101 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I get about what I expected from my wife's 2005 Hybrid Civic. Only negative really is the lifetime of the batteries. We lucked out that they failed just before the warranty ended. However, when I was looking for a new car I didn't get the hybrid as the long term cost of a Hybrid is higher and in the current market I've got to make some cuts somewhere. What I would like to see is 100% battery powered vehicles where refilling worked like propane tanks. I just stop by and they yank out the batteries and give me a fully charged set. If a battery goes bad they take care of it and the cost of replacing / recycling batteries is spread among the cost of everyone.

    3. Re:expectations by cpu6502 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >>>STILL use outdated nimh batteries instead of lithium

      Lithium-ion is explosive (see the various laptop and iPod videos). Putting that next to a gasoline-filled tank == unwise. Also NiMH is not environmentally-toxic so it is the greener choice versus lithium.

      And supercaps hold very little energy. Enough for a few seconds "takeoff" and that's it. Battery makes more sense since they can hold upto 5 minutes of full acceleration (not all at once of course).

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    4. Re:expectations by orzetto · · Score: 3, Informative

      They STILL use outdated nimh batteries instead of lithium.

      I am not sure whether it's only a cost issue, but NiMH has the big advantage of being easy to recharge. Li-ion is very sensitive about high currents, and while it has a higher capacity per kg it has a current limit during charging. If the battery is supposed only to be a buffer on a car the size of the Prius, the weight/size savings is likely not worth it. On a full-electric car, though, you do need to squeeze all the energy you can get in the smaller battery, so they use Li-ion for electric cars even if it makes them slow to charge.

      they also don't use any of these new awesome ultracapacitors, so what the hell are they doing?

      I guess they are doing their math. Ultracapacitors have lower energy density than batteries (NiMH too), have high self-discharge, variable voltage as they discharge (so you need variable converters: trust me, they are mean beasts). The only advantage is faster charge/discharge, but the energy would be depleted in a matter of seconds. Not a significant buffer I guess.

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    5. Re:expectations by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

      I drive a prius, I am disappointed with the fact that they STILL use outdated nimh batteries instead of lithium. Afaik they also don't use any of these new awesome ultracapacitors, so what the hell are they doing?

      Why do you care what battery type they use? You should be happy that battery replacement is not an issue because NiMH are well developed and understood.

      Ultracapacitors have no place in hybrid cars. They are low voltage just like battery cells, so you have to connect a lot of them in series to reach 150V or higher. They are low capacity compared to chemical cells, so they don't compete on cost. Some people think using both is good, but now you've go more components overall and then there's the issue that just connecting them in parallel with a battery doesn't actually do anything for you.

      An ultra-cap only solution could be nice if they had even higher capacity than today.

    6. Re:expectations by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Unreasonable expectations are most likely based on the fact you can't drive a hybrid like a traditional car and still expect to get more than minor gas savings. Even then, I mostly see hybrids advertised as 35-45mpg... not a significant improvement over traditional cars of similar size.

      Yup. Here you can get a 88 MPG diesel car which is every bit as good as the hybrids with most of the same compromises. If you want cleaner you'll want all-electric with a little emergency helper.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    7. Re:expectations by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

      Unreasonable expectations are most likely based on the fact you can't drive a hybrid like a traditional car and still expect to get more than minor gas savings. Even then, I mostly see hybrids advertised as 35-45mpg... not a significant improvement over traditional cars of similar size.

      Compare the city mileage, not the highway. Also, use actual numbers for actual vehicles you would consider buying.

    8. Re:expectations by Necroloth · · Score: 1

      and a fuel tank running low on fuel isn't as dangerous, if not more?

    9. Re:expectations by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      Yes of course it is. So why would you put a Lithium-Ion battery next to it, when you know said battery is prone to sudden discharges & throwing off sparks? (which would ignite the tank). Better to use a safe battery like NiMH.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    10. Re:expectations by frosty_tsm · · Score: 1

      I get about what I expected from my wife's 2005 Hybrid Civic. Only negative really is the lifetime of the batteries. We lucked out that they failed just before the warranty ended.

      All of the owners of high-mileage Prius's I've talked to haven't had to replace their batteries yet. Maybe you had bad luck or the Civic one is inferior?

    11. Re:expectations by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      In reality you ended up getting something that was marginally better fuel mileage than a compact car, but costs a lot more.

      I drive a prius, I am disappointed with the fact that they STILL use outdated nimh batteries instead of lithium.

      Those two statements are at odds with each other. Complain about cost OR the NiMH batteries, but not both. Lithium batteries cost about 6x as much as the equivalent capacity NiMH to put in a vehicle.

    12. Re:expectations by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      It could be that people had unreasonable expectations from the hybrid to begin with

      Sounds like you're one of them....just sayin...

      new awesome technology is never going to pop up in a $30k consumer product that has a 5 year design cycle and has to meet hundreds (thousands?) of international regulations and liability up the yin yang. It has to be proven first, maybe when you're in the market for a new car it'll be there.

    13. Re:expectations by guru42101 · · Score: 1

      This could be the case. But we have a moderately early Hybrid so we knew we were taking a risk. The newer ones have a longer warranty on the batteries I think. Part of the reason was I went to the store wanting to buy a used CR-V for myself, to replace the 94 Cavalier I'd driven for 15 years. But, my wife didn't want to ever have to drive it. So then we looked at a new Fit which was comparable price. But, it was red and why should I have the "pretty" car. So for a little more I bought a new Civic Sport cause I was tired of dealing with the hassle and wanted something I liked. I would have looked at the Hybrids more but one was white and the other was tan. My preference was gunmetal.

    14. Re:expectations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I am disappointed with the fact that they STILL use outdated nimh batteries instead of lithium

      If you knew anything about batteries you'd be glad they don't use lithium.

    15. Re:expectations by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I drive a prius, I am disappointed with the fact that they STILL use outdated nimh batteries instead of lithium. Afaik they also don't use any of these new awesome ultracapacitors, so what the hell are they doing? The industry's stagnation annoys me, and I doubt I am alone.

      Why? The Prius is a very good application for NiMH batteries. The battery acts more like a buffer than the power source, and the durability and longevity of NiMH means the battery pack should last more or less the lifetime of the rest of the car. Lithium would gain a slight MPG advantage by cutting down on the weight of the vehicle, but you'd have a more expensive battery pack that would need to be replaced at least once and possibly twice in the car's lifetime.

    16. Re:expectations by amoeba1911 · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid your information about ultracapacitors is not up to date, here's a 125 volt ultracapacitor

      They don't have the capacity of lithium batteries, but they have very high charge/discharge rates and low internal resistance. This combined with a lithium battery will allow regenerative breaking to buffer big chunk of energy before slowly charging the battery with it, and it can provide a nice boost during acceleration to help reduce the load on the battery.

    17. Re:expectations by Necroloth · · Score: 1

      you know automotive spec's ensure any discharge is carried out safely? Have you seen the control strategy for the battery management system? Anything that even hints at an error will cause contactors to open. But oh well... safety is nothing compared to scaremongering.

    18. Re:expectations by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>Have you seen the control strategy for the battery management system?

      It didn't work for the exploding Li-Ion laptops, did it?

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    19. Re:expectations by garyebickford · · Score: 1

      Lithium-ion is explosive (see the various laptop and iPod videos). Putting that next to a gasoline-filled tank == unwise. Also NiMH is not environmentally-toxic so it is the greener choice versus lithium.

      I'll disagree slightly on a couple of points.
          - Yes, the Li Ion batteries that have been used in laptops etc. have issues with overheating and exploding. However there are several other Li-based technologies such as Lithium Phosphate, Lithium Iron Phosphate and Lithium Titanate that do not have the fire risk. The LiPh and LiFePh batteries are heavier, charge and discharge slower, but don't catch fire - they are good for tasks that involve running for a long time, then slower charging (still faster than Lead-Acid IIRC). I just learned of the LiTi ones, which use a nano technology to get much better efficiency, charging speed and still supposedly also don't catch fire. The ones in laptops are making a tradeoff of cost and safety controls vs. speed and light weight, in order to keep laptop weight down and charging times shorter.
          - I think your attitude toward NiMH might change if you get a peek at pictures of the areas around the two big nickel mines and processing sites in the world, one in Canada and one in Russia. Reportedly in both cases nothing grows over an area of 100 square miles. Lithium mining appears to have some workplace hazards (again, that pesky fire thing) but is overall Li mining is considered to have among the least environmental impacts of all mining operations. Also, having just Googled a bit, I found that most people consider Li batteries less hazardous (when they go to landfills, etc.) than NiMH. Of course both are much better than lead-acid. The car makers seem to be stepping up - for example (it sez here) Toyota offers $200 bounty on returned battery packs.

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    20. Re:expectations by samwichse · · Score: 1

      Um, I guess that's why honda put these dangerous batteries in the 2012 Civic Hybrid.

      Oh, and the Nissan Leaf and Chevy Volt?

      Toyota is seriously behind the curve here. It's not that they're dangerous or something (and spare me the Chevy Volt fires stuff... wreck a gas powered car, puncture its tank, then leave it sitting upside down a couple weeks with the gas dribbling from the tank and the 12v battery connected and see what happens).

      Sam

    21. Re:expectations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll have to tell that to my dad who gets 40+ MPG driving 80MPH on the highway, on long distance drives no less (300 miles). Stop breaking common sense!

    22. Re:expectations by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      So... you're dad gets good gas mileage under the best circumstances to get good gas mileage?
      I can get around 34mpg on highway in my Sonata, which is a decent sized car. My 12 year old Cirrus can get even better on the highway with its V6.

    23. Re:expectations by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

      That's a "capacitor module" with "balancing" which means it's really a bunch of individual capacitors. Also, I said people think you can use both, but this is not the case. By connecting a capacitor in parallel with a battery you prevent the cap voltage from changing rapidly which it needs to do in order to provide that short-term high power. ( E = 1/2 * C * V * V ). No voltage change means no energy change. This battery/cap combination is a myth.

  7. Diesel: The Way Forward by Tyler+Eaves · · Score: 3, Informative

    Get ride of all the complexity caused by the hybrids (battery packs, motors, etc).

    Clean diesel is here today.

    I drive a VW Golf TDI - It's not slow by any means (140hp, a bit below average for a hatchback, but 240ib/ft of torque, over a wide rev range, so it's very driveable, great passing power, etc), has great handling (no skinny fuel miser tires that ruin the driving experience), and gets great mileage. (30/42 EPA, but those are quite conservative. I get typically 33-35 around town, at 60mph constant speed I'm at 51-53mpg depending on how smooth the road is, dropping down to about 45 at 70, and 41 at 78-80).

    It also only costs about $25k, with plenty of standard equipment.

    --
    TODO: Something witty here...
    1. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      Why do diesel fans always assume it's TDI versus Hybrid? Here's a thought experiment for you:

      - 60MPG Polo TDI with 15 second 0-to-60 acceleration.
      - 60MPG Polo TDI with Hybrid motor == 9 second 0-to-60 acceleration

      I would choose the second over the first, because it has the same economy but much better acceleration.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    2. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by burne · · Score: 1

      It also only costs about $25k, with plenty of standard equipment.

      And I was thinking my $1k folding bike was expensive.

      (My daily commute consists of a mile on said bike, 40 miles in a 100-mph train and 2 miles on the same bike. You can beat that, once. After one go you'll find your license revoked and your car impounded.)

    3. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by Tyler+Eaves · · Score: 1

      Congrats, you live in a country with functional public transit. The US isn't.

      --
      TODO: Something witty here...
    4. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by Tyler+Eaves · · Score: 2

      Sure, that makes sense. But personally, I don't want a frickin' battery pack in my car. Don't want the weight, don't want the replacement issues, don't want the safety issues.

      --
      TODO: Something witty here...
    5. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by OliWarner · · Score: 1

      Polo drivers don't care about 0-60. If they did they'd buy a Golf.

    6. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      And how much does the bike cost you if you get hit by a car? (As happened with my dad, my uncle, my coworker, and one of my dad's friends.) Then you're spending close to $100,000 on broken bone repair, rehabilitation, and will likely walk with a limp the rest of your life. I'd rather have my body surrounded by the $20K of solid metal.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    7. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by ubergamer1337 · · Score: 1

      Well, I have a hybrid (Honda CR-Z), it has 136HP, 138lb/ft torque in a smaller package, so similar driving experience to your Golf. It also has handling modeled on a BMW M6 (the lead designer's personal ride), with sport sized tires, tuned suspension, etc. My average over 26,000 miles is 43mpg.

      It was $19,000, also nicely equipped. The only large difference is the CR-Z lacks a second row, but my Fiancee arn't planning any kids in the near future, and her car's a 5 seater, so its no big deal for me.

      The amusing thing is we both have fun-to-drive, reliable, economical cars, but they're unpopular because of myths and long-held-beliefs about their powertrains and small cars in general.

    8. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how much does the bike cost you if you get hit by a car?

      If you get hit by a car your medical costs are zero. How do I know that? Well, I when I was hit by a car, I paid no medical costs what so ever. Those were paid 100% by the driver's liability insurance. On top of that anything that got damaged, helmet for instance, or any other expenses I incurred (My bicycle got towed to an impound lot. Yea I found it funny too.) were also covered by the other persons insurance. On top of that I got extra money to over pain and suffering, and lost wages (I'm paid off a salary go I didn't lose any actual money but got compensated none the less).

      Of course Grand Parent post is clearly a pussy for needed an electric bike for a 3 mile commute.

    9. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by PRMan · · Score: 1

      And how long does the total trip take? In Southern California, I go 18 miles to work in 20 minutes (the ride home is usually 30-40). Time IS money, you know.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    10. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      friend of a friend got killed while on a bike, during a commute. bikes and cars are a DANGEROUS mixture. if you are commuting, people are tired and not yet up in the AM; and again, tired (and often grouchy) in the PM commute.

      the weight ratios suck if you are on the bike.

      bikes in the US are a risk-your-life thing if you rely on that for a commute anywhere near traffic.

      again, its not the bike rider but all the mindless car drivers around you!

      I could not recommend a bike commute to anyone. sorry for being anti-green but its just not safe..

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    11. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by mcsqueak · · Score: 1

      And how much does the bike cost you if you get hit by a car? (As happened with my dad, my uncle, my coworker, and one of my dad's friends.) Then you're spending close to $100,000 on broken bone repair, rehabilitation, and will likely walk with a limp the rest of your life. I'd rather have my body surrounded by the $20K of solid metal.

      Yes, because no one is ever killed while driving. The NHTSA lists 30,797 people died in automobile accidents in 2009. Source: http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

      It also shows that 630 "pedalcyclists" and 4,092 pedestrians died.

      Of course, proportionally more people drive, and the amount of time spent driving vs. other transportation activities is significantly higher.

      If we're bringing out personal anecdotes however, I've been in one roll-over car crash, and zero crashes on the bike. So I in my reality, cycling is no more dangerous than driving.

      I'd estimate that last year I spent ~50 minutes per day in my car 5x a week commuting, with an unknown quantity on weekends/evenings/non-work trips.

      That works out to 208 hours of driving strictly for work, covering somewhere around 5,000 city miles. I'd estimate I have probably a little over twice that amount in actual usage, as my annual driving is almost 12,000 miles.

      However, I *do* know that I spent 164 hours last year cycling a total of 2,168 miles, as my GPS + Strava software tracks everything.

      And you can't predict an accident. I might cycle for 20 years with no issues and get into another serious car wreck tomorrow. Besides, I'd rather spend my time cycling if I can rather than driving... much more fun.

    12. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it says a lot that the "lead designer's personal ride" is an M6. Honda guy--the head guy on the project--won't drive a Honda. That's Honda these days. I'd rather drive a ragged out CRX si down a cylinder than a CR-Z.

    13. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      Clean diesel is here today.

      Is that by the same people who claim clean coal?

      You could route the exhaust of a PZEV/ULEV vehicle into the passenger compartment and the passengers wouldn't really notice, other than the heat and condensation on the windows. But "clean" Diesel would leave soot all over the inside, and would likely generate smell complaints as well. I haven't looked at them recently. Do they still curve the tailpipe down at the end? Do you know why they started it? It's because of the soot inherent in them.

    14. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      I find it funny to hear all the people driving gasoline cars around complaining about the safety issues of batteries.

    15. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by Tyler+Eaves · · Score: 1

      No. The new TDI's don't smoke at all. It passes CA emissions...hard to get much more stringent than that. Zero smoke, even if applying full WOT immediately after starting.

      --
      TODO: Something witty here...
    16. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "(My daily commute consists of a mile on said bike, 40 miles in a 100-mph train and 2 miles on the same bike. You can beat that, once. After one go you'll find your license revoked and your car impounded.)"

      And you still can't get laid.

      So what is your point ?

    17. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      What's a Polo again?

    18. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Much much higher particulate emissions than gasoline is still true. I noted you didn't answer whether the tailpipes are still pointed down.

    19. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by Tyler+Eaves · · Score: 2

      I answered it with the first word of my comment.

      Look, this info is available from the EPA.

      Golf TDI: http://ofmpub.epa.gov/greenvehicles/Detailsresult.do?vehicle_ID=148072
      Prius: http://ofmpub.epa.gov/greenvehicles/Detailsresult.do?vehicle_ID=148099
      Toyota Corolla: http://ofmpub.epa.gov/greenvehicles/Detailsresult.do?vehicle_ID=148072

      So, the Golf has emissions roughly 50% than the Prius, and identical smog particulates to the Corolla (while producing marginally less greenhouse gas), while getting much better mileage.

      Doesn't exactly sound like I'm killing the air.

      --
      TODO: Something witty here...
    20. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by Tyler+Eaves · · Score: 1

      And here's photographic proof, if you still doubt me:

      http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m240/jlock92/DSC_0006.jpg

      --
      TODO: Something witty here...
    21. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on the hybrid design, but diesel/electric makes good sense on all kinds of levels. Electic=max torque from zero rpm. Diesel torque saves you in the high end.

    22. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      The Golf is better than the CR-Z

      It's kind of too bad, too: I was really looking forward to the CR-Z before it came out, as I was hoping for the sportiness of the CRX combined with the efficiency of the (first-generation, 2-door aluminum body) Insight. Instead, Honda fucked it up by only managing to deliver a car with the sportiness of the Insight combined with the efficiency of the CRX!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    23. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by damnbunni · · Score: 1

      VW build a diesel hybrid Golf prototype. Had amazing milage. Decent performance.

      They decided not to build it for production because they figured no one would buy a $40,000 Golf.

      As it is, the diesel Golf costs enough more than the gas Golf in the US that I can't see why anyone buys one, especially when diesel costs more than gasoline - the increased milage isn't enough to make up the difference.

    24. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      You can hold a white handkerchief over the tailpipe of a "Clean Diesel" TDI and it'll still be white afterwards. The diesel particulate filter really does trap all the soot.

      (My older TDI, on the other hand, smokes like a train on heavy acceleration if I'm not using biodiesel!)

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    25. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? Cars only blow up in the movies. With the notable exception of impact trauma, gasoline cars are quite safe.

    26. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a mint with a hole.

    27. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by toddestan · · Score: 2

      And diesel cars are even safer.

    28. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only it was also really 'clean', which unfortunately, it isn't.

    29. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Why do diesel fans always assume it's TDI versus Hybrid?

      Because that's the choices we have today in American car market. VW is working on changing that, but the promised hybrid Jetta is not on sale yet.

    30. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      VW build a diesel hybrid Golf prototype. Had amazing milage. Decent performance. They decided not to build it for production because they figured no one would buy a $40,000 Golf.

      Well, apparently they've changed their mind.

    31. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by green1 · · Score: 1

      And I personally don't want a frickin' internal combustion engine in my car. Don't want the weight, don't want the maintenance issues, don't want the safety issues.

      There's no excuse in the world why half the cars on the road today couldn't be replaced with electric cars if someone would just offer us some.

    32. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard from a longtime business partner of Honda that Honda actually encourages its engineers to drive other companies' cars. You know, study your competition and everything. Toyota apparently has the opposite policy.

      In general, I find nothing wrong with Honda's approach. I always thought Bill and Melinda Gates were being rather closed-minded when they refused to let their kids use iDevices. Same here.

      Now, you may argue that the practice must be bad because it has not resulted in better Honda cars. You might have a point there....

    33. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by cbope · · Score: 2

      That's because unlike in the movies, gasoline powered cars do not spontaneously burst into flames at the slightest bump. Batteries on the other hand, can suffer an internal short-circuit in a crash, and the resulting heat due to runaway current inside the pack can create a dangerous condition even hours after a crash.

    34. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      have you ever driven around bike riders? In Washington DC there's plenty that blaze past red lights / stop signs without stopping, don't use the correct turning signals, ride in the middle of traffic (not the side lanes) even when they're not turning left.

      It's unfair to put everything on drivers, because bikers can be idiots too.

    35. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not taking into account the increased problems you'll get with a diesel hybrid - Diesels have to run HOT to be efficient - If you do short town journeys in a diesel, it will have terrible mpg and clog up with soot in the EGR, DPF etc.

      Petrol engines are well suited for hybrids as they waste lots of heat and so heat up quickly, and burn cleaner so short runs won't damage them as much, plus they don't mind being turned on and off repeatedly as much as diesels.

      Diesels generate much less waste heat (Which is why they've had variable turbo chargers for years but it's only been a relatively recent addition to petrols as petrol exhausts just melt them) and will take absolutely ages to warm up, longer if run unloaded; Certainly the short bursts it would be on in a hybrid in a city would not do good things for it! Plus they are much heavier to start which will put greater strain on the starter/motor-generator that cranks them.
      Everyone I know with a stop-start capable diesel has had problems with the starter and/or battery due to the repeated huge amp-draw require to start a diesel engine!

    36. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by Alioth · · Score: 1

      In civilized countries, the medical care is free.

      The vast, vast majority of cyclists who go their whole lives without sustaining serious bicycle-related injury don't have to suffer through the health problems that a sedentary, car driving lifestyle results in.

    37. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by tepples · · Score: 1

      In Washington DC there's plenty that blaze past red lights / stop signs without stopping

      So what should I do if I'm stopped at a red light but find that my bike isn't tripping the sensor to request a green light?

    38. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Those gasoline particulate estimates are done using an outdated model which does not accurately report the volume of soot they produce, either. The actual soot emissions for the gassers is higher, but nobody knows how much higher since it almost certainly varies greatly from system to system.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    39. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I was really looking forward to the CR-Z before it came out, as I was hoping for the sportiness of the CRX combined with the efficiency of the (first-generation, 2-door aluminum body) Insight.

      It's called the CRX HF.

      I always thought an HF with a lowish pressure turbo (say 10 psi) would be a nice ride. Just enough power to get around, with a turbo. And it would still get good cruising mileage. It's not quite aerodynamic enough to be worth it. I'd use a 240SX fastback and put in some micro motor but the chassis is too heavy, which brings us back to the CRX. Maybe an Alfa Spider, but I'm 6'7"...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    40. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by Tyler+Eaves · · Score: 1

      Well, it's a lot more complicated than that, because the base TDI is MUCH better optioned than the gas Golf.

      For instance, over a the base gas Golf, the TDI includes:

      17" alloy wheels (vs 15" steel)
      Upgraded stereo (touchscreen, bluetooth, satelite radio, cd changer)
      Center armrest
      Heated seats
      Nicer interior
      Multifunction in-dash display, including phone dialing
      Upgraded suspension (same suspension as the GTI) and tires
      Leather steering wheel and shifter

      A lot of that is not even available on the gas Golf, and those that are will push the price up by about 3 grand when optioned. The actual price premium for the engine is about $1500, which at current gas prices wouldn't take long to recoup if you drive even 1000 miles a month.

      --
      TODO: Something witty here...
    41. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, they changed the model - that's a Jetta, not a Golf. Still intriguing, though.

      - T

    42. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by damnbunni · · Score: 1

      That's a gas hybrid, not diesel.

      And really, that's not that great. The diesel Jetta gets 42 MPG. I sincerely hope the hybrid gets much better city-cycle milage.

    43. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by damnbunni · · Score: 1

      At current gas prices, it would take 79,000 miles to recoup the $1500 for the diesel powertrain, assuming you drive highway miles. (1000 miles at 33 MPG gas at $3.79 = $114, 1000 miles at 42 MPG diesel at $4.00 = $95, difference of $19 per thousand miles. These aren't average national prices; they're the price where I am, at the moment.)

      Granted, 79K miles is easily within the lifetime of the car, but that'll take the average person quite a long time.

      And the extra crapola loaded into the diesel is one reason I don't have one. VW's 'premium' stereo is much more of a pain in the butt to use than the base model and except for the improved suspension, there's none of that stuff I'd actually -want-, but there's no way to get the diesel without it. So it's not really fair to say the diesel only adds $1500; I can't get the diesel without all that other extra stuff, so I might as well consider it part of the diesel engine cost.

    44. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>In civilized countries, the medical care is free.

      No it isn't. Doctors and nurses don't get paid $0.00/hour which means they are charging the government, and the government is charging you (direct taxation of your income).

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    45. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Hybrids won't get better highway mileage - Toyota claims 48 mpg for Prius, which is what people are realistically getting out of diesel Jettas (VW's published numbers are lower, for whatever reason). Which kinda makes sense, because a hybrid really doesn't give you any advantages there - regenerative braking goes mostly unused, and outside of that it's pretty much just dead weight - unless, perhaps, you drive in a hill country. I actually suspect that Prius high figure for highway is largely due to its aerodynamic shape, variable transmission etc - no thanks to hybrid tech.

      Where hybrids make sense is in city driving. But, as most of us do live in cities, it makes sense in general.

    46. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      friend of a friend got killed while on a bike, during a commute. bikes and cars are a DANGEROUS mixture. if you are commuting, people are tired and not yet up in the AM; and again, tired (and often grouchy) in the PM commute.

      the weight ratios suck if you are on the bike.

      bikes in the US are a risk-your-life thing if you rely on that for a commute anywhere near traffic.

      again, its not the bike rider but all the mindless car drivers around you!

      I could not recommend a bike commute to anyone. sorry for being anti-green but its just not safe..

      I will second this. I rode a bike for about 3 months. I crashed 4 times in that span, once onto train tracks. That last one, the train tracks, was what made me hang it up. You're right, it's the drivers. They don't look, don't see you, and generally disrespect you.

      Now that I'm a driver again, I hate cyclists. They get in the way and yet are tiny compared to other things you need to watch for. They weave in and out and maneuver in unpredictable ways and do not obey traffic laws. I try to be careful and courteous, as I know how it can be to be a cyclist in a city. And obviously I don't want anyone to get hurt. But I still think those folks are taking their life in their hands.

      It's just dangerous having two types of vehicles, with such a discrepancy in speed, power and injury potential, traveling so close together. At least on my motorcycle I can travel at the same speed and in traffic with cars.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    47. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by burne · · Score: 1

      I probably won't get hit by a car. Most of the route I cycle has a dedicated bike-'road', separated from the cars by a curb and two feet of grass. Half of it has trees as additional reminders for stubborn drivers. The rest is a dedicated bikelane. Lines, markings, red asphalt and nice fines for drivers who ignore the markings (120 or 220 euro ($157 or $288) depending on the situation). See http://g.co/maps/cq3ab

      Should I irritate you further with stories about EURO NCAP 5-star rated cars (where pedestrian/cyclist safety is a significant factor) and Dutch healthcare?

      (I've been hit by cars five times. Bruises and bent bikeparts is the worst, sofar.)

    48. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by burne · · Score: 1

      > And how long does the total trip take?

      There is sufficient information in my post to answer that question. The only thing lacking is that the train makes 4 stops on the way and each stop is a 3 minute delay, including stopping and accelerating.

    49. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by burne · · Score: 1

      > Of course Grand Parent post is clearly a pussy for needed an electric bike for a 3 mile commute.

      How did you get from 'folding' to 'electric'? Found you a snazzy video with irritating music: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXTVBu4JL9o

    50. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes yes, TANSTAAFL. Meanwhile, everyone but you understood exactly what GP was saying.

    51. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by burne · · Score: 1

      > friend of a friend got killed while on a bike

      I've lost a number of friends, collegues and aquaintices who were driving cars. It not like a car is a cloak of invulnerability.

      About the worst place to spend your commute is in a car driven by a 18-25 year old male who's had a license for 1-2 years. Even a Hayabusa isn't as dangerous.

    52. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by Golddess · · Score: 1

      Wait, are you seriously implying that the only two options available to you are 1) blow through the intersection without stopping, praying to $deity that cross-traffic notices you in time to screech to a halt, or 2) stop and do nothing because the light will never change? AC isn't saying wait until you get a green, they are simply say to STOP AND LOOK before blindly blowing through a red light!

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    53. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by jafac · · Score: 1

      No; the newer (post-2007-ish?) TDI has a particulate trap, so particulate emissions are low. NOx is lower, SOx lower with ULSD fuel. Newer diesels are very clean. Unfortunately, Biodiesel voids the VW warranty. Which you WILL need, by the way.

      Take my advice: DO NOT PURCHASE A VW MANUFACTURED IN MEXICO. There is a sticker inside the door-panel that declares the country of origin. VW sourced their parts differently, and Mexican VW's fall the fuck apart. (NOTHING against Mexican workers!) - And their US dealer service network is full of complete fucking incompetent morons who have no fucking clue what they're doing. Their approach to solving problems is to throw parts at it until it's fixed. (maybe they can't read the German service manuals, I don't know. The manual I have in my garage is in English, and is just fine. I don't trust my car to those fuckers anymore.)

      Other than that, they're great fucking cars. :)

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    54. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by jafac · · Score: 1

      Sure: nobody will buy a $40,000 Golf, but it will make a GREAT fleet-car for businessmen.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    55. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I'd probably lean towards turbocharging a 1st-gen Insight, but same difference.

      It still doesn't excuse Honda for making the CR-Z so disappointing, though!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    56. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, don't forget to knock off ~15% in your efficiency comparisons to account for diesel's higher energy density, so you're really getting about 29mpg gasoline-equivalent around town, or 45mpg doing 60. Still pretty good, but not quite as impressive as it initially sounds. As for being "clean" I'll grant you the advance over the last few decades have made diesel about as clean as gasoline in a modern engine - there's a reason they're so popular in Europe, not to mention that the emissions of even a smoke-belching "traditional" diesel engine are less environmentally-damaging than the emissions of a gasoline engine.

      As for complexity... the current "parallel hybrid" technology is just stupid, no argument. But the series-hybrid and "range extended" electrics are beginning to improve matters. You're replacing the large, complicated engine and transmission of a traditional car with an electric motor which has *far* fewer moving parts, and the fuel tank and pump with batteries. Granted you're putting a lot of those parts back in with the generator, but you've gone from a high-power, variable speed and torque engine to a moderate power, constant speed and torque generator. It's a sorry engineer that can't figure out how to improve efficiency and reliability with that advantage.

      All that said though I favor the electric-drive for one reason - we *have* to get off oil for both geopolitical and environmental reasons, and by decoupling power generation and consumption electric-drive vehicles open the door to a lot of different options and create a market for niche-players to start exploring solutions.

    57. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by Tyler+Eaves · · Score: 1

      A 100 mph train making a stop every 8-10 miles isn't hitting 100mph.

      --
      TODO: Something witty here...
    58. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      What city are you in? Portland OR has numerous bike only lanes. Lots of bike commuters here.

    59. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      Yeah! And in addition, how much does the bike cost if you ride it into an open manhole cover? Or if you ride it into a wall? Or off the edge of a cliff? Or get struck by lightning?

      You have to take *all* of these into account when riding a bike. By comparison, when driving a car, there are *never* any other costs associated with operating it, and zero risks as well.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    60. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Here's my problem with the TDI argument. You have a 140 hp car (240ft/lb torque) that gets 30/42 EPA. My 264 hp car (280ft/lb torque) gets roughly 5 mpg less than that (city driving...I never get to test the highway miles). Considering premium unleaded and Diesel are about the same price here in TX, saving 5 mpg over each fill-up would change my gas bill from $45 a tank to $41 a tank. Whoopty friggin' do. I fill up a couple of times a month so saving 8-12 bucks a month is nothing to get excited about.

    61. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Usually you wouldn't want the weight because of performance issues, but if it outperforms the TDI version...what's the problem again?

    62. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Because people in cars are never killed by people in other cars that run into them?

    63. Re:Diesel: The Way Forward by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      If you ever have to try and convince somebody that a Golf is better than a CR-Z, we live in a sad, sad, world. Even more sad is somebody actually believes his CR-Z has the handling modeled on a BMW M6 (um, not BMWs greatest handling machine, as a side note).

      To CR-Z guy...your car is unpopular because it's a lousy car, as judged by most people in the automotive journalism field. It has nothing to do about hybrid backlash or small car bias. It's just not a very good car.

  8. I would. by cpu6502 · · Score: 2

    My Honda Insight has served me beautifully, with almost 90 MPG lifetime average (I drive a slow 50mph). And it wasn't any more expensive than a regular car. My only disappointment is the lack of diesel hybrids. Many of them come with small 75hp engines, so they could use the extra 15hp that a Honda-style motor provides.

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    1. Re:I would. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (I drive a slow 50mph).

      You would get killed on the highways around here.

    2. Re:I would. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      90 mpg? thats twice what the EPA claims for the current one (and for the old one they claimed around 60)!

    3. Re:I would. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      My Honda Insight has served me beautifully, with almost 90 MPG lifetime average (I drive a slow 50mph).

      So YOU'RE the guy that the truckers are having to pass. Thanks for fucking up the traffic patterns for the rest of us.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:I would. by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      The highway's 8 lanes wide. I'm not slowing traffic by going 50-55 mph. Besides it's fun..... like a videogame (how high a MPG score can I get today?).

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    5. Re:I would. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where in Maryland is there a highway with 8 lanes all traveling in the same direction? Because from the context of your post, you are clearly implying that there are 7 other lanes where drivers can pass you.

    6. Re:I would. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Didn't you say you are in Maryland? I can't imagine driving 50mph on Maryland highways, hopefully you stay off all the highways as they are all 55+

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    7. Re:I would. by puslik · · Score: 1

      I find such numbers very hard to believe - http://www.fuelly.com/car/honda/insight/2010

  9. Erm... by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 5, Funny

    'It's hard to know what's causing the low repurchase rate.

    You could try, oh, maybe, *asking* them why not?

    1. Re:Erm... by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      This comes up at sociology conferences now and then, in the culture clash between quantitative, qualitative, and hybrid-methodology folks. The pure-quantitative folks drive the others nuts, because if they can't answer a question out of whatever random data set they have available, it's like, huh, I guess we have no way of knowing why this is! Wouldn't want to have to leave the lab...

    2. Re:Erm... by j-beda · · Score: 2

      'It's hard to know what's causing the low repurchase rate.

      You could try, oh, maybe, *asking* them why not?

      That would make sense.

      It might not actually get at the real reason as it is clear that people often say one thing when they believe another thing, or even think they made a decision for one reason when in actual fact the decision was based on something else less consciously felt. The social sciences are hard to do well.

    3. Re:Erm... by oreaq · · Score: 1

      Exactly. One of the main reason for buying a Prius seems to be conspicuous conservation

      .

    4. Re:Erm... by j-beda · · Score: 1

      Exactly. One of the main reason for buying a Prius seems to be conspicuous conservation

      .

      Good point.

      Seems like that might be a better form of consumerism from a societal point of view than one based on other symbols of status. Maybe we should encourage it?

    5. Re:Erm... by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Oh, I grant that point, but it's still better than sitting in a lab staring at the wall.

  10. The economic crisis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The economic crisis forces many people to choose between buying either a non-hybrid car or buying no car.
    Even if a hybrid is cheaper in the long run, if you don't have the money then you can't buy one.

    1. Re:The economic crisis by garyebickford · · Score: 1

      After my Subaru Outback got wrecked, I had a rental for a month. For about three weeks it was a Prius. I kinda liked it. I averaged 46 MPG without changing my driving style. So I looked into getting a used one. There were none in my area (New England) for anything like a reasonable price. I ended up getting another Outback (I carry a lot of boat parts and other stuff, so I need some cargo space, and I like AWD in hypothetically snowy New England). I only get about 25 MPG but hey.

      I've been told an interesting secret - pull the fuse for the front drive part of the AWD system, and you'll get about 2-3 MPG better. But that's a bit too far off the reservation for me these days (long past the days of rebuilding my VW engine for the fourth time). I'd have to find out about how the wear and tear is affected.

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
  11. Re:Sampling bias? by eln · · Score: 2

    To some degree, but the first prius went on sale in the US in 2001, which was 11 years ago. Lots of people replace their cars far more often than every 11 years.

  12. "Clean diesel is here to stay" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, that's what people were saying when they sold all those crappy cars back in the 1990s. About the only true thing that was said about "clean diesels" is that they would last forever. Now I get to deal with increased cancer risk due to particulate emissions every time I get behind one on my bike.

    Diesels are just another shitty way to burn carbon while feeling all hip and trendy about it. Ultimately you cannot sell a clean diesel in the US. Our government will never enforce the necessary fuel standards, and even if they did, diesel drivers will continue to leave their 25-year-old urea canisters in place, because hey, after all, it's not their problem.

    1. Re:"Clean diesel is here to stay" by Tyler+Eaves · · Score: 1

      That's patently false. The current Volkswagen TDI's for instance, are 50 state legal (including CA), and don't require urea. The move to Ultra Low Sulfur fuel as a requirement in 2010 did a LOT to take care of the emissions.

      --
      TODO: Something witty here...
    2. Re:"Clean diesel is here to stay" by Dahan · · Score: 1

      The current Volkswagen TDI's for instance, are 50 state legal (including CA), and don't require urea.

      Low sulfur is nice, but that doesn't affect NOx, which is what the urea is intended to take care of. According to VW, the 2012 Passat TDI models "use a special catalyst and urea-injection system that reduces NOx emissions by up to 95 percent. Filled by a 4.9 gallon tank located inside the trunk, the injection system delivers a range of approximately 15,500 miles."

      So as you can see, current TDIs do require urea, and the tank will need to be refilled multiple times over the life of the car.

    3. Re:"Clean diesel is here to stay" by Tyler+Eaves · · Score: 1

      The Passat does, the Golf and Jetta do not.

      --
      TODO: Something witty here...
    4. Re:"Clean diesel is here to stay" by Dahan · · Score: 1

      The Passat does, the Golf and Jetta do not.

      Is the 2012 Passat not one of "The current Volkswagen TDI's"?

  13. What? by Jethro · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If you factor out Prius owners? The most popular brand of hybrid? The one bought by people who like hybrids? Yeah I suppose if you don't count the people who like hybrids, then only 35% of the rest still like hybrids?...

    I'm on my second hybrid. Neither has been a Prius. The next one might be. I'd love an all-electric but I'm still waiting for a practical one. Maybe if they start selling the volt up here.

    --


    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    1. Re:What? by Chuckstar · · Score: 1

      Volt is not all electric. It's a plug-in hybrid. Chevy just does a good job of avoiding that term. Starting this year, Toyota now markets a plug-in hybrid version of the Prius. They have decided to go the simple route and just call it that.

      Plug-in hybrid is a hybrid with a larger battery that can be charged from the wall and provides some medium-length range (20-40 miles usually) without having to turn on the gas engine.

    2. Re:What? by Jethro · · Score: 1

      I know it's not. But like I said, there aren't any decent all-electrics yet, so I'm willing to consider a volt as a stop-gap until those (hopefully) show up.

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    3. Re:What? by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      If you factor out Prius owners? The most popular brand of hybrid? The one bought by people who like hybrids? Yeah I suppose if you don't count the people who like hybrids, then only 35% of the rest still like hybrids?...

      Did you even read the summary?

      Only 35% of hybrid vehicle owners chose to purchase a hybrid again when they returned to the market in 2011, according to auto information company R.L. Polk & Co. If you factor out the super-loyal Toyota Prius buyers, the repurchase rate drops to under 25%.

      The 35% INCLUDES Prius owners. Take out the Prius owners and the repurchase rate drops to 25%

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    4. Re:What? by Jethro · · Score: 1

      Ugh, 5 hours of sleep over the past 4 days doesn't help reading comprehension...

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    5. Re:What? by theedgeofoblivious · · Score: 2

      So if the Prius has customer satisfaction so much higher that it takes overall hybrid loyalty from 25% to 35% that must mean that well over 35% of Prius drivers would buy another Prius.

      It seems that this article's misstating its own claims. Instead of saying "Most hybrid owners don't want another hybrid" it seems like it should be saying "The Prius seems to be a lot better than other hybrids(according to the people who own them)."

    6. Re:What? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It's not a plug-in hybrid according to Chevy. Why? Because "hybrids" have the ability to move the car with the gasoline engine, and the Volt does not. It's an all-electric vehicle with an onboard generator. That is a different design than any other hybrid, and you could drive it as a pure EV if you never filled the generator up, while that would/could cause problems with hybrids.

    7. Re:What? by Chuckstar · · Score: 1

      You are incorrect. The Volt is a very traditional parallel-series hybrid. Same basic drive train set-up as a Prius. It just has a big battery and a charging port. I guess Chevy's "ignore the fact it's a hybrid" campaign worked on you.

    8. Re:What? by Jethro · · Score: 1

      There was a story going around a while back that claimed the Chevy Volt used the gasoline engine to drive the wheels, and a lot of people were very upset about this. This was later debunked. I'm afraid I'm way too sleep deprived to look up references but I'm fairy sure you can google that up. It /is/ an electric car with a generator. I personally still call that a hybrid, and am still looking forward to the day I can get a practical car that uses no gasoline.

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    9. Re:What? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Chevy touts it as a series hybrid, using the alternative names, Range-extended Electric Vehicle and such. But it is as you say, it's a clutch-separable parallel-series hybrid designed to rarely run in parallel mode. I wouldn't know what they do, as it's not something I'd buy. Buying an EV from GM is like buying a yamaka from Hitler. The *only* hybrid I'd even consider is the Prius, but I instead ride a motorbike, with running costs less than half the Prius (nearing 1/10th the Prius for combined running costs). In fact, it's cheaper for me to buy a new motorcycle every year than own and use a Prius for my commute. So yes, I learn most of my information about EVs from propaganda. EVs are just not quite ready for prime time, the Prius being closer than all the others.

    10. Re:What? by Chuckstar · · Score: 1

      GM claims that the Volt has no direct mechanical linkage. Notice the use of the term "direct". They do not claim "no mechanical linkage". Their pedantry here is widely thought to be nonsense.

      This is what the Volt does sometimes: gas engine connected to a generator, generates electricity, sends electricity to the electric motor, electric motor drives the wheels.

      This is what the Volt does when batteries are lowest: gas engine is connected to both the generator and the planetary gear. The plantary gear cannot be locked into a gas-only mode, so the primary electric motor has to contribute some power to keep the gears spinning the right direction. However, under this scenario most of the power delivered to the wheels represents mechanical power transmitted through mechanical linkages from the gasoline engine.

      Even thought GM somehow makes the claim that this means the car is EV, it is not meaningfully different than the way any other current hybrid automobile is set up. The only significant difference is the batteries, which are capable of providing enough energy for higher speeds and longer distances than non-plug-in hybrids.

      It would be very inefficient to design a system such that the gas engine only generates electricity and never mechanically drives the wheels.

    11. Re:What? by Jethro · · Score: 1

      Eh. Honestly I don't really care, to be honest. As far as I'm concerned, it's a gas/electric hybrid. The kind of driving I do, it'll end up using gas.

      I'd really love a car that doesn't use gas at all, but I can't get one of those with the kind of driving I do which occasionally involves a 100+ mile drive. The volt is a good option FOR NOW. But I have absolutely no illusions about what kind of car it is.

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    12. Re:What? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      They may think it isn't a hybrid, but they would be wrong.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_vehicle_drivetrain#Series_hybrid

      It also isn't "different design than any other hybrid" as according to that the EV1 was one.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    13. Re:What? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It also isn't "different design than any other hybrid" as according to that the EV1 was one.

      The EV1 didn't have a generator in the trunk for extended range, so this is different enough for the marketing people to claim so.

    14. Re:What? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      So, the Volt is sufficiently different from a series hybrid to not call it a series hybrid? Did you read what a series hybrid is?

      Series hybrids have also been referred to as range-extended electric vehicles (REEV) where they are designed to be run mostly by the battery, but have a petrol or diesel generator to recharge the battery when going on a long drive. (...) Alternatively, it can be viewed as an electric transmission, with the battery storing reserve power until it is needed.
      Series-hybrid vehicles are driven only by electric traction. (...) Unlike combustion engines electric motors matched to the vehicle do not require a transmission between the engine and wheels shifting torque ratios. (...) In a series-hybrid system, the combustion engine drives an electric generator instead of directly driving the wheels. The generator provides power for the driving electric motors. In short, a series-hybrid is simple, the vehicle is driven by electric motors with a generator set providing the electric power.

      The Volt is a series hybrid, there was an experimental EV1 that used the same principle, and the same principle is used with diesel electric hybrid trains.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    15. Re:What? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So, the Volt is sufficiently different from a series hybrid to not call it a series hybrid? Did you read what a series hybrid is?

      I did. Did you? "Series hybrids have also been referred to as range-extended electric vehicles (REEV)" GM is claiming the REEV tag and arguing against the "hybrid" tag. Because most people don't understand hybrid anyway, it would seem to be a good move, especially since it is actually a series-parallel hybrid that GM lied about.

  14. Selection critera = Lousy study... by raydobbs · · Score: 3, Informative

    "If you factor out the super-loyal Toyota Prius buyers, the repurchase rate drops to under 25%..." the summary mentions. Would that be kind of like saying, "If you factor out the number of humans alive on Earth right now, the human population of Earth is zero." or another favorite that might ring more bells for people, "Of course it's unlimited data. We only shut it off once you exceed 2GB per month."

    1. Re:Selection critera = Lousy study... by retchdog · · Score: 1

      you know, they told you the overall rate too... it's up to you whether to think that part of the appeal of a prius is the image.

      it just seems silly to me, to complain about extra information; 35% is also pretty damned low.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    2. Re:Selection critera = Lousy study... by careysub · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Indeed. Another problem with drawing broad conclusions with the study is look at the years they are comparing - 2008, when gas first broke the $4 a gallon barrier (remember?), but before the economic collapse look hold, and 2011 when gas prices where still down sharply, and after a punishing two years of recession/depression. Paying more up front when the economy is bad, for the promise of future savings when gas prices are down, is not a consuming behavior many people will exhibit.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    3. Re:Selection critera = Lousy study... by oji-sama · · Score: 1

      it just seems silly to me, to complain about extra information; 35% is also pretty damned low.

      The extra information does not make sense. It's like (not quite, but close enough) saying that only x% of couples are considering to have children within 5 years. If you factor out the most common 1 child within this period, the child producing rate drops under y%.

      Why is 'super-loyal buyers' a group that shouldn't be counted? Should we remove 'super-unloyals' also?

      --
      It is what it is.
    4. Re:Selection critera = Lousy study... by retchdog · · Score: 1

      well, since you mention it, yes, ideally, you'd have full demographic data, but that's not how information is currently disseminated.

      in reality, people are influenced by marketing. yes, some people have an iphone because it's an iphone, not because they need a smart phone; if apple folded, they wouldn't go buy an android. similarly with the prius; for some people, it's a symbol.

      the simple fact that the proportion was different in a particular subgroup should be enough to consider piecing them out.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
  15. Happy Hybrid Buyers Don't Buy Cars Every Two Years by hamjudo · · Score: 1

    My wife is happy with her 2005 Prius. She probably won't replace it for many more years. That is because she likes it. She will probably replace it with a newer Toyota Prius. I guess that makes her a super-loyal Prius buyer.

  16. well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    d'uh!

  17. Loss of Carpool lane access by MDMurphy · · Score: 5, Informative

    People here in CA were nudged to get a hybrid in no small part due to the ability to get a sticker that allowed solo driver access to the HOV lanes. Once that went away, a big part of the incentive went with it. I know some people who sold their hybrids in advance of the change, anticipating that the car would sell for more while they still could use the lanes.

    So while hybrid owners might be unlikely to buy another, it could be due in part that without the HOV lane access they wouldn't have bought one in the first place. The story then would be "Car buyers follow temporary gov't incentive, move on when incentive goes away"

    Most hybrids didn't offer better economy in the long run, once the added cost was factored in. They relied heavily on other incentives to make them more desirable in the first place. I'm surprised that those incentives didn't show up in the survey, or at least weren't mentioned in the report.

    1. Re:Loss of Carpool lane access by k6mfw · · Score: 2

      Excellent point you brought up. I know someone that bought a hybrid specifically so he can use the carpool lane, 90 minutes vs. 15 min each way on a commute. Think of how the time he avoided sitting in a car that made it worthwhile to spend the extra money on a car (no, option to work someplace else is not an option. No high paying jobs in a residential area). But when the HOV lane access expired for hybrids, he bought an all-electric car as soon as he could to take advantage of solo driver in HOV lane.

      On another note, I saw this big SUV with the familar looking decal but it said "Access Denied."

      One day while toodling along in the slow traffic, I saw a CHP motor unit give three tickets in the course of 10 minutes. First was while passing him as he just finished writing a ticket. Officer starts motorcycle, looks and sees a solo driver in HOV lane, zooom! flashing lights and driver pulls over. I continued chugging along with the masses. Then later he gets back on the bike, waits for a minute then off and nailed another solo driver.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    2. Re:Loss of Carpool lane access by j-beda · · Score: 1

      Excellent point you brought up. I know someone that bought a hybrid specifically so he can use the carpool lane, 90 minutes vs. 15 min each way on a commute.

      Isn't there a way of filling those empty seats to legitimately use the HOV lane? Heck, doesn't CA only require one extra person beyond the driver? Where are all the hitchhikers? I guess it is called "slugging" when done for HOV lanes.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slugging
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_ridesharing
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_carpooling

  18. Re:Sampling bias? by sysrammer · · Score: 1

    Good point. Also, I think a lot of people may be buying another car for other reasons...carrying capacity, power, whatever. How many little citycars does one family need?

    --
    His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
  19. Re:Happy Hybrid Buyers Don't Buy Cars Every Two Ye by bananaquackmoo · · Score: 2

    Seriously. This study was released way too early. People don't buy cars that often.

  20. Re:Happy Hybrid Buyers Don't Buy Cars Every Two Ye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Me too. Owning a 2011 Prius and in the future, I will likely replace it by the next generation Prius... The silicense is just too good.

  21. Re:Sampling bias? by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 2

    It's possible that the same type of people drawn to an environment-saving car would replace their car at a lower rate than others though.

  22. I wonder how many people bought a pickup truck by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 1

    Even when Hybrids save you money, it is good to have a pickup truck or van for different uses than you'd use a compact hybrid for. Maybe people like to diversify the types of car they own.

    1. Re:I wonder how many people bought a pickup truck by Xphile101361 · · Score: 1

      Likely my next vehicle will be a truck. My current old car only gets 20 mpg city/25 highway and it seems that bunch of smaller trucks have met or beat that.

    2. Re:I wonder how many people bought a pickup truck by Leuf · · Score: 1

      I bought a used pickup at the end of last year, but you wouldn't catch me buying a new one anytime soon. If you live in an area where it doesn't snow you might have a different view, but I've had enough experience with 2wd pickups in the snow to never want to do it again. So 4wd is a must for me and that adds between $4-6k which takes the price up into the $25k area. I'd sooner buy a small car that gets much better mileage for less money and just rent a truck when I actually need one. And yet if you look around the dealerships around here trucks are pretty much all you see. I guess we didn't get the memo about gas prices here.

      What bugs me is that while pretty much every little hatchback lets you fold down the rear seats, very few let you also fold down the front seat to fit the long stuff you'd want the pickup for (okay you aren't going to get a full sheet of plywood in there, but that's what the truck rentals are for). The Honda Fit was pretty much the only one that I saw that would do it, and the Fit really ought to get better mileage for what it is. It could also stand to not be so freaking ugly.

  23. Spun a Different Way by jpobst · · Score: 2

    You could also write this article completely the other way.

    2.4% of car purchasers buy a hybrid.
    35% of hybrid owners would buy another hybrid.

    So the headline could be "Hybrid Owners 14 Times More Likely to Buy Another Hybrid", which is completely different than "Hybrid Car Owners Not Likely To Buy Another Hybrid".

    1. Re:Spun a Different Way by MDMurphy · · Score: 3, Funny

      2.4% of all car purchasers buy a hybrid.
      0.84% of all car purchasers would buy another hybrid.

      Yeah, there are other ways to put that

      Or "It's almost 3x harder to sell a hybrid to someone who's owned one before than to someone who hasn't".

    2. Re:Spun a Different Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Expressing it as 14x is the 'correct' way to spin it. This 35% business sorely tempts the pernicious base rate fallacy. Even the geeky crowd here at Slashdot is clearly not immune.

      Compare Toyota loyalty: 50% buy another Toyota, but Toyotas are around 10% of the market. So a Toyota owner is about 5x more likely to buy a Toyota.

      Hybrid Loyalty is almost 3x Toyota Loyalty after you take base rates into account.

    3. Re:Spun a Different Way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No its 14x easier.

    4. Re:Spun a Different Way by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      You'd only put it that way if you were incompetent at statistics.

  24. I have an idea! by Xenkar · · Score: 0

    I propose we switch from building bombs and generally shitting all over countries that don't have the capability of attacking us and instead build lots of induction coils to embed into our highways.

    Then we can line our highways with liquid fluoride thorium reactors and drive to work in electric cars that have 20 mile range for traveling on roads that haven't been upgraded yet.

    Add in self-driving cars and it'll become even more efficient and safe.

    Unfortunately this won't happen. It is too socialist like national highways, municipal water, police, and public schooling. It involves creating rather than destroying.

    1. Re:I have an idea! by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      ...but we have all those things??? I'm confused.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  25. Suggestions to improve situation by presidenteloco · · Score: 0

    1. Make hybrids whose styling evokes the steroidal puffiness of a Dodge Ram tru_u_u_ck, because we know that most males buy vehicles to increase their chances of having offspring, not to save the planet. But if they can save a few bucks in gas while still getting the muscled exoskeleton look to compensate for their shortcomings, so much the better.

    2. Increase international penalties for invading small, oil-laden countries rather than living with the higher gas prices that are inevitably on their way as more countries get richer and demand more oil.

    3. Set up a global trust fund for future generations to use to fight global warming impacts. Make countries contribute to it based on their per-capita GHG emissions, or face international trade sanctions.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:Suggestions to improve situation by garyebickford · · Score: 1

      As a former tru_u_u_ck owner, I have to note that there is a significant group who actually _need_ trucks. Probably only about 1 in 5, but still. And the latest F150 and equivalent reportedly get MPG in the mid-20s on the highway. My old 1991 F250 got about 13, and the 1973 Chevy before that got about 7 - just before I gave it to someone who was going to rebuild it into a custom truck, and blew the engine up driving it home! :D Also, trucks only improve one's chances of procreation in some less-populated parts of the country. A lot of girls (especially city girls) just don't feel romantic climbing three steps to get into the cab, and riding what is essentially a self-propelled buckboard wagon. When I had my truck, for first dates I generally just rented a car.

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
  26. Not buying again by stupor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Civic Hybrid owner:
    - Great on gas mileage
    - Gutless.. I have an easier time passing people in my turbo diesel truck
    - Weird issues with batteries.. Leave the car for a week, batteries are dead.
    - Did I mention Gutless?

    Overall, I've been happy with the gas mileage but I won't buy another hybrid. The experience outside of the good gas mileage has been disappointing. I'll probably try the diesel car route like a VW Jetta the next time around.

    --
    Do you inspect a roller coaster everytime you ride it?
    1. Re:Not buying again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prius owner here... Wondering why everyone thinks hybrids are weak.
      STILL trying to also find out where the 9-10 second 0-60 mph test came from... Even on Ecoboost I can do that in less...
      If I want to get around a ricer, all I have to do is select "power boost" then accelerate. Is it fuel economic? Obviously not. Is it available? Of course. I welcome more diesel cars on the road... It'll be nice to see the roads thin out as the prices jack up.

      Even if they don't jack up, diesel as an alternative is like repositioning a fish in a puddle of water to get more air... As the water evaporates. Hybrid is not the answer, it's a step towards the ultimate answer of not burning stuff to propel down a road.

    2. Re:Not buying again by Nimey · · Score: 1

      My '05 Civic Hybrid is indeed gutless, but I'm generally not impatient enough to care even on a two-lane highway. The workaround is to give yourself more room.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    3. Re:Not buying again by slashgrim · · Score: 1

      I'll probably try the diesel car route like a VW Jetta the next time around.

      My old Jetta TDI worked great (great for highway, good for city), but the new Jetta TDI Hybrid makes me drool! http://www.dasautomagazine.com/2012/March/Volkswagen-Hybrid.php
      http://www.dasautomagazine.com/2012/February/2012-Detroit-Auto-Show.php

  27. Not a surprise by MojoRilla · · Score: 2

    This isn't totally surprising.

    I was an early adopter of the Honda Civic Hybrid in July of 2002. I've had bad problems with the continuously variable transmission (which required multiple visits to the deader, but thankfully was fixed under warranty), hybrid battery problems (again thankfully replaced under warranty), and a bad ERG valve (which I had to pay for). And I felt I had to take it to the dealer for oil changes (since it uses synthetic oil). Compared to the Honda Accord I had for 10 years before this car, the Honda Civic Hybrid has had a lot of problems.

    Also, there is a class action lawsuit from owners dissatisfied with their Honda Civic Hybrid's mileage that is close to settling.

    And, I do plan to drive this car for at least a few more years. I do think I've saved money, as well as creating less polution. And for my next car I will be considering a hybrid, a plug-in hybrid, or an electric car.

    1. Re:Not a surprise by Greyfox · · Score: 0

      Hmm... lessee here... the lawyers get 10 million dollars and you get a $10 gift certificate to Hot Topic? Maybe you all should have sued them in small claims court instead...

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    2. Re:Not a surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, finally a post that mentions pollution, and not just mileage. Every time this discussion comes up on Slashdot, it always degenerates into a discussion about mpg. If that was all it was about, no one would make hybrids. Many of the cheap, low mpg, 'clean' (cough, cough) diesels are made by the same companies that make the hybrids. It's pretty disappointing considering this is meant to be a tech site.

    3. Re:Not a surprise by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      And, I do plan to drive this car for at least a few more years. I do think I've saved money, as well as creating less polution. And for my next car I will be considering a hybrid, a plug-in hybrid, or an electric car.

      Hybrids produce more pollution in construction than an ordinary vehicle and there are other vehicles with the same emissions and real-world mileage that were available to you, so in fact, you have produced MORE pollution than if you had just bought a tiny car with a minuscule motor. The only thing you got out of it was more power output and a heavier car which is less tinny. you didn't get less emissions, although you may have had less tailpipe emissions — but probably not.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Not a surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I felt I had to take it to the dealer for oil changes (since it uses synthetic oil).

      I'm genuinely curious, is there no synthetic oil sold in local stores where you live? Here, it's even available at Wal-Mart, though selection is limited, and any service station which performs oil changes is required to take your dirty oil (synthetic or organic is irrelevant).

      - T

  28. buying pressure caused by incentives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back in 2008, the gas prices jumped 1-2 bucks to almost $5 a gallon, and Toyota ran out of Priuses to sell even at the insane dealer markups they had back then.

    Also back then, if you bought a hybrid you could use the carpool lane cutting commute times deeply. Those incentives are no longer available today.

    Between that and the tax incentives, government interference caused a temporary jump in sales that is skewing statistics now, as the people that got the hybrids based on those incentives have no reason to pay the premium today for another one.

    1. Re:buying pressure caused by incentives by MattW · · Score: 1

      Yep. I bought an 06 in late 06 and got a call about a year later offering to buy the car back from me for (slightly) more than I paid for it, so they could sell it to someone else. (They're pretty eager to buy it again now, even though it is now 5.5 years old. I ran the numbers and thanks to rising gas prices, if I did sell it, I think I'd have about $3k less depreciation than expected.)

  29. In other words by Pirulo · · Score: 0

    65% of hybrid owners got one for fashion.

  30. On "Why Florida?" as a long-time hybrid owner... by davecason · · Score: 2

    ...the cars are so efficient, they don't make much heat. So if you live in the North, your car heater may not ever heat up your car, since it uses non-existent engine heat. The AC works much better.

    Also, in snow, most of these very-low-riding vehicles bottom-out on almost no snow as they are lowered to reduce drag.

    Mountain driving isn't too sweet either... nothing like hearing the gerbils scream as you go up an incline and watching your battery go dead halfway up a mountain (then you have half an engine).

    Now mine is very old, so maybe the idea has gotten much better...

  31. They didn't get enough Hippie Street Cred by gelfling · · Score: 0

    They were hoping young people would tear off their clothes and mate with them as a result. It didn't happen so the hell with all that save the earth crap.

    1. Re:They didn't get enough Hippie Street Cred by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey man - they're too mainstream now!

    2. Re:They didn't get enough Hippie Street Cred by billybob_jcv · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the increase in smug levels around San Francisco ruined any chance for the electric VW microbus to take off.
      http://green.autoblog.com/2006/09/23/vw-builds-an-electric-micro-bus/ ...props to South Park...

    3. Re:They didn't get enough Hippie Street Cred by garyebickford · · Score: 1

      the increase in smug levels around San Francisco

      Haha. I've lived out there before. Sometimes misspelling can lead to truth! :D

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
  32. Super loyal! by XiaoMing · · Score: 2

    If you factor out the super-loyal Toyota Prius buyers, the repurchase rate drops to under 25%.

    The numbers are interesting indeed... but factoring out "the super-loyal Toyota Prius buyers" just to drop it from 35% to 25% doesn't really help the argument as much as make the reader question the research methods involved.. considering any laymen already has in the notion hiding in the back of their mind that that Pri'i make up for quite a bit of the cumulative hybrid market share (it's got ~3 generations head start on all other "mainstream" hybrids).

    And when said laymen goes to google such a statistic and finds that even last year ( http://www.hybridcars.com/market-dashboard.html ):

    Regular Prius and Prius V combined [represent] 58 percent of total hybrid sales.

    ... Well it's like saying death rates are dropping, if we factor out the "super deadly" causes of death such as heart disease and cancer.
    The super-loyal-ty-ness-ess of Pri'i owners here obviously shouldn't be considered a factor that would affect the results, as much as they are a key metric in determining such a result (loyalty begets repurchase as it is an indicator of some set of factors said survey is attempting to measure in the first place... duh?)

  33. Why not a hybrid next time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I currently own a Fusion Hybrid which I love, great MPG and fantastically quiet. That said, my next car won't be a hybrid. It's Tesla time!

    I suspect that those like myself are only a part of the answer to the question. Since hybrids' introduction, tech that they've championed like start/stop systems, all-electric A/C and cooling pumps, CVT and 7 or 8 speed automatics, and advanced engine electronics have been applied to non-hybrids. This has vaulted many non-hybrid's highway MPG into the high 30s. This has effectively negated the fuel savings for a very large swath of the American public: those not living in the highly congested mega-cities. If you drive mostly highway miles, there's now zero benefit to a buying a hybrid, thanks to tech pioneered by hybrids.

       

  34. I have a Honda CR-Z by PatTheGreat · · Score: 1

    I have a Honda CR-Z. It's a hybrid, though I couldn't really care less. I bought it because I thought it was a pretty cool little car. The gas mileage was pretty sweet, but I bought it for the looks; I think it kinda looks like a spaceship escape pod. Yep.

    --
    Google: "All your data are belong to us."
    1. Re:I have a Honda CR-Z by Ambvai · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, my sister said the same thing, except as a detriment.

    2. Re:I have a Honda CR-Z by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      I ended up with a Mini, but I seriously considered a CR-Z. I also like the looks. One problem I had though was with the seat. My back was already hurting me after the 15 minute test drive. Probably the most un-ergonomic car seat I've ever experienced in a modern car.

      I average about 35 mpg with a mix of back road and highway driving. When hyper-miling at 55 mph or less I can approach 50 MPG with pulse-and-glide. Mostly back roads though. What do you average with the CR-Z?

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  35. I'm one by Tanktalus · · Score: 1

    Bought a hybrid Saturn VUE in Dec, 2006. And, when we needed a second vehicle, didn't even consider a second hybrid. Got a used minivan in Jan, 2011. Uses 30-50% more gas, but trying to get a vehicle to fit all those car seats with hybrid? Far too expensive. I'll save more by spending on gas than buying new w/hybrid.

    1. Re:I'm one by raygundan · · Score: 1

      This is a huge factor. There's large market holes that hybrids haven't filled yet, and some that were filled but aren't anymore. If you want a chunky hatchback, you're covered. You have a few choices of small sedan, one large SUV, and one medium-sized three-row SUV. There *was* a small SUV (the Ford Escape), but the hybrid version has been discontinued.

      So, if you want a minivan, a small SUV, a wagon, a crossover, or any number of other options-- there isn't a hybrid for you.

      I got the 32mpg Escape in 2010 because it was the most efficient option that did what I wanted, but if I were to shop with the same requirements today, I'd end up with a Subaru Crosstour XV at 33mpg... which isn't a hybrid.

      Hybrid buyers aren't loyal to hybrids-- they're loyal to fuel economy.

  36. I'm not likely to buy a hybrid again... by rikkitikki · · Score: 2

    I'm likely to buy an electric. My commute + daily chores are well within the range of electric vehicles. When I buy the electric, the hybrid will still be around, but only for the occasional longer trip. Hopefully, by the time the hybrid dies, electric vehicles with 200-300 mi range will cost much less.

  37. They can by gr8_phk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hybrids CAN pay for themselves on a couple conditions. #1 you must use the vehicle for 100K miles or more. #2 you must be able to do math #3 you probably need to be doing a lot of city driving.

    Let's do some math for the 2012 Ford Fusion Over 100K miles at 26mpg you will burn 3846 gallons of gas.
    At $3.50 per gallon that's $13461 in gas.
    For the hybrid, it's 39mpg (combined as is the 26 figure above). so this works out to $8974 in gas.
    For a savings of $4487.
    If I recall correctly, the price adder for that car was higher than that, so not a win. However, the savings goes up by 50 percent if you drive it for 150K miles. The savings will also go up with gas prices. It also gets better if you do predominantly city driving (I used the generic "combined" EPA figures). At some point it will be a net savings. This trivial example also neglects some other nice things like not wearing out your brake rotors (a non-trivial cost) or reduced number of oil changes (a trivial cost). It also neglects the cost of battery replacement - something which people worry about but I have not heard being a real world issue.

    A Prius OTOH can be had for much closer to $20K and is generally a winner compared to any non-hybrid car so long as you drive 100K miles. I'm not a fan of it and would not buy one.
    As volumes go up we can also expect the cost differential to come down.

    So there we have the reason - it's not obvious weather you save dollars. Many people actually DO save money with a hybrid - particularly Prius owners.

    1. Re:They can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely every taxi driver/owner here in Madrid has a Prius. You'd think the savings must be substantial, as the change happened practically overnight. I'm pretty much considering buying one when/if I buy my first car. Thousands of taxi drivers can't possibly be wrong...

    2. Re:They can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmm,

      run those equations with 50 mpg for the hybrid and tell me what kind of payback you see.

      And what is the trade in value of a 10 year old Prius vs a 10 year old Civic ?

      Today ... the trade in exceeds the difference making the savings "gravy".

      Oh, I like to save gas - this has a value to me as well. ... getting 60 mpg is a challenge that I win at every day, thank you very much

    3. Re:They can by rachit · · Score: 1

      Absolutely every taxi driver/owner here in Madrid has a Prius. You'd think the savings must be substantial, as the change happened practically overnight. I'm pretty much considering buying one when/if I buy my first car. Thousands of taxi drivers can't possibly be wrong...

      Gas prices in Europe are substantially higher than in the US. In Spain, IIRC, it is approximately double the US gas prices.

    4. Re:They can by cluedweasel · · Score: 1

      For the UK, a Prius costs around 24000UKP and returns 70mpg. A VW Golf Bluemotion costs 18000UKP and gets 74mpg. Not quite sure what the motivation would be to drive a Prius in that case. It's a shame we don't have access to small turbo-diesel cars in the U.S.

    5. Re:They can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Click Start --> select Run --> type in CALC and hit enter.

      If you are on Window 7, click start and type CALC and hit Enter in the box right above the start button that says Search programs and files

    6. Re:They can by Shihar · · Score: 1

      The plug in hybrids might make that equation a little sweeter. Pulling from the grid in some states could result in serious saving. Perhaps even more importantly, because they just use their gas engine as a generator, the car is actually a lot simpler. You rip out a huge pile of components when your engine isn't driving the wheels. The engine just runs at one well tuned speed, and electric motors are far far more resilient and long lived than their gas counterparts. The "real"savings might simply be in having a car that very rarely fails and the lower gas costs are just gravy.

      I would consider a plug in under two conditions. First, it needs better infrastructure. I park my car on the street and at work. At least one of those places needs a plug for me to consider a plug in. Second, the "this shit don't break" theory is the sound, but I personally want to see a generation or two of cars prove it out. Plug ins are not there yet for someone like me, but given a generation or two and I think it will be far far more common.

    7. Re:They can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most hybrid batteries are rated for around 100k miles, yes? They roughly cost about 4k to replace...

      So after 100k miles, you're up $500. Yay.

    8. Re:They can by sehryan · · Score: 1

      For me, it is less the mpg and more the range of one tank of gas, and how big the tank is. I know it is technically just a different way to look at the same problem, but I feel it shows the impact more quickly.

      For instance, my boss was telling me yesterday that his Prius goes 500+ miles on one tank, and the tank is about 10 gallons.

      My Accord goes about 400 miles on an 18 gallon tank.

      So not only can he go farther on one tank than I can, but I am going to pay almost double what he is paying at the pump.

      That made such a huge impact on me yesterday that I have started shopping for a Prius, just to see how everything would work out from a payment standpoint.

      --
      The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.
    9. Re:They can by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      Hybrids have their highest advantage over regular cars when used extensively in the city with lots of starts and stops. Unfortunately, it's also difficult to rack up 100,000 miles of pure city driving.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
  38. fad by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    'It's hard to know what's causing the low repurchase rate.'

    No it's not, it's called a "fad"

    1. Re:fad by mark-t · · Score: 1

      No... it's not a fad. It's the high prices.

      You always pay a premium for a hybrid, one that can chew considerably into the overall price of the vehicle, and it's simply not as readily affordable.

      If they were actually priced competitively with gasoline vehicles, you'd find way more people buying them... and probably more repeat buyers.

    2. Re:fad by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      One of the key features of a "fad" is that the item in question is usually overpriced.

    3. Re:fad by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      No, it's not. That's a secondary effect: fads are popular, and products that are popular carry a premium. Fads aren't necessarily even products or productizable -- they're simply things that have a short-lived wave of popularity.

  39. I switched back by GWBasic · · Score: 5, Informative
    I switched back from hybrid to conventional. In 2003 I bought a Civic Hybrid, last year I considered an Insight but bought a Subaru Impreza Sport. Here's why:
    • I could only take the car to the dealer for anything more complicated then an oil change. Regular mechanics refused to look at the car. My check-engine light was on, and the dealer told me that I needed a new catalytic converter for $2-3000 dollars. (The guy who bought the car from me told me it was an inexpensive sensor that needed to be replaced.)
    • I wanted four-wheel-drive so I could go through CA chain checks when I go skiing.
    • My 7-year-old hybrid Civic was only worth about $2,000. Normally Civics hold their value.

    My 2011 Impreza cost me $20,000, and is a compact car. The only 4wd hybrids are large SUVs, which cost $30,000. Even at $4.00 a gallon, $10,000 buys a lot of gas. At 21 miles a gallon, $10,000 buys over 57,000 miles worth of gas!

    Furthermore, Subaru service charges a lot less money then Honda service, and their accessories cost less. Honda charged me $400 for rubber floor mats, and Subaru charged me $100 for rubber floor mats.

    Now, had I not wanted 4wd, I probably would have bought the Insight. I really prefer its quietness and smoothness over the Impreza. On the other hand, given that Honda service is expensive, regular mechanics won't work on Honda hybrids, and that the Insight would probably be worthless after 7 years, I'm probably going to spend less money owning the Impreza.

    1. Re:I switched back by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The Impreza is one of the best cars ever made by any measure, so it's pretty much impossible for you to regret your purchase.

      OTOH if Subaru could bring their hybrid diesel concept impreza to the US it would sell like a mad bastard

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:I switched back by garyebickford · · Score: 1

      Actually, unless things are different in California than New England, resale prices on all Subarus is pretty good. I think it's got the best overall resale value of any manufacturer right now. To my detriment - my old Outback got totalled, and it cost me about $5000 more for a newer one than I wanted to pay. I bought a 2007 with 69000 miles. It needed a water pump, and the dealer replaced the timing belt while he had it open, so it should be good for another 100,000 plus miles before needing much of anything. Here in NE Subaru owners basically don't trade them in - they run them for 200,000 or 250,000 miles. For me that would be over 20 years for a new one, 10+ years for the one I have.

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    3. Re:I switched back by GWBasic · · Score: 1

      I grew up in MA and purchased my 2003 Civic Hybrid in Framingham. At the time, I assumed that it'd have enough rust after 7-8 years that it'd have very little value. If I was living in CA in 2003, I wouldn't have taken the risk.

    4. Re:I switched back by GWBasic · · Score: 1

      Oh, the Impreza is awesome on country roads and in snow. What I liked about my Honda Civic hybrid, and why I considered the Insight, is that they're very quiet and smooth with gentle acceleration. For gentle acceleration, my Impreza goes "Vrrroooom-shift-Vrrrrooooom-shift-Vrrrroooooooooommm." The Honda hybrids are much more graceful, although you pay for it!

    5. Re:I switched back by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's funny because Subaru had really great automatic transmisions in 1995 but they don't seem to have gotten much better since. Even my 1993 had auto rev matching and such.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:I switched back by GWBasic · · Score: 1

      I bought the stick. When I found out that the 2012 model has a CVT, I had that, "if only I could have waited" feeling. The new Subarus are quiet and silky smooth like my old Hybrid. If it's any consolation, my girlfriend just got a new CRV, and its Bluetooth support is very flaky. Subaru's Bluetooth is very reliable.

  40. Florida by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The reason Florida drivers may be slightly more loyal (at least for south Florida) on our express lanes with either a carpool or a hybrid you drive without paying the toll. For my dad its cheaper to be in a hybrid because he was spending $150-200/month on tolls alone. He loves his hybrid. I agree though, the cost most of the time doesn't offset the price increase.

  41. another way to look at the numbers: by nimbius · · Score: 1

    rural drivers in the "flyover states" dont want hybrids because they have relatively cheaper gasoline, free parking, emaciated public transit, and limited congestion problems. speaking for california we have plentiful public transit, expensive parking and gas thats brutally pricy as well. combine it with the fact that the average angelino spends 3 days a year stuck in traffic, and you have a tough time selling anything with four wheels, let alone a hybrid.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  42. Oh enough with the range whining by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Seriously, some people act like everyone drives hundreds of miles a day. Guess what? they don't. It is by far the exception, not the rule. If you drive 75 miles each way to work you are by far in the minority. Most people in that situation would move closer to their workplace.

    For the average commute, an electric with even a 73 mile range (the low estimate on the LEAF) would work fine. The average commute is 16 miles, one way. That means you could go to work, get off work, go somewhere else, and go home and still be fine (remember it refuels every night).

    I get tired of this bitching like everyone needs a car that can drive tons of miles so that is a reason electrics can't work. No, not at all actually. Some people do. For them, electrics are out. However most other don't, for them it is an option.

    1. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't every day, but I do every other weekend to visit family. Sure, I could have two cars...but...like most people...I can't just rely on one short range model, and I can't afford two.

    2. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by quangdog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure, to get to work (1.5 miles for me) an electric would be fine. But what about when I want to go visit my sister (83 miles one direction) for an evening? How about when we go see the in-laws (298 miles one way) every few months? Or what about a busy Saturday running errands all over town - I've easily done 150+ miles just in around-town-driving on a busy Saturday. The point is, owning a limited range car only for your commute is great, but I still have to have something that I can refuel or replenish the range on quickly and easily when I need to travel outside the limited range of an all-electric solution.

    3. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you only use your car to drive to work, you're right. But if you ever want to go on even a moderate road trip, you either have to deal with the hassle of refueling dozens of times along the way, or you have to buy a second car just to be able to make the trip.

      What's the point of buying a car that can do 99% of what you want? Especially since a car that can do 100% usually costs less.

    4. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by mark-t · · Score: 2

      Where I live, quite a few people work in the nearby big city, but live in the outskirts, where housing is more affordable. This drives up commuting distance considerably, and 75 miles per day probably wouldn't cover a round trip for many people.. 150 miles most likely would though, except for people who live *really* far out.

    5. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Then an electric might not be for you. But for me, ~8 miles each way commute with no stop lights and very little traffic it would make a lot of sense. Visiting my relatives 2 hours away isn't an issue, I get a "weekend special" rental for $15/day anyway; if it gets wrecked or breaks down it's not my problem.

    6. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're overlooking one very important detail. While it's true most people don't drive over 100 miles to get to work everyday, it is also true most people will want to make a trip that isn't simply to work. Lots of people try to get out of the city, or take a drive in the country or cross their state/provincial border from time to time. Now, if you want to go on a road trip over 500 miles and you plan to buy only one car, which would you get?

    7. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 4, Informative

      I get tired of this bitching like everyone needs a car that can drive tons of miles so that is a reason electrics can't work. No, not at all actually. Some people do. For them, electrics are out. However most other don't, for them it is an option.

      I wouldn't buy an electric car for all sorts of reasons and range is the least of my worries. The reasons at the top of the list mostly boil down to infrastructure... For one thing live in an apartment building with first-come-firs-served parking and I can't very well lay 150m+ of electrical cable out of the window of my apartment on the 3rd floor. But assuming I could to secure my own private parking space and install a charging station next to it. How long before the local hooligans wreck it? Or if they nick the thing, charging stations are not exactly cheap to install (checked). What do I do if the idiot in 2C parks his tank^H^H^H^H SUV in my spot (and the two on either side of it), refuses to move it and thus ensures I can't charge my car? I have had the problem before of some asshole parking in a space I was renting and such a problem is neither easy nor cheap to solve. Lawyers cost money. Another point is that the government here has not lowered the taxes and tolls on electrics like they promised 3 years ago during the last election. Finally range is an issue, true you don't need it most of the time but there are times when you really miss it.

      At the moment electric cars are nice if you live in your own house in the suburbs with a garage to charge your electric commuter car and a second gas powered vehicle you can fall back on for long range travel. What I want is a pluggable hybrid that enables me to do most of my commuting, say 75-100km on electric power but leaves open the option to go diesel or gas once in a while. Unfortunately few such cars are available and the ones that are are either expensive or they just suck ass. When the selection of cars improves and the Infrastructure is there I'll be the first to sign up for the electrics, until then I'll keep my tiny diesel hatchback.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    8. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1

      I live ~8 miles away from work. Any electric vehicle can handle that, so for commute it is an option.

      The problem is I don't just drive to work, I drive a lot during weekends: to the beach, to the mountains, to see friends, whatever. This means that for me electric is only an option as a second+ car.

      Not sure how common this is, but I know a lot of people who feel the same way.

      --
      May Peace Prevail On Earth
    9. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people would need a car that could take them 200-300 miles in a single day at least once a year, I may be wrong but I think the recharge time for an all electric car makes it a non option for that purpose. As far as the commute distance, I personally had a job recently that put me in a new work location almost every week. I would commute anywhere from Modesto, CA to Petaluma, CA while living in Sacramento, CA. You are right, however, I am the exception, there are not a lot of people in that field on the whole but here in California there are (or at least were) quite alot of people who worked in the Bay Area but due to real estate prices had to live up to 100 miles from their place of work. I'm sure this was much more common during the dot com bubble (which seems like the days of yore already) but during my time sharing some of those commute routes, there are still quite a few people commuting into the bay area and the most likely explanation is that they have lucrative jobs in a region where they cannot afford or could barely afford to live and so must commute.

      You're right electrics are an option for a lot of people, but then one would likely have to financially plan a simple weekend trip to the coast or any potential day trip far enough ahead to rent a car or make other arrangements. The problem I think most people have with electrics is that you are much more permanently limited to the range of that vehicles charge, at least until the day comes when a full charge could be achieved in 5-15 minutes without shortening the life of the batteries over time.

      All of that just to say I think more people have a need for the range than you realize.

    10. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by malilo · · Score: 1

      Well, as stated above, one option is to rent a car for the occasional weekend trip. Considering the cost of a second vehicle, you'd have to really hate renting to want to pour out the devaluation costs, insurance costs, and other maintenance/fuel just to drive your own vehicle to Auntie Sarah's twice a year. Seriously, it's like people that claim they "need" a pickup truck to move stuff and use it once in 4 years to move a mattress set. You really didn't "need" it, but whatever.

      --
      "sometimes he felt that his whole life was a dream, and he wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it."
    11. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by sdguero · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Think about the American mentality, freedom and liberty first. I mean, it's kind of a founding principle, despite the direction our government has been heading the last couple decades.

      As an American, I REALLY like the thought that I can get in my car and drive across the country tomorrow. Why would I spend more money for a vehicle that is less capable in this respect? That is the real issue for me, not commuting. Personally I think everyone should ride motorcycles to work... Modern bikes are better for the environment than any car (gas, diesel, hybrid, or electric), and motorcycle riders tend to pay a LOT more attention to the road.

    12. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I get tired of this bitching like everyone needs a car that can drive tons of miles so that is a reason electrics can't work. "

      I have some bad news for you :

      We don't give a fuck what bothers you.

      We are going to live our lives as WE see fit, whether you like it
      or not. If you wish to dispute this, you had better be ready to rock.

    13. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by therealslartybardfas · · Score: 1

      The Chevy Volt lets you get to work on electricity. Then you visit your sister, the first 35 miles is electric and the rest is 40 mpg gas. If you have the 220V charger, your around town-driving on a Saturday could be mostly electric if you have enough time between trips.

    14. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by AdrianKemp · · Score: 2

      This. A million times this.

      I could have reasonably afforded an electric car when I bought mine recently. However, even though I have a reserved underground parking spot in a secure facility I can't get power there and I certainly can't get solar charging going down there.

      In the next few years there are a handful of *good* plug in hybrids coming on the market, and my next car will be one (unless by some miracle they sort out ultra caps and I can charge in 2 minutes at a "gas" station).

      But as you've done an excellent job pointing out all electric (full or part) suck unbelievable amounts shit right now.

      Renting also isn't an option, since the idea of an electric/hybrid is that I'm going to make the money back via reduced/no fuel costs. I'd have to rent every other week at a cost of ~$70 minimum with fuel which puts just the cost of the rentals at approximately my current monthly fuel costs.

    15. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by sonicmerlin · · Score: 0

      EVs won't be more expensive forever. The Leaf batteries are around $6000. The rest of the car is infinitely easier to produce than an ICE. The insanely high cost of EVs can be attributed to manufacturers requiring extremely high margins to "recoup investment", and a lack of mass production and economy of scale.

    16. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by rikkitikki · · Score: 1

      For a trip over 500 miles, I get a plane ticket :-P. Did that just this past (long) weekend (had took thurs & fri off). I really don't enjoy driving 8-9 hours to a destination and then that same time back. Just eats into your vacation time :-).

    17. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, usually only poor people have such terrible commutes, because wealthier people can afford to move and have more job options. Poor people don't buy cars.

    18. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They need a pure electric with a modular diesel you can put in or take out when you're going on distance drives. Save the weight/fuel Econ for daily, have the backup engine when you need it.

    19. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Chances are, your household has more than one car anyway. Make one an electric, and use the other one for trips. It's not rocket science!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    20. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Grishnakh · · Score: 0

      No, but it's obviously too complicated for the average Slashdotter. I see this kind of thing all the time here, any time I try to discuss alternatives to driving: "no, it's utterly impossible and can't work because [insert weird use case that only a tiny minority of people experience]".

    21. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by tepples · · Score: 1

      one option is to rent a car for the occasional weekend trip.

      Provided one is eligible by age to rent a car (it's not for recent graduates), and provided the trip doesn't cross a state line. Or what am I severely missing?

    22. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yep, people are stupid that way.

      Personally, I solved the moving mattress sets problem easily and cheaply while keeping our two 30+mpg small cars. The solution was a 4x8 utility trailer from Harbor Freight. $300 for the trailer, $100 for the hitch. Now I can carry more stuff, and bulkier stuff, than anyone with their stupid pickup, and I don't have to lift it 3 feet off the ground to load and unload it. Mattress sets would be no problem (I haven't moved those, but I've moved lots of other bulky stuff). When I'm not using it (99.9% of the time), it sits off to the side of the house.

    23. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's amazing how many people have never heard of "rental cars".

    24. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to be offtopic...

    25. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      I had the problem with assholes being in my space before; you don't need lawyers, you just go to your apartment management. Part of the lease is that you get an assigned space; if someone else takes that space, it becomes the management's problem. If they don't deal with the problem, your contract with them is null and void, and you don't have to pay rent. Refuse to pay your rent, and use it for a lawyer instead if they cause you any problems; you can easily get 3 months of free living by not paying your rent. In my experience, management usually takes care of parking problems like that pretty quickly.

    26. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I presume by:

      We are going to live our lives as WE see fit, whether you like it
      or not.

      You mean "create strawman arguments on forums just because I want to", because given the context it sure as hell sounds like it. The person you replied to was complaining about the shortsighted criticisms, not anyone's choice of lifestyle.

    27. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Then an electric might not be for you.

      Here's sort of the issue that we all run into.

      Let's face it. Nobody likes to think. Therefore, we want one solution for everything. That's a car.

      Need to get to work 8 miles away? A car will do that. Need to get to work 150 miles away? Need to visit family members 83 miles away? A car will do that. Need to visit in-laws 298 miles away? A car will do that.

      Actually thinking about your destinations, where you drive, and how you drive? Nah. That requires thinking. Just get a car.

    28. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Provided one is eligible by age to rent a car (it's not for recent graduates), and provided the trip doesn't cross a state line. Or what am I severely missing?

      Most car rental companies will allow you to drive a rented car to another state.

      As for being under 25... wait a few years and that problem will solve itself :^)

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    29. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by darkgumby · · Score: 1

      MythBusters 'proved' that motorcycles are not more 'green' than cars. They tested bikes from the 80's, 90's and 00's. In all cases the motorcycles produced more pollution than the cars. They only tested gas milage and pollution levels. They did not mention the manufacturing and recycling impact. Not sure if they used real 'science', but their methods made sense to me.

    30. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by toddestan · · Score: 2

      Or you rent a gasoline powered car for that 1-2 times a year that you need the capabilities of one. It's not that tough people.

    31. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have 8 cars in my driveway and I take frequent trips from DC to Charlotte for work and I rent a car. Last minute flights between are very expensive, non stop choices are very limited (I'm not going to LGA for a layover to Charlotte), and the times are not convenient and a compact rental car is only like $99 for 3 days. I don't have to worry about ANYTHING other then putting gas in it.

      I hear people make that excuse for wanting a newer car all of the time. "I make a long trip 1/2/3 times a year, I need a reliable new car!"

    32. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rent a car for $100 for the weekend on the one or two times a year you need it. No hassles, no worries, most insurance companies and/or credit cards cover any additional insurance. $200 with no hassles is far less than a single months car payment and in most states even less than yearly taxes and registration for a second car.

    33. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by garyebickford · · Score: 1

      Actually if you want to be green for that long trip, (depending on where it is), consider the train. IIRC, the only transport that uses less energy per passenger mile than a train is a bicycle - even walking uses more. It is unfortunately, slow in the US. But it's much more comfortable than driving or flying. You can work on the train (electric outlets right at the seats), or if you time it right, you can snooze on the train and save a motel bill. I also find that I quite commonly meet new friends on the train - for some reason it's relatively easy to get started talking to people on the train (except commuter trains). I've met two nice women on the train, ended up dating both of them (not at the same time).

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    34. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by garyebickford · · Score: 1

      If you only need to rent on the weekends, check out Enterprise. Some, not all, Enterprise locations (in the US) offer a weekend deal - three days for $10 per day. Pick up Friday AM or PM, return Monday AM or PM. I used to live in Houston, went three years without a car, rode my bike to work. I walked to groceries and most other casual shopping. Once a month I rented a car for $30 for the weekend and did longer trips. I know they still do it, because I get offers from them in the mail.

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    35. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by garyebickford · · Score: 1

      Well, there is another factor - it's where one lives. I used to live on 40 acres, 6 miles from the nearest quickie mart and 25 miles from the nearest grocery store. I worked from home, so no commute. But I had a Ford F250 4WD for when I did drive. Sometimes my driveway (1/4 mile) had 2 feet of snow. So, 13 MPG when I went shopping - but that was only every couple of weeks typically. I had one neighbor who lost one job, got a new one that involved an 80 mile commute each way. There was no way he was going to uproot his family, sell the house etc. for a job that was likely to only last two years.

      There are a lot of areas in the US where it's just a long way from Point A to Point B - the US is, like 170th country in the world in population density. A lot of that is accounted for by desert Southwest, but even discounting that, distances tend to be long, and we're used to thinking in those terms. Back in the day I used to hitchhike 600 miles from Portland to San Francisco for a long weekend - multiple times in one year.

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    36. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by garyebickford · · Score: 1

      Actually the batteries are just plain expensive - the car makers are buying them from the battery makers, and the cost of making them is high. It will get cheaper as new high-volume methods are developed, but it's not just companies trying to rake it in. Mining and shipping battery materials is always going to be more expensive than shipping liquids through a pipeline.

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    37. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by dead_user · · Score: 1

      I tried this when my grandfather died and I was strapped for cash, but the departure times were only every couple of days. I need better granularity than that. I don't always want to leave at 8:00 am on a Saturday and return on Tuesday at 11:00. Basically, for the trip I needed, they only made bi-weekly trips that did not even come close to coinciding with my needs. Sad. I was kinda excited. I've never been on a real train before. Still haven't.

    38. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by DiSKiLLeR · · Score: 1

      In Auckland you just call a towing company. They come, collect the car free of charge.

      The owner then has to pay like $250+ to get their car back.

      Pretty much everyone here learns very quickly not to park in someone elses car park....

      --
      You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.
    39. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rent a car for $40/day?

    40. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Crosshair84 · · Score: 0

      Actually, yes they will be, they have been more expensive for over 100 years and show no sign of changing. The fundamental problem is that batteries suck when it comes to energy density, even at their theoretical maximums they can't compete even with LNG. You might as well advocate for coal fired steam cars.

      Look at this chart and the problem will become painfully clear.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_density.svg

      Physics says that electric cars suck and always will. If you don't like that then either pray that God will alter the laws of physics for you or start looking at realistic alternatives. The only possible hope that EV fans have to compete with gasoline is zinc-slurry batteries, but even their power per pound loses to gasoline and they are still experimental. Though they could be useful for grid storage. Liquified coal, the US is the Saudi Arabia of coal, in an ICE car would still probably beat EVs.

      120 pounds of gasoline can propel my work pickup, loaded down with telephone equipment, 350 miles. 400 pounds of batteries can't get the Volt, with only two people, even a fraction of that distance. Adding more batteries won't work because you'll then need to beef up the suspension, power-train, and structure of the car to compensate, which will then require even more batteries to extend the range, repeat to infinity.

      Batteries work fine if you are trying to power a stationary device, like UPS units, since once you set them up you never move them until you replace them. Batteries work fine for low power devices like cell phones. For power hungry mobile applications like propelling a car larger than a golf cart, not so much.

      Add to that the fact that producing an ICE requiters virtually no rare earth metals, Iron and Aluminum are your two major metals needed with only trace amounts of other metals needed for alloying. Producing an ICE is stupid easy and cheap with modern investment casing and CNC machining. Working with rare earth metals is a PITA even on a good day and the mining process for them makes driving a 1970's land yacht look green by comparison.

      I would personally love to see hybrid LNG/Gasoline vehicles take off in the US like they have in parts of South America. Run on cheap LNG for day to day travels and if you run out you just flip a switch and run on gasoline. Unfortunately, the government isn't shoveling money into them so nobody is interested in building or marketing either new LNG/Gasoline cars or conversion kits for existing cars. In the meantime, I'll just tinker with my mopeds.

    41. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by green1 · · Score: 1

      What portion of North American households have more than 1 car? (I'd be willing to bet the vast majority) Why do ALL of them need to be capable of long range?

      For example, my fiance and I both have cars, we both go to work every day, and we also both enjoy our vacations, trips to the mountains, etc. We couldn't (with current technology) replace both our vehicles with electric cars, but there is no reason at all why one of the 2 couldn't be electric, leaving the other one capable of the long road trips.

    42. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by green1 · · Score: 1

      As I pointed out though in another post, most families don't get "a" car, they get 2, (or more) so that each adult member of the household can do their own thing, and go their own places. You can't at present replace all those cars with electrics, but in most cases you could replace one of them (or more) without any adverse effects.

    43. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by tftp · · Score: 1

      Let's face it. Nobody likes to think. Therefore, we want one solution for everything. That's a car.

      It's not unreasonable. We buy machines so that they make our lives easier and more comfortable.

      Sure, I could get a bicycle, a motorbike, a car, an SUV and a truck - each for its own special occasion. But it would be awfully expensive - and wasteful too, since the car has to be made but it won't be doing anything while sitting in the garage. People tend to buy what serves most of their needs.

      I don't have a truck. This means that when I need to buy something long at Home Depot I need to ask a friend. However I can go to work in my car just fine. Imagine that I only had a motorbike and had to ask for a ride each time when the weather is bad. That would be very inconvenient.

      I can understand if a lifelong city dweller, who doesn't even know how to exit the city, is comfortable with a 60-mile Leaf. Good for him, and Leaf is the right car. But most people have serious needs that can't be easily deferred. Relatives arriving at the airport that is 50 miles away; a doctor sending you for tests to a city that is 80 miles away; a family member in trouble 90 miles away; a job offer from a company 60 miles away... Leaf can't go there and back without recharging, and you never know if there will be a chance to recharge. It will also take forever to recharge.

      Some say "rent a car for that." But here is a surprise for them. Rental places aren't renting cars for free. Rentals cost money. Why would you be buying already a very expensive car only to park it at the rental place's lot (yes, a safe and secure place for your precious) and pay additional monies to drive a strange jalopy that was used just minutes before you by who knows who and carries who knows what deadly viruses. Or drugs - just hope that the car is never searched; there is no way to prove that an empty plastic bag with traces of a certain plant matter is not yours. Rental cars have their use, but I wouldn't want to bother with them for a common trip.

      An EV right now is a reasonable purchase only if you have too much money. You will not save any money on an EV because EVs cost too much. Even a hybrid, like Prius, is marginal in terms of savings - though with today's gas prices my Prius does a very good job. But I bought my Prius for a reasonable price (about $25K, with the price on similar gas cars being around $22K.) The $3K premium that I paid is either already saved, or I don't care. It's much harder to not care about $15K premium, and even harder if for that money you get LESS of a car.

    44. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by tftp · · Score: 1

      Chances are, your household has more than one car anyway.

      There is only one car in my household. My coworker, though, has a family, and he bought an additional car. Guess what, it's a minivan - because that's what you need for family needs.

      EV will not be making any sense to buy until its cost becomes low enough to overcome its deficiencies. Even if today Volt or Leaf are adequate for some people, they are still a net loss of money in any term, short or long. Purchase of an EV is reasonable only if you are comfortable with paying $15-20K extra just for a novelty (and for bragging rights.) If you need a reliable working car, there are plenty to choose from. I think a fair price of a Leaf today would be about $10-12K - not $35K as it appears to be.

    45. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by tftp · · Score: 1

      If you only need to rent on the weekends, check out Enterprise.

      Yes, rental places do dump cars on weekends because they have an excess, and rentals don't earn any money while sitting in the lot.

      However renting is still bothersome. If you don't have a car you have to get to the rental place (and from it) somehow. Then your plans are governed not by your needs but by someone else. If I'm using my own car I'm free to stay here for a day, there for two days, and there is nobody to say a word about that. With rentals you have a contract, and you have to do what the contract says.

      In this case (of owning an inferior EV and then renting) it's just silly, worthy of another South Park episode. If you buy a car, buy a car, not a souped-up golf cart. Volt and Leaf may be even doing a disservice to the idea of an EV because they are demonstrating to the whole world how deficient an EV is. When better batteries show up it will be an uphill battle to overcome that belief. There is a reason why nobody mass-produced EVs 10 years ago - because our batteries aren't good enough. Same problem as today; however the manufacturers simply decided to rewrite the spec.

      Owning your own good car gives you freedom. You can cross the whole country in that car, hardly ever stopping (Lisa Nowak demonstrated that by driving 900 miles non-stop. NASA trained her well.) Owning of your own plug-in EV, on the other hand, keeps you on tether, always on the lookout for an outlet.

      Once batteries become more capable, the EV will be not just a viable option, it will be the only car in existence because from every other technical point an EV is superior. Today, though, it's just an expensive toy.

    46. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sure, to get to work (1.5 miles for me) an electric would be fine.

      1.5 miles?! Forget the electric car, any able-bodied adult could walk that in 20 minutes.

      In that time you're probably only pulling your car into a parking space.

    47. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by ryanov · · Score: 1

      1.5 miles? Please. Walk -- you'd be better off anyway.

    48. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by ryanov · · Score: 1

      Most trains run more often than that.

    49. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by iamweasel · · Score: 1

      I've been following the progress of the electric car with the intention of getting one.

      What I don't get about the range whining from people whose daily routine would be well served by an electric car, but then have to use a car for longer trips from time to time. I figure in those cases I will either rent a car or trade cars with a friend for that time. At least in my case I take trips by car that require me to drive more than 150 miles a day fewer than 5 times a year. Those trips are planned ahead, so making arrangements for a car is possible.

      If our household were to have 2 cars one would have range and the other would be electric. My current reason for not buying an electric car is, however, that I'm not that convinced about battery lifespan in the cold weather we get here in northern scandinavia as heating the battery all the time is not realistic. If I lived closer to the equator, say central europe, I'd have bought one already.

    50. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Alioth · · Score: 1

      An electric car isn't your solution, a bicycle (probably) is. 1.5 miles is an easy ride at a slow pace. If you're worried about getting sweaty, then you can get an electrically assisted bike, not hugely expensive (especially compared to an electric car). You save a huge amount of wear and tear on your car, driving that short of a distance is hard on your vehicle. But you still have the car for when the weather is bad or when you want to see your sister.

    51. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by tepples · · Score: 1

      As for being under 25... wait a few years and that problem will solve itself :^)

      So what is one supposed to do for in-person professional social networking between graduation and one's 25th birthday?

    52. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For rare longer trips, you merely hire a car for a day or two, $30-40 for something reasonably basic.

    53. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by TheRaven64 · · Score: 0

      Think about the American mentality, freedom and liberty first

      Is it? I thought the American mentality was 'I am entitled to the best of everything because my country is the greatest! Freedom and liberty, for me, not for anyone else.' Maybe I missed something.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    54. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by garyebickford · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's a problem - like so many things affected by US politics combined with US corporate reasoning, AmTrak is somewhat the worst of all possible worlds - it gets hind tit on the rails, as the rails are owned by the railroad companies and freight gets first priority, and it is essentially managed by Congress in such a way as to prevent it from succeeding.

      My grand scheme for the railroads (which would have worked great a while back, when they were really struggling) was to nationalize the actual routes - buy the actual line tracks from the companies and some of the marshalling yards, possibly paying for the purchase by giving the rail companies free use for some number of years. Then the rail companies would be free of the burden of maintaining all the line tracks but could continue to operate their freight services at the same or lower cost as they have at present. The government is pretty good at maintaining roads and infrastructure, and could build new routes according to community need. Then allow any company that can meet reasonable standards to use the rails to provide passenger service from point A to point B, at reasonable per-mile rates. This would eliminate the essential monopoly each rail company has on each route, and would allow entrepreneurial folks to take the risks to develop good passenger service between places that appear to make sense. So it's a win-win-win. Back a few years ago when the railroads were getting bailed out (see the history of CSX, just for example), this could have been done. I think now it's probably not workable because the rail companies are doing OK.

      Unfortunately, Congress, being essentially a big committee, can only agree on 'beige' solutions. Creative solutions will not make it through the sausage grinder.

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    55. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most families own at least two cars. "Dad's commuter" could typically be electric. The issue isn't range, it's cost.

      If you made a US highway safe 4-seater electric commuter car with a 60 mile range for less than $10k I bet you could sell it quite well

    56. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by type40 · · Score: 1

      Some say "rent a car for that." But here is a surprise for them. Rental places aren't renting cars for free. Rentals cost money. Why would you be buying already a very expensive car only to park it at the rental place's lot (yes, a safe and secure place for your precious) and pay additional monies to drive a strange jalopy that was used just minutes before you by who knows who and carries who knows what deadly viruses.

      Is there any way we can trim that down to a t-shirtable statement?

      --
      "You can see I know very little about pimp policy." George McGovern.
    57. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Any apparent personal butt-hurtness aside, there is absolutely no 30+ MPG car ever made which will permit you to haul more and bulkier stuff in your 4x8 trailer than my 1992 F250 with 7.3 + turbo and a crew cab. I have a more-than-4x8 bed with a tailgate I can leave down and I've hauled the weight of a small car in the bed, and the PO towed a gooseneck of 14,400 pounds behind it. You'd
      be lucky to get your car moving under a weight like that.

      I have a 1982 300SD and a 1992 F250 4x4 Diesel with a lift because I live in bumfuck. You're not going to pull a half-cord of damp oak out of the mud in your cute little commuter car. And I'm not doing it in my benzo either.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    58. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by N1AK · · Score: 1

      Full electric cars obviously have a limitation. For that reason they aren't going to be appropriate for everyone and there's no point in them trying. For a lot of people the benefits of being more enviromentally friendly and the fact it has sufficient range for 99% of their use will be enough.
      I see electric cars as a good choice for a 2nd car in the UK, where petrol costs £1.40 per litre. If a couple both work and commute by car then the chances that one of them can live with a ~100 mile range is high.

    59. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by AdrianKemp · · Score: 1

      No I was factoring that in. Around here it's $40 for the weekend (so $13 and change a day).

      But the thing is it's $40 for the weekend plus your fuel, which is at least $30-40 (again, minimum).

      The real trick is that during the week I burn almost no fuel... $50 can last me the entire month with ease just doing work runs. Add in a month of heavy errands (still in town) and you're up closer to $90.

      So what you end up with is that I'd be paying (even at serious discount rates) my entire "base" monthly fuel cost in rentals. I'd be paying those weekend fuel costs regardless.

      That means that the electric that costs $15,000 more saves me exactly $0 month to month.

      I'm all for making an effort to be green; that's why I bought a very fuel efficient car. I'm not in for that much though.

    60. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a 1985 Volvo sedan that I use to commute the 15 miles each way to work. It's a beater that I'm just keeping alive because all I need is something that reaches 65mph and gets me to work. I also do some errands in it.

      My wife's car is a 2007 VW Passat wagon with 300hp and a tow hitch. If we're going to visit my family 200 miles away or we have a whole lot of driving to do, we and the kids all get in this car.

      We have one car for 1 purpose and a different car for another. Why is it so hard to imagine that all cars have to be all things for all people? I hope to build a sportscar in my garrage someday. No one would expect me to use/treat this car the same as I would either of these other 2 cars.

      I really wish I could just stuff an electric motor and batteries in the 1985 volvo and plug it in. It would be used in almost exactly the same way as it is now.

    61. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Purchase of an EV is reasonable only if you are comfortable with paying $15-20K extra just for a novelty (and for bragging rights.)

      The same is true of a new car yet most people want to buy new, aspire to it even. I personally don't see the point in losing 33% of the value when you drive it off the lot. But I do see the value in having an EV, because it eliminates much of what is bad about a car, like noise, smell, most of the toxics, most of the maintenance issues that require a trained professional. This is probably one of the biggest reasons the automakers haven't wanted to sell us an EV until now; it will seriously impact service revenues, and if not done with complete incompetence, will produce a vehicle that lasts longer before requiring replacement as well (since it's rarely cost-effective to have an entire engine replaced — though it can be highly cost-effective to do it yourself, most people can't and/or won't do so.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    62. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      I've easily done 150+ miles just in around-town-driving on a busy Saturday

      No you haven't. 150 miles driving-around-town in a single day is nearly impossible.

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    63. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      But what about when I want to go visit my sister (83 miles one direction) for an evening? How about when we go see the in-laws (298 miles one way) every few months?

      I'm fortunate enough to live in a country where you can rent vehicles for a few hours to a few days. This way, you can keep one vehicle that handles your regular needs, yet still have access to other specialty transports as demands arise.

      I lived in a small city where it seemed like 90% of men drove pickups, but you'd never see them hauling anything around.

      Me: Why do you have that?
      Friend: In case I need to move something.
      Me: But the local home store rents pickups for $15 an hour if you ever want to haul a couch.
      Friend: Yeah, but I don't want to have to pay extra when I need to do that.
      Me: But your truck gets 10mpg. If you had a car that got 25mpg, after every 60 miles of driving you'd have saved enough money to rent a truck for an hour.
      Friend: But I need a truck.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    64. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      I live close to work. 5 miles is a nice quite commute. There are no charging stations at my condo. We got letters stating that running the charging cords from the condo to the cars violates the condo rules. Besides I didn't think using a 100 foot+ extension cord to charge your car is a safe idea. Work does not have charging stations either. We have asked, but were told no way at both the condo and work. So even though the plugin electric car would be ideal for me, it is not an option.

    65. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by b0bby · · Score: 1

      I think a fair price of a Leaf today would be about $10-12K - not $35K as it appears to be.

      According to this:
      http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/04/business/the-cost-of-higher-fuel-economy.html?ref=energy-environment
      a Leaf is ~$28k vs ~$18k for a comparable car from the same mfg (Versa). The Leaf will take ~9 years to pay for the difference in gas savings. So $10-12k is a bit low I'd say.
      Really, the Prius, at 49 mpg & $23k seems like the sensible choice today. Even if you were choosing between it & the Fiesta, you'd break even in about 13 years, and the Prius is nicer & will have a higher resale value if you sell it before that point.

    66. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      That is what my household plans on doing when the next car gets replaced. It will probably be my wife's car as it isn't aging well and will probably be replaced before my car. She got her car in 2000 but typically drives at most 5 miles a day. An electric car for her would be great so that is what we are going to be getting when her car needs replacing. In a typical day I end up putting about 100 miles on my car so all though electrics aren't there yet but by the time I need to replace my current car they should be able to make that number with a comfortable margin. For things like hunting and camping I have my Jeep Cherokee but that only gets driven about 3000 miles a year but is actually used for truck things (hauling, going down minimum maintenance roads, pulling stumps, driving on unplowed roads, hunting, and camping) so that one I really don't care what it gets for gas mileage, and the insurance is cheap on a limited use vehicle.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    67. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I agree, and if I lived 1.5 miles from work I'd walk. Except when it's 100 degrees, or -20, or raining cats, dogs, and hippos.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    68. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      You must live in a small town. I routinely drive over 100 on a Saturday.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    69. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      Really? I mean, this is what a 150 mile drive around the Chicago metro area looks like:

      http://g.co/maps/hsdus

      That's a long, long way from "around town on a busy Saturday". Hell, it's less than 140 miles from Washington DC to Philadelphia!!

      What kind of errands are you running??

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    70. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I can move appliances, beds, furniture, etc. in my trailer with ease. Why the hell would I want to move the weight of a small car, let alone a 14k pound trailer? More importantly, how many people (other than e.g. farmers) have a real need for that? Very few.

    71. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Also, I never, ever, ever see anyone here in the city moving loads like that with their shiny pickups. At the very most, they're moving furniture and other lightweight loads that my trailer could do better. And their trucks generally have shorter beds than my trailer, some of them laughably short.

    72. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Trailers are wonderful but they don't meet all the needs of a truck or SUV as they don't provide high clearance which is mostly what I need the Jeep for as I use to get stuck a lot and break suspension parts in my sedan when I would high and center it out in the woods hunting, camping, or fishing. If I really need to haul lots of stuff I go and borrow my father's enclosed race car trailer, as it even has a nice long ramp. Granted most people really don't need an SUV or truck and would be better off with a minivan or station wagon, but those aren't as cool.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    73. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by ryanov · · Score: 1

      I actually DO live 1.5 miles to work and don't often walk (I am trying to get motivated -- it's all uphill and I'm not a morning person), but I don't drive it either and certainly wouldn't buy a car just for that commute.

    74. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by tftp · · Score: 1

      I personally don't see the point in losing 33% of the value when you drive it off the lot.

      For some strange reason people prefer to buy new clothes instead of picking up used ones at the garbage dump.

      A new car comes with full warranty. A used car probably has an expired warranty. A new car is more likely to be trouble-free, and you know for sure that it wasn't in any accident and it wasn't damaged. There are many ways to kill the car that are not obvious. (Driving a car on uneven roads for several years will do one in nicely.) A new car will be perfectly clean. A new car is probably also the latest model, which comes with all the latest improvements, gadgets and such, and with full resource of wearable parts (lights, gaskets, rubber boots, and many more.)

      The loss of 30% as you drive it off the lot is just a local discontinuity. It matters if you intend to sell the car right away - you lose money. However if you intend to drive the car for a long time then it doesn't matter. You pay $20K and you drive the car for 10 years. That would be $2K/yr. Or you can buy a used car (5 years) for $10K. You will drive it for 5 years. That would be... the same $2K/yr.

    75. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Blitter · · Score: 1

      What do I do if the idiot in 2C parks his tank^H^H^H^H SUV in my spot (and the two on either side of it), refuses to move it and thus ensures I can't charge my car?

      Have his car towed away? I've done that a bunch of times, they never park in my spot again. I also live near DC, so there's no shortage of lawyers to try to sue me but it's never happened.

      --
      I am Jack's writable stack pointer.
    76. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Drive to my GF's, then to the casino, to some eating place, sometimes to a walking trail, and maybe additional driving for fun. All at various and widely separated corners of the city. By the time I drop her back at her house at head back to mine, that's another 100+ miles on my car.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    77. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Most people with trucks or SUVs never use them for any truck like activities but just pound pavement with their own fat asses in them. One of my buddies is like that, he has a Ford F350 4x4 off road Eddie Bauer edition with the big cab (not sure if it is the quad or crew but it is the biggest one), the long box, and the V10 diesel. He got it lifted with some off road tires as well as getting it chipped and a bigger turbo. He only drives it on pavement and won't take it on to dirt roads let alone some of the hunting trails in the area we hunt for fear of damaging the paint, getting dents or scratches, or wrecking the suspension. Once I asked if I could borrow it as I needed to pickup about 3/4 of a ton of concrete in sacks and he said no because it might wreck the suspension. We all make fun of him and call it his small penis truck as he won't do anything truck like with it.

      I wouldn't have a problem with not owning a 4 wheel drive vehicle if I could rent one and do what I do with my Jeep with the rental. I have a Jeep Cherokee that I only put about 3,000 miles a year on it but that is actually doing things the would require 4 wheel drive and/or high clearance. I have pulled stumps, hauled material, taken it down roads where there were small trees growing in the middle, forded rivers, taken it down lots of logging roads as well as taking it hunting, camping and fishing (the really remote places are the best). The few times in the winter when the roads are really bad I will also drive it into work but it spends the vast majority of time sitting next to my garage. I also don't get why most people think they need 4 or all wheel drive even those who live here in the Twin Cities metro area as they are really good about plowing the roads and 4 wheel drive doesn't do jack on ice. My Jeep has 4 wheel drive but it also has posi differentials which is much better when you need more traction (locking diffs are better still) in stuff like thick deep mud or snow than the standard open differentials most vehicles have (racers call this setup old peg leg).

      --
      Time to offend someone
    78. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      As far as motorcycles go I would love to take one to work except it gets damn cold here in Minnesota in the winter and don't want to wear full leathers and helmet when it is in the 90s outside with a dew point in the 80s in the summer. I do agree that most motorcycle rider pay more attention to the road but some of them are even stupider than than the words drivers I have seen.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    79. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by jafac · · Score: 1

      Ten Trillion times THIS.

      And also, my diesel has a range of 450 miles. 46 mpg. 0-60 in 6.2 sec.
      If 450 miles is not as far as I need to drive today, refueling takes approximately 180 seconds if a diesel station is available; and they're mostly readily available along most inter-city routes.

      Why is this so hard for the pro-electric crowd to understand?

      I fully agree that electric is the future, and that the human race is not going to sustain a transportation infrastructure based on petroleum for many more decades. Perhaps 2. 3 at the most. But we need FAR better batteries than we have now.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    80. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Just for the record I personally have 4 cars. One has a range of about 1/4 mile before it starts to overheat (no cooling system).

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    81. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by sdguero · · Score: 1

      I hear ya. I'm lucky in that I live in Southern California so it's almost never below 50 for my morning commute.

      I'm loving my new commuter bike though, an old Honda Nighthawk 750 I got for $1500. After a little carb work I did, it gets at least 45MPG (vs 15MPG in my SUV), and at $4.00 a gallon it payed for itself after the first 10k miles... :)

    82. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Yes, so-called pickup trucks with pre-bobbed beds are pathetic. The bed on the Honda Ridgeline, for example, is an exceptionally sorry excuse.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    83. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      No, but it's obviously too complicated for the average Slashdotter.

      I have the feeling the "average Slashdotter" is single.

    84. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      So what is one supposed to do for in-person professional social networking between graduation and one's 25th birthday?

      One is supposed to figure out a solution. It's really not that difficult if you're willing to think outside the box. Here are some ideas to get you started:

      find a rental company that will rent to under-25-year-olds

      buy a cheap used car

      borrow a friend's car

      bike

      take the bus

      take the train

      take a taxi

      walk

      buy a skateboard

      use ZipCar

      buy a scooter or motorcycle

      use the phone or the Internet to avoid the trip

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    85. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by sdguero · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I found this LA Times piece about that episode, lower CO^2 and better fuel economy but lots more of the nasty stuff...
      http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2011/09/mythbusters-motorcycle-emissions.html

      My bike has about 350 lbs of steel in it vs 1200+ lbs in a typical car. That is a big environmental impact in itself. Not to mention that you can ship about 4 bikes in the same container space as one car when importing. The emissions regulations are looser on bikes, but I live in CA where emissions are stricter on all vehicles, and have been since the early 90s. My bike for example has CA specific smog related parts.

      I get 45MPG all the time on my 20 year old bike that also happens to go 0-60 in less than 4 seconds. She's is going to continue being my commuter for quite a while...

    86. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      A new car comes with full warranty. A used car probably has an expired warranty. A new car is more likely to be trouble-free, and you know for sure that it wasn't in any accident and it wasn't damaged. There are many ways to kill the car that are not obvious. (Driving a car on uneven roads for several years will do one in nicely.) A new car will be perfectly clean. A new car is probably also the latest model, which comes with all the latest improvements, gadgets and such, and with full resource of wearable parts (lights, gaskets, rubber boots, and many more.)

      It depends entirely on where you buy it from. I bought my used car from the dealership, paying $16k instead of the original list of $23k or so. It was three years old, had 20k miles on it, and was in excellent condition. It also came with a new manufacturer's warranty for 60k miles or 7 years, whichever arrived sooner. 12 years later, it has 106k miles on it and still runs great. Don't buy your used cars from some random Joe. Or even from "Bob's Dodgy Used Car Lot." There are plenty of used cars for a good discount that have barely been driven that are available from the manufacturer's dealer, and the only thing you miss out on is the "oh, no one but me has ever driven this car" experience.

    87. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by sdguero · · Score: 1

      I was just saying that, based on the founding principles of the USA, at least some Americans (like me) still value the option to hop in their car and drive across the country on a decent interstate highway system without having to stop and wait for the battery to charge every 130 miles .

      If you want to use that statement to lump me, and the rest of my fellow citizens, into some sort of global anti-liberty, anti-freedom conspiracy, I suggest you do so at your discretion. Nobody likes to be stereotyped, especially because of some governmental foreign policy decision that has nothing to do with them or their beliefs... In some places making statements like that will get you punched in the mouth.

    88. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A rental for a week cost about the same as a monthly payment on the same car. So in addition to regular payments, you have to add a couple extra car payments just to rent a car to go on vacation. Let me know when that makes sense for most people, because from where I sit, those couple of car payments (rentals) might as well go for gasoline powered cars (which have lower cost anyways).

      In other words ... it is not economical to buy a car and rent one too verse just buying one.

    89. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two obvious solutions, both of which were in use in the late 1800s/early 1900s when electric vehicles had their first hoorah:

      1) Replace "gas stations" with battery exchange stations - in most visions you don't own the battery, instead purchasing a service contract providing "prepackaged power". There's a fellow in Israel working on establishing this sort of system. Obviously new infrastructure doesn't come cheap, so there are some challenges to this approach. It does have the advantage that since batteries aren't permanently linked to cars you can perform a certain amount of battery "wear leveling"

      2) Add a range-extending generator to keep you going when the batteries run low. This has the advantage of requiring no new infrastructure and, depending on implementation details, could be offered as a modular accessory.

      As an additional advantage of a modular design you could have different range extenders for different use patterns. Maybe you just want a secondary battery bank, or your usage patterns allow you to get away with a cheap, low-power generator that can't keep up with the power draw, but can run continuously to buy you an extra 20 miles of range and then recharges while parked. Or maybe your local natural gas infrastructure is sufficient that you want to go that direction instead. Hmm, could actually have real potential there - one of the biggest problems with natural gas vehicles is a lack of convenient refueling stations, but if you only need to fuel up for longer trips...

    90. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's amazing how many people have never heard of "rental cars".

      Oh, you mean from that local rental place that's closed all weekend. So, if you wanted to rent the car for a Saturday trip, you'd have to pay for Friday and Sunday as well.

    91. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting the fact that taking a long road trip on your car puts extra miles on it. The federal allowance is around $0.30/mile for tax deduction purposes, but others frequently cite much higher figures, perhaps $0.50/mile. In particular, those miles use up your tires quickly. My car's tires only last about 15-20k miles, so a 1000-mile trip costs around $30 just for the tires; my tires are fairly cheap, more expensive cars with more expensive tires will cost more. Plus the need to do service sooner, etc.

      On top of that, how often do you go on road trips anyway? If it's every month, then obviously the rental thing isn't going to make sense. If it's yearly, then it probably does. When I go on vacation, it's usually in an airplane, because I don't want to spend 5 days driving out of a 7-day vacation.

    92. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Go to your local airport; the rental counters there should be open 7 days/week.

    93. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "local airport" is 100 miles away? How would I get their then back home on an electric vehicle?

    94. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1-2 times a year ??? How about 1-2 times a week? Not everyone can afford to live in a downtown metro area with great public transit (news flash: most downtown metro areas have absolutely horrific public transit).

      If I'm plunking down $$$ for a vehicle, why the hell would I want to plunk down even more to rent ANOTHER one?

    95. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by AdrianKemp · · Score: 1

      I'm in your boat exactly, it's the future... not the present.

      The other thing people don't get is that for the ~15,000 that I would have spent getting an electric car I could do vastly better things for the environment. So even if you *do* have money to burn and 15 grand is a non issue it's *still* not a good investment in the environment.

    96. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by phorm · · Score: 1

      Or just the number of people who have actually dealt with rental companies before.
      (had good and bad before myself, but when it sucks, it *really* sucks)

    97. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Tweezak · · Score: 1

      I'm not trying to be a jerk but you might consider rentals.

      When I need a pickup truck to haul something I don't go buy one...I rent one for about $20 a day. No insurance, no maintenance, no payments, no tires, etc. We are, after all, talking about hybrids not paying for themselves and we should also consider whether it is financially feasible to own a car versus renting if your need is only occasional. Yes, I own a car...but I don't also need to own a pickup. I just don't need it that often so renting is the perfect solution for me.

      Also check out zipcar.com

    98. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      That's odd; I've rented cars a pretty fair number of times over the last couple years for business trips, and it's been quite smooth. I remember it being more of a PITA 10 years ago or so, but these days they have it really streamlined in most places; drive up to the rental car return, grab your bags, the attendant looks over the car really fast, scans something with their handheld device, and prints out a receipt for you on the spot showing your total charges. I usually use Enterprise, but have used the other big names too. But even 10-15 years ago I never had any major problems, and I did a lot of business travel back then too.

    99. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Actually, I do remember a problem with a rental company; a female friend of mine rented a car for a road trip from some local rental place at a hotel about 10 years ago. When she and her girlfriend returned the car, I went with them for some reason. After we left, the jerk at the counter called us back, and we drove back, and he said we had to pay more money because he forgot something (don't remember what), which was going to cost another $200-300. I pointed out that we had a signed contract, so if he left something out, that was his problem. He said he'd call his lawyer as we walked out, but of course we never heard any more about it.

      However, I don't think this was one of the large chains (Avis, Hertz, Enterprise, Dollar, etc.), it was some shitty local place. As with many businesses, small local places can either be great, or a nightmare, so you have to be careful with them. The big national chains (for any business, not just rental cars) are much more homogeneous and predictable; you generally won't see really underhanded BS at big national chain businesses, though, as in the case of Best Buy for instance, if one store is bad (pushing extended warrantees, moronic salespeople, etc.), you can generally assume them all to be similarly bad and stay away from the whole lot. Personally, I haven't had any trouble with the large car-rental chains that you usually find at airports.

    100. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by phorm · · Score: 1

      Rental truck place: Truck didn't come in on moving day. After arguing I ended up with a 24" instead of a 17" (realllly fun to get through the parking lots, but better than the teeny ones they had otherwise).

      Car rental places: Reserve a vehicle months in advance (something relatively small and fuel-efficient) only to find it's not in when I arrive (on-time). Get offered a boat instead. Find least boat-like vehicle, and the engine light comes on as I'm just about to pull out... apparently the last maintenance had been skipped.
      Over an hour to find a car which I could use. I got a price cut, but I was also late for my engagement.

      Car rental places: Not my personal experience, but lots of people have issues with things like window cracks/chips, where they charge full cost to replace the window and then take it somewhere and just fill the teeny dint in the window, etc.

    101. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      I wish that car manufacturers, given the 40,000 dollar price tag of cars like the volt, would offer free loaner gas cars to electric owners who need one for a weekend getaway. It sure would drive up adoption.

      Even though it isn't a huge cost (25-50 per day), renting a car is inconvenient.

    102. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The loss of 30% as you drive it off the lot is just a local discontinuity. It matters if you intend to sell the car right away - you lose money. However if you intend to drive the car for a long time then it doesn't matter. You pay $20K and you drive the car for 10 years. That would be $2K/yr. Or you can buy a used car (5 years) for $10K. You will drive it for 5 years. That would be... the same $2K/yr.

      Your math is fine but your word problem is broken, because the car continues to depreciate whether you bought it new or used, but it depreciates fastest in its first year. So the biggest savings is buying a car 1 year old. At minimum you should buy last year's used car, which as the sibling notes takes care of any problems with warranties.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    103. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      If you drive 75 miles each way to work you are by far in the minority. Most people in that situation would move closer to their workplace.

      You've never been to DC I take it? In fact, most large cities in America are largely unaffordable to live anywhere near the city center because we have lousy planning.

    104. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Chances are if you own an electric car, you obviously don't like cars and aren't likely to own two of them.

    105. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Well there's always the "mentality" that you CAN do it, but then there's also reality. Who just up and drives 3000 miles for no reason, just because they can?

      And "why would you spend more money for a vehicle that is less capable in this respect"? How about because you are not likely to ever drive across the country, but you are likely to drive to and from work 5 days a week? THIS is the direction American consumerism has head over the past 30 years. Buy stuff with a bunch of features you will never use, just to be safe (i.e. because the manufacturers tell you that you'll need it...OnStar anyone?)

      I don't find that to be an endearing quality of American culture at all.

    106. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      I work with software engineers in Texas. Our joke about them is that they drive big trucks to carry all their code.

    107. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Yes, because you could NEVER rent a car in Portland, OR and drive to Seattle in it. I mean, that's totally illegal, right? (Replace Portland, OR with any other major border city, if you like).

    108. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by tepples · · Score: 1

      It's not illegal; it's just that I've read that car rental companies raise their rates considerably for trips that cross a state line. For rentals in a border city, however, this increase may already be at least partly baked into the standard rate.

    109. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by toddestan · · Score: 1

      You go on moderate road trips 1-2 times a week? Then buy the gasoline powered car. But to drive around a vehicle all year because it has some capability that you need sporadically is ridiculous. Same thing applies to most people driving around those giant SUVs and pickups.

    110. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      How do you feel about CarMax?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    111. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      For the average commute, an electric with even a 73 mile range (the low estimate on the LEAF) would work fine. The average commute is 16 miles, one way. That means you could go to work, get off work, go somewhere else, and go home and still be fine (remember it refuels every night).

      The refueling every night thing is one of the sticking points. Many, many people can't take advantage of an all elec, because they have nowhere to plug it in.
      I have a single family home, but no garage. Just a carport. And I rent. Pretty sure the landlord is going to look at me funny if I ask to have a recharge station mounted on the outside wall.
      People in apartments, in the city? Completely out of luck. You can't string an extension cord out the 4th floor window. (Even if you could actually recharge it from a standard extension cord, which you can't). The perfect environment, and it can't really be used.

      Currently, all-electric cars are for a small minority (have more than average money, have a useful garage, have a short commute).

    112. Re:Oh enough with the range whining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would be better off walking to work and renting a car for your longer trips. You would come out way ahead if you have a car rental place the will pick you up or live at all near one.

  43. Many bad suv hybrids... by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I knew a number of people who bought hybrid suv's. There are convential gas hybrids which are only slightly smaller vehiciles that now get better gas milage than their hybrids do and at a lower purchase price. None of them want another hybrid at this point.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    1. Re:Many bad suv hybrids... by fish+waffle · · Score: 2

      "Hybrid SUV"...well, there's the problem. I'm guessing that's the same group of people who would buy low-calorie candy bars, and then be disappointed to find out they're still fat.

    2. Re:Many bad suv hybrids... by raygundan · · Score: 1

      It was a market failing. I ended up in a Ford Escape Hybrid despite actually wanting something smaller. A Subaru-type design with ground clearance and AWD would have been perfect, but two years ago, Subaru's engines got horrible fuel economy. Best they had was in the low 20s. So I ended up with a larger vehicle than I wanted, because it was more efficient at 32mpg. That's weird, but that's what happens when the available product range has gaps.

      Subaru has since fixed their crap, and they have a little hatchbacky offroadable thing that gets 33mpg coming out shortly. And Ford has discontinued the hybrid Escape. If I shopped again today with the same needs, it wouldn't be a hybrid. In two more years, it could be again. Hybrids aren't in every market niche.

  44. So this means we should buy used Hybrids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bought both my hybrids (Camry and Lexus GS450h) when gas prices bottomed out to $1.50/ga in 2008-9. The Lexus was a 2008 used model going for less than the comparable gas version, probably due to battery and maintenance fears, yet it's super fast and fully loaded with all the toys such as active suspension and radar cruise control. I traded in a BMW 750LI for it and good riddance to that sublime, comfortable, completely unreliable beast. The Camry we got a few months later, there were so many Hybrids on the lot festering due to the surge in production from the previous gas prices that they were desperate to unload them (it was actually manufactured in Japan as they were importing them to keep up with demand). It was a "manager's car," untitled with 3K miles and we got it, fully loaded with Nav and the works for something like 14K under the MSRP.

    So, would I buy a hybrid again? Not likely if it was new. Overall, however, we've greatly enjoyed our hybrids... loads of torque for passing, great MPG, and ended up with much nicer equipped cars in the end for a great deal. If the lack of owner enthusiasm creates even better deals for used hybrids I'd happily buy again.

  45. All this shows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that one hybrid is probably enough for most people. The article doesn't specify that these car buyers are actually *replacing* their existing hybrids with non-hybrids, all it says is that the next purchase is more likely to be a non-hybrid. I would bet this holds true for many other factors as well. Most people I know don't purchase the same car model or brand twice in a row either. Most car buyers probably prefer to have some diversity in the vehicles they own, and many of the hybrid offerings are fairly homogeneous.

  46. Hybrids don't fix the problem by hessian · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A hybrid is a significantly more complex vehicle that uses more toxic parts than a regular car.

    In addition, a few million retired Baby Boomers (this is the only type of person I see driving a Prius) driving hybrids will not impact the environment at all.

    Our environmental problem consists of two real problems and many false ones. The real problems: (a) overpopulation and (b) reckless industrial growth. The fake problems: inefficient lightbulbs, unrecycled condoms, non-hybrid cars, non-"green" cleaners, etc.

    If we want to stop our slow but ongoing ecocide, we need to change the way we live. You can start by buying a car with a reasonably sized engine, making as few trips as possible, and keeping that car for 20-30 years as once was done.

    1. Re:Hybrids don't fix the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If we want to stop our slow but ongoing ecocide, we need to change the way we live. You can start by buying a car with a...

      Better yet, just skip the car and buy a bicycle. I wish I could say that I did this, but I still have a car I use for the occasional out-of-town trip--but I use the bicycle for commuting to and from work and classes, errands (groceries and whatnot), visiting friends, and most other trips I used to drive for without thinking much about it.

    2. Re:Hybrids don't fix the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you failed at "a hybrid". Even if you include the more complex parts, all cars are more complex today and include more computers, the ONLY difference in this case is the battery.

      There is no ecocide taking place that's a fallacy same with overpopulation and other stupid straw man arguments.

      Every step individuals take and governments take to mandate efficiency makes our lives a bit better in the long run. We no longer become dependent on external resources.

      That whole argument sadly falls on its face when you learn that we export more gas than we use now. The price of petroleum is more swayed not by our production but by speculation. (I'm sure every conspiracy theory will now also come flooding out saying how the industrialists are raising the price of gas to help the Republicans take back the White house.)

    3. Re:Hybrids don't fix the problem by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I'll add to the industrial growth one: My understanding is that those tankers which can ship Manhattan Island to Japan for a buck fifty cause an incredible amount of pollution, dwarfing any tiny changes Americans might make to driving habits.

      Look, this is all about CONSUMERISM. They keep feeding people the classic sales pitch: Here's the problem and we have a hip, shiny new solution for you! The solution doesn't actually fix anything, so the companies can continue to profit by selling a new model in a few years.

      Wake up, people.

      --
      -
    4. Re:Hybrids don't fix the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only difference is the battery? Really? So the charging mechanism is the same in both types of vehicles? Just the alternator? I thought hybrids used braking energy, for example, to charge the battery pack. Of course, if hybrids do use different mechanisms to charge the larger battery pack with more toxic parts, perhaps there are even more differences than you realize.

      Perhaps you have seen the figures on increased costs in terms of manufacturing, operating, and disposing of these vehicles? Hardly seems more efficient to me for a relatively minor improvement in mileage per gallon, which is only one way to calculate efficiency.

    5. Re:Hybrids don't fix the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Inefficient lightbulbs aren't a problem? You have no idea what you are talking about. Upgrading lighting is one of the single most cost effective energy efficiency projects there are, and doing so makes a substantial difference.

      Figure there are 100,000,000 homes in tUSA. Lets say that there are a total of 100 light-hours per week [a low estimate for most homes]. If we go from 60W to 15W [again, a low estimate since some are 75W or 100W bulbs], we're talking about saving 4500Wh per home, per week. 4.5kWh * 52 weeks/yr * 100,000,000 homes is 23,400,000,000 kWh == 23,400 GWh. Divide by 8760 hours/yr, and you're taking 2.67 GW of power plants off of production 24x7x365.

      That's about 4 large coal fired power plants, and that's with extremely low estimates for lighting savings. And yes, they will be coal plants because the EPA regulations induced by the Clean Air Act (1970, updated 1977, updated 1990) require old coal fired power plants to invest in significant upgrades to stay operating after 2016ish. The energy efficiency means that those plants [and not natural gas plants] are retired.

      Installing efficient lighting en masse really does make a difference, measurable in the number of large coal fired power plants retired as a result.

      Changing the way we live means burning less oil, less coal, and less natural gas. One way to do that is buying a car with a reasonably sized engine, etc.... but it certainly isn't the only way.

    6. Re:Hybrids don't fix the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...or by joining a car share scheme, or lots of other things you haven't mentioned. I'm afraid people like you won't save the planet, because you're far too selfish and can only see things from you own perspective.

    7. Re:Hybrids don't fix the problem by Xanny · · Score: 1

      Strangely, people remain more partial to giving tax breaks on hybrid cars or recycling that if everyone switched over would produce less than .1% change in our emissions, versus giving a tax credit to anyone without kids. The latter won't stop the catastrophe that will hit us this century, but if everyone got on board maybe we could get our population down to ~5 billion in a couple hundred years in time for everyone to get first world quality living without having the planet go runaway greenhouse on us.

    8. Re:Hybrids don't fix the problem by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      In addition, a few million retired Baby Boomers (this is the only type of person I see driving a Prius)

      I see plenty of people aged about 25-30 driving a Prius in and around Seattle.

    9. Re:Hybrids don't fix the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's easier to just not use a car and walk everywhere, right? Population would decrease, and less people would make it to work, reducing industrial waste.

    10. Re:Hybrids don't fix the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually other than using a clothesline instead of a dryer, using CFLs or LEDs is one of the few ways you can significantly change your personal energy consumption as far as your home goes.

      You are right that hybrids are more complex but the idea of electronic cars isn't bad, but the idea of combining them with combustion engines is because you just add the mechanical complexity of an internal combustion engine to the volatility of lithium and the degrading lifespan of a chemical battery creating an even more complicated car that'll explode more often, won't last as long, and pollute like crazy if not disposed of properly. What we need is a purely electronic car using something better than the pathetic energy density of lithium ion/polymer batteries.

      Too bad we're still persuing retarded shit like hydrogen fuel cells which have craptacular energy density, corn based ethanol for internal combustion engines (there's better ways to get ethanol such as from cellulose, there's better things to do with the ethanol than burn it like use it in fuel cells since it's a lot better than hydrogen and the effeciency of directly generating electricity would make up for the lower energy density, and there's better thing to burn than ethanol such as biodiesel), and photo voltaic grids which take almost 30 times as much space as a wind tower for the same amount of power.

    11. Re:Hybrids don't fix the problem by tirefire · · Score: 1

      Our environmental problem consists of two real problems and many false ones. The real problems: (a) overpopulation and (b) reckless industrial growth. The fake problems: inefficient lightbulbs, unrecycled condoms, non-hybrid cars, non-"green" cleaners, etc.

      Oh my god, deserves +6 insightful. This guy should be the head of the EPA.

    12. Re:Hybrids don't fix the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually some hybrids such as the Prius (I hate that car) actually took the whole hybrid thing and did it right. They actually took out a lot of the mechanical parts in vehicle and made it simpler or took it out all together and it is now controlled by the computer. It's actually pure genius how they did it, do a quick google search on "Prius reliability why" or something along those lines and you begin seeing the things they do posted on the forums. I won't bother going into the details as I am still looking into it and some of it is over my head and I don't want to spread false information, but if you understand a bit about cars I suggest you take a look into it.

      Than there are other vehicles which seem to be nothing more than a small electrical motor and a battery and some hybrid like things thrown onto it to piggy back on the whole hybrid crowd. They are nothing more than glorified conventional cars with wannabe hybrid like features.

      And as a side note I would love to see someone do something stupidly pointless like drop a turbocharged k20 engine in a 1st gen honda insight with a hybrid system for no other reason than they could. Would give me a good laugh to see, and I am curious as to how that would perform.

      But what actually has my interest is Diesel engines, those things are a bit more interesting I would love to see more turbo diesel engines in the market.

    13. Re:Hybrids don't fix the problem by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      . The fake problems: inefficient lightbulbs, unrecycled condoms, non-hybrid cars, non-"green" cleaners, etc.

      Uh, but then you say...

      If we want to stop our slow but ongoing ecocide, we need to change the way we live.

      You can't have it both ways. Further, you're conflating hybrids (which are stupid in all but corner cases) with real problems like unnecessary inefficiency and poor waste management practices, not to mention unnecessary use of toxics. Those are part of "the way we live" and further, they are an unnecessarily harmful part of it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:Hybrids don't fix the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this unrecycled condom issue must be serious! Tell us more...

    15. Re:Hybrids don't fix the problem by dgux69 · · Score: 1

      Hybrids will partially solve the problem.
      The actual problem is that we still use a huge amount of oil and up to now the alternatives are either still too expensive or blocked by lobbies.
      If you want to save money hybrid are an alternative if you manage to make long drives on pure electric.
      A step further would be the long range electric cars where the combustion engine simply generates electricity. With those, the gas engine always revs at the maximum efficiency as it's loading the batteries and not moving the wheels.
      In Europe Renault as a good alternative to that: pure electric cars with swappable batteries. On short runs (up to 100 mi) you can charge them, on long runs you can swap your empty battery for a full one at the gas station. They are introducing the idea and if they manage to have a widespread network of gas station storing batteries it could have quite a success. The car itself is a bit expensive (but not as an hybrid would be) and it requires way less maintenance as it is pure electric.
      The ecological aspect is another story since what is the advantage of clean drive when the power needed to charge the batteries come from coal ?...

  47. Rural drivers in the "flyover states"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I need, and have, a Ford F-450 Super Duty King Ranch dual axle pickup truck with four wheel drive and a 6.7L turbodiesel V8.
    It gets about 10mpg but I can pull a brick house off its foundation with this beast, though I normally only pull trailers loaded with livestock or tractors with it.
    All you hybrid-driving enviro-greenies can suck on my exhaust pipes!

    1. Re:Rural drivers in the "flyover states"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your truck has about 560 ft.lb of torque. The motor in the roadster is 295 ft. lb. Several companies are working on a series hybrid with dual motors of similar size for trucks. They will produce more than 600 ft.lb. Then add the series hybrid and you have better than 50 MPG.

      You can continue to throw away money. For others, they will buy a more powerful truck which does not cost as much to run. And the only one sucking your exhaust pipes is yourself.

  48. Article is fishy by HMBBruce · · Score: 1

    The article doesn't say how the study was conducted or what the collected data was. It just gives an interpretation.

    It says that 35% chose to purchase a hybrid again. So are we to assume that the others purchased something else? It doesn't say that. How many of the remaining 65% chose to not buy a new car at all?

    The article doesn't say how the study was conducted. Was some of the data collected at dealerships that don't sell hybrids?

    Does the study consider only new car buyers, or does it include people buying clunkers? Because clunker-buyers might not know or care whether a clunker is hybrid.

    By and large, hybrid owners love their hybrids. You know who doesn't like hybrids? Outdated automobile manufacturers who don't have the technological prowess to develop them. They wouldn't be behind a phony study/article, would they?

  49. Not a fair comparison by goodmanj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Excluding Prius owners"... well there's your problem. Of the hybrids people would likely be trading in (2000-2008ish), only the Toyota Prius is worth a damn. All the others in that year range had tiny electric motors which barely gave any hybrid boost at all. If the "hybrid" you're trading in is basically an ordinary car with a cordless drill motor strapped to the fan belt, of course you're not going to be loyal to it.

    1. Re:Not a fair comparison by mikestew · · Score: 1

      And my mods points are all gone. Anyway, what you point out is why when we did look at hybrids, the Prius was the only one on our list. The Honda Civic with a 13bhp electric motor? Umm, no, I have tools in my garage that put out more than that. Ridiculous SUVs with an electric motor attached? Kind of misses the point. Since there was a multi-month wait for Priuses at the time, we just skipped hybrids until the Leaf came out.

    2. Re:Not a fair comparison by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Uh no. The comparison gets WORSE when you exclude Prius owners, but the conclusion remains the same; more than half of hybrid owners wouldn't buy another hybrid. If the Prius drove nicer then perhaps there would be a reason to love it, but as it is, you will get the same mileage with a much better-driving car with a TDI.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Not a fair comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you will get the same mileage with a much better-driving car with a TDI.

      No you don't.

      http://www.fuelly.com/car/toyota/prius
      http://www.fuelly.com/car/volkswagen/jetta/diesel%20l4

      Note that the bell curve for the Prius peaks at 47 MPG, while the TDI's bell curve peaks at 40. The Prius is still significantly better than TDIs, and it uses a fuel that 14% less energy-dense to begin with. Add city driving into the mix, and the Prius destroys the TDI for efficiency. Not to mention Priuses are drop dead reliable, while VWs are known as the most unreliable cars on the market.

  50. fewer choices available by j2.718ff · · Score: 1

    I used to drive a VW diesel (which I think for the purpose of this discussion is a similar category to a hybrid). I quite liked it, but I deal with snow and/or poorly maintained dirt roads often enough that I decided to get an all-wheel drive car. Unfortunately, there aren't really any good all wheel drive hybrid cars, so instead I got an old Subaru.

    It's a shame - for 90% of my driving, the TDI was fantastic. But it's because of the 10% of the time I'm in a different environment I opted for something else.

  51. Hybrids are a white elephant by JustNiz · · Score: 0

    Its because most consumers don't actually understand what hybrids are really for.

    Its amazing how many people (including the motoring media) in the US incorrectly believe that the reason for buying a hybrid over a normal car is to save gas money. This is not even close to the actual reason hybrids were invented, so its no surprise that it doesn't really work out that way either.

    Don't believe me? Go compare the price and MPG of a Toyota Prius compared to, say, a Toyota Yaris.

    The real reason hybrids came about is as a way to reduce CO2 emisions for a greener environment and to fight global warming, mostly regardless of cost of ownership.

    But the green angle doesn't look so good either when you factor in the (actually quite nasty) emissions from the production and disposal of all the extra stuff like Lithium batteries that that go into a Prius over a conventional car.

    1. Re:Hybrids are a white elephant by j-beda · · Score: 2

      Its because most consumers don't actually understand what hybrids are really for.

      Its amazing how many people (including the motoring media) in the US incorrectly believe that the reason for buying a hybrid over a normal car is to save gas money. This is not even close to the actual reason hybrids were invented, so its no surprise that it doesn't really work out that way either.

      Don't believe me? Go compare the price and MPG of a Toyota Prius compared to, say, a Toyota Yaris.

      The real reason hybrids came about is as a way to reduce CO2 emisions for a greener environment and to fight global warming, mostly regardless of cost of ownership.

      But the green angle doesn't look so good either when you factor in the (actually quite nasty) emissions from the production and disposal of all the extra stuff like Lithium batteries that that go into a Prius over a conventional car.

      While you may have a point, some of it is offset by the errors in your analysis.

      CO2 emission is virtually the same thing as fuel usage - if you have low CO2 emission you necessarily have low fuel usage (for a gas powered vehicle at least), and if you have low fuel usage you necessarily have low CO2 emission. No matter what the vehicle, each gallon of gas you burn produces the same amount of CO2.

      I do not know the details of the hybrid battery disposal/recycling, but that is the only "extra" stuff in a Prius compared to any other "conventional" vehicle. All of the battery components can in principle be recycled, which doesn't mean that it actually is unfortunately.

    2. Re:Hybrids are a white elephant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't believe me? Go compare the price and MPG of a Toyota Prius compared to, say, a Toyota Yaris.

      The Prius gets much better milage AND is a lot bigger than a Yaris. I'm 6'2" and the 2011 Prius has tons of headroom and cargo space and is classified as a mid-sized car, the Yaris...not so big.

    3. Re:Hybrids are a white elephant by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      Well done for proving that no matter how you state a point, there's always someone that will miss it on purpose.

      Let me make it simpler for you: There may be other reasons for buying a Prius (such as size), but saving money BECAUSE its a hybrid isn't (a good) one.

  52. Re:On "Why Florida?" as a long-time hybrid owner.. by j2.718ff · · Score: 1

    I used to drive a diesel. (Diesel engines take a while to heat up, so my car felt cold in the winter.) My car just happened to have heated seats. It's not a feature that I thought would be important when I purchased the car, but I must say, those seats did a great job keeping me warm until the engine warmed up enough to run the heater.

  53. best selling hybrid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So, if you factor out 60% of hybrid owners the repurchase rate drops to 25%. I heard if you factor out people who like red cars, only 10% of people will buy a red car.

  54. Too soon by Hentes · · Score: 2

    Hybrids haven't been here for long, the people who buy a new car every 5 years are not a representative population.

  55. Base rate fallacy by Lulu+of+the+Lotus-Ea · · Score: 5, Informative

    It seems good to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy (or other articles on the topic). If the article is correct that 2.4% of new cars sold are hybrids (which sounds reasonable) then the base rate expectation for a "random person" buying a hybrid is low. If the probability of a previous owner of a hybrid buying one next time is 35%, that's still around 14 times the base rate expectation.

    Now clearly, car buying habits are hardly monte carlo style distributions. There is a considerably greater "loyalty" to specific cars than just the random assignment of an available vehicle to a driver. Most of that is probably pretty closely tied with income and socio-economic status. Also, obviously occupational effects matter; and also regional ones do. But consistency in brand or style in repeated car purchases is most certainly far lower than 100%.

    It is not at all clear from the evidence given whether hybrid-loyalty is greater or less than other types. For example, I *just* bought a Honda Insight (which seems a lot less common than Toyota Prius, despite what seem to be even more favorable reviews; name recognition does seem big here). Like literally days ago, so I'm probably not good evidence in any direction about next vehicle purchase. But prior to that (and still), my partner and I own an Audi A4--a brand that probably sells no more than 2.4% of cars in the US (i.e. the brand as a whole, not the specific model which must be lower still). Even if a hybrid were out of consideration and I could only consider a conventional gasoline engine, I think there's much less than 35% chance I'd choose an Audi for my next car. Not because I have any particular criticism of Audi, but just because there are lots of other choices, even given similar driving patterns and socio-economic status. I could buy a Saab, or Volvo, or Acura, or maybe on a bit pricier side a BMW, Mercedes, Lexis, or slightly downscale a Buick or Lincoln, or a VW which comes from the same factory even. All of these are pretty comparable, and brand loyalty might lean my decision slightly, but there's a long way to go between the base rate--even of only "semi-luxury sedans"--to get to 35% brand retention.

    1. Re:Base rate fallacy by j-beda · · Score: 1

      Good points!

    2. Re:Base rate fallacy by ganv · · Score: 1

      This explanation is exactly what is required to make any sense of the original article. No one is claiming that hybrids are ready to take over the entire market...but people who have owned one are 14 times more likely to buy another that the general public is. On a site for quantitative types, this comment should be ranked 5.

  56. Here's a reason..... by firesyde424 · · Score: 1

    Base MSRP for Toyota Prius: $24,610 - 51 MPG Highway, 48 MPG City
    Base MSRP for Ford Fiesta: $13,200 - 40 MPG Highway, 28 MPG City

    The Prius costs $11,410 more but gets 11 MPG Highway and 20 MPG City better than the Fiesta.

    Disregarding anything other than Highway or City driving, a Fiesta requires 2,500 gallons of gas to go 100,000 miles on the highway whereas a Prius only requires 1961(rounded up) gallons. The difference? 539 gallons.
    100,000 miles in the city requires 3571 gallons in a Fiesta and only 2084(rounded up) in a Prius. The difference? 973 gallons.

    You want to know why a Prius is a hard sell to most working class people who cant afford to be environmentally conscious for the hell of it? The Prius only saves them about $3900 in gas, at best(City Driving), over a Fiesta assuming a 100,000 mile lifetime but the Prius costs 11,410 more than the Fiesta. Added to that, the idea that you will need to change the batteries out in the Prius at some point which is another $2,000 and you might start to see why it's a hard sell.

  57. Because Prius is the only hybrid by onebeaumond · · Score: 2

    After 13 years it's still the only car with a direct drive transmission; no clutch, nothing but gears between crankshaft and wheels. In fact, that's the main basis for the hybrid design; using two motors is really incidental, they just enable use of the transmission. Everything else in the design (engine stopped when car stopped, Atkinson cycle engine, electric air conditioning, etc) also follows from use of what Toyota calls the "Hybrid Synergy Drive". What's a little strange is that the car was designed by an American team of engineers based in California. Would be interesting to find out the whole story there, it's pretty difficult to get details other than the head design engineer on the project died a few years ago.

  58. No Tax Credits.. by sieb · · Score: 1

    I would venture that the main reason behind not buying another hybrid is the lack of helpful tax credits like back in 07-10. Without the tax credit, that extra cost is harder to swallow compared to a non-hybrid version.

  59. Only on a large vehicle and with series by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Seriously, it is INSANE to buy a car with parallel hybrid. You inherit the worst of both ICE and Electrical. That is just crazy. For cars, you should either buy electric (like tesla model S), OR an ICE using gas/diesel. You would buy ICE if you are going to be traveling more than once a month more than the distance of the electric car. However, if you only go longer distances say, 2-3x a year, then you are much better off with electric. The cars will pay for themselves.

    The one place that makes good sense for hybrids is on large vehicles. In particular, a F250 and above, or just about any commercial vehicle, including semis. One these, a series hybrid with Natural gas would not only save you money with NG, but the series hybrid allows for great torque as well as great economy. With such an approach, a semi could get 30-50 mpg, where as today, the new ones get 7 mpg and have horrible torque.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Only on a large vehicle and with series by j-beda · · Score: 3, Informative

      Seriously, it is INSANE to buy a car with parallel hybrid. You inherit the worst of both ICE and Electrical. That is just crazy. For cars, you should either buy electric (like tesla model S), OR an ICE using gas/diesel. You would buy ICE if you are going to be traveling more than once a month more than the distance of the electric car.

      Why are so many taxis I see in Vancouver Priuses? Are all of those business people INSANE? And they keep replacing them when they wear out with new hybrids?

      I suppose they are not technically "parallel hybrid" as the nifty planetary gearing system can be used in a manner similar to parallel or series, but I think your "INSANE" statement is a bit strong even with that.

      A hybrid has at least the potential to gain the best of both ICE and Electrical, in that the ICE can provide extended range, while the efficiencies in energy recovery and low speed torque from the electrical system can also be achieved.

    2. Re:Only on a large vehicle and with series by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because this "hybrid" research excludes Priuses!

    3. Re:Only on a large vehicle and with series by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New York and San Francisco have been using Ford Escape Hybrids for years as taxicabs. The cab companies love them, claiming 30% lower fuel costs, and when they are required to retire them 2-year old Escapes with 300,000 miles on them sell for over $15K.

      My 2008 Ford Escape Hybrid is the best car I ever had. 34MPG highway is pretty good for a small SUV but it is more than that. The car is smooth and quiet, and the chore of parking lots and stop-and-go traffic is a vibrationless lower level of stress. Too bad Ford is terminating the Escape Hybrid line.

    4. Re:Only on a large vehicle and with series by khipu · · Score: 1

      Hybrids make sense for high mileage city driving, but most people have different needs. Also, taxis in some places have special environmental requirements or incentives.

    5. Re:Only on a large vehicle and with series by garyebickford · · Score: 1

      Why are so many taxis I see in Vancouver Priuses? Are all of those business people INSANE? And they keep replacing them when they wear out with new hybrids?

      I'm guessing, but I expect that:
          a) there is a tax break or subsidy involved;
          b) taxis tend to spend a lot of time in stop and go traffic, waiting for lights, and waiting for passengers, and spend relatively little time at speed on the freeway where the gas engine would be running. Since a hybrid's engine stops running when the car's not going, they may be saving a lot of idle-time fuel burn.

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    6. Re:Only on a large vehicle and with series by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dunno why your post is Informative-- Taxi Prius has numerous advantages over conventional cars. Hatchback storage, relatively "midsize" (not compact) cabin seating, excellent airbags and accident-avoidance maneuverability, and best of all: taxi drivers can drive the crap out of them and go through seat covers faster than they go through brake pads. The Toyota Prius is also exceptionally well-mannered on the road even in crosswinds. (IE easy to stick with the flow of traffic without causing trouble)

  60. Smug Alert! by Scarletdown · · Score: 0

    I am guessing the reason they won't buy again is because they finally got tired of sniffing their own flatulence...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OM9jhGiIAFM

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
  61. Re:Sampling bias? by frosty_tsm · · Score: 2

    To some degree, but the first prius went on sale in the US in 2001, which was 11 years ago. Lots of people replace their cars far more often than every 11 years.

    It took until 2004 or 2005 for the Prius to rise to prominence and sell in higher numbers. I've ridden in one with around 250,000 miles on them (complete with the original battery), so yeah I think there are many who are simply holding on to a good thing.

  62. Exactly by EdwinFreed · · Score: 1

    We currently have a 2010 Prius and a 2011 Leaf. The Prius replaced a 2001 Prius that went to our son. The 2001 is getting a little long in the tooth (mostly because it's managed to be rear-ended 5 times, one of which nearly totaled the car) so the plan is to replace the 2010 Prius with a Tesla and then the 2010 Prius becomes our son's car.

    But like you, I suspect our shift to EV is not in any way representative. It's just one factor among many. As you say, a lot of the tech associated with hybrids actually isn't the hybrid part and it's showing up elsewhere. Add to that the fact that the hybrid brand has been weakened by things where the hybrid part didn't really buy you that much and in some cases almost nothing - and the people who bought those are bound not to waste the extra $$$ a second time.

    By not looking at the reasons why people are planning to switch, what they're planning to switch to, or even when they're planning to make the switch, the study changes from being informative to little more than a curiosity. Hell, for all we know most of them are planning to hold on to their hybrids until electrics fall in price.

    1. Re:Exactly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting. So moving from a oil powered car to a coal powered car will either save you money or be better for the environment or both?

  63. Nostalgia by Higgins_Boson · · Score: 3, Funny

    I miss the old days of pushing my '78 AMC Pacer around town on errands. Man, that thing got GREAT mileage because it would barely ever start or stay running long enough to burn gas.

    Good times... good times...

    1. Re:Nostalgia by garyebickford · · Score: 1

      My brother had _three_ of them over a half-dozen years. He dearly loved them. I kinda liked them, from afar. Alas, the Pacer got done in by the vicissitudes of technology and intercorporate relations. It was originally designed around the prototype rotary engine that GM was planning to produce - that's how the low hood came into being. The original car was underpowered but the new rotary was going to fix that. However, GM cancelled the rotary, and AMC was left with a car that didn't have room for a V8. So the next year's model had the hump in the hood, as they crammed an existing V8 design in there. But the V8 was also too heavy and had other issues - I think it restricted the turning ability too.

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    2. Re:Nostalgia by Higgins_Boson · · Score: 1

      A lot of good information there. Thanks for sharing that, as I did not know some of it.

      I can't imagine that having a rotary engine by GM. I just know it would have been the perfect ending to a horrible, horrible nightmare.

    3. Re:Nostalgia by garyebickford · · Score: 1

      The Wikipedia article on Wankel rotary engines is pretty interesting. And I also found there is one about the GM engine, which is also illuminating. GM had a pretty good start and was going to use the engine in the Vega, but had trouble with emissions, then fuel economy, then parts wear, engineering schedules were running out, then a change in management.

      The last line in the latter article notes that the AMC Pacer had to go with an inline six, not a V8. So I stand corrected on that point. (Hmm. I wonder if they could have gone to a 'boxer' opposed-six instead?)

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
  64. Batteries are too big by Ken_g6 · · Score: 1

    Most of the current crop of non-plugin hybrids have battery packs that are too big. All you really need for a mild hybrid is an alternator/starter combination motor, a small battery pack, an engine that can shut off the gas to its cylinders while running (preferably a few at a time) and the electronics to control it all. This really shouldn't cost very much at all above a non-hybrid version, but should help with occasional acceleration and city driving.

    I recall one luxury car company actually did this - don't remember which one - and I think they got a small but respectable MPG increase. But I haven't heard of anything like this recently. I have heard, around here on Slashdot, that government tax breaks may be related to battery pack size, which if true might explain that.

    --
    (T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
    1. Re:Batteries are too big by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      If you made the battery small enough so it could not actually drive the vehicle, then you would have to wait for the motor to start up then the transmission to kick in before it would move. I'm guessing that design wasn't that popular as a few of those delays when starting up again after a red light would get really annoying.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
  65. Waiting for an AWD hybrid station wagon by twocentplain · · Score: 2

    Looking forward to replacing my '94 Subaru wagon with an AWD/4WD hybrid.
    But, there's no such product on the market.
    I would buy a new Prius to replace my 2001, but I don't need -- it's in excellent condition.

  66. Hmm by Right1488 · · Score: 0

    Lets see, you have a bunch of liberal sheep that sucked up the media hype and bought an overly complicated car that is prone to constantly breaking down in its many useless parts that normal cars haven't needed for nearly 100 years, and you wonder why they aren't going to buy another one? I'd say this is some good news. Maybe some of these sheep are learning to think on their own finally. I guess we'll see next election.

    1. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol 1488 hahahahahahahaha
      sheep sheep sheep sheep
      derp derp
      1488 rahowa lol

  67. Not buying another Prius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When the "main" battery light came on in my first gen Prius (9 years old with 70k miles) the repair was quoted at $3500 to $5000. When I asked for a trade-in value for the car the dealer offered me $500. It was a great car when it ran, and I was fortunate that all the previous problems were fixed under recall (e.g. the electric steering rack - a $4500 repair if you had to pay for it) but it is not a car you can afford to have fixed. I did not buy another Prius and I did not buy another Toyota (even when the salesman gave me the "great resale value" sales pitch).

  68. Ignorance... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So much ignorance in a single thread! Let's try to bring some sanity:

    1. Prius owners are loyal for a reason. Other hybrid cars, including other Toyota models, are watered-down compromises that simply aren't worth it. Which is exactly what the poll is saying. It's not that hybrids are a problem, it's that there is only one real hybrid out there.

    2. Re: hybrids having a long time to make up their additional up-front cost in gas expenses. Two points: 1) that might've been a point when gas in the US was $3 per gallon, but it's headed to $4.75 (or higher) now, and more importantly 2) the Prius has a whole host of advantages over simple gas mileage. What is it worth to have a car that's silent when stopped? What's it worth to have a car which will not need its brake pads replaced for the life of the vehicle? What's it worth to have a car that does not have a complex automatic transmission? And what's it worth for a slashdotter to drive a car with a gasoline engine and two electric motors under the hood?

    3. Re: intermediate step: hybrids will be viable for a long time. Gasoline is the most efficient storage mechanism we've yet invented, and there's a nationwide infrastructure that supports it. Many of us live in situations where an all-electric car cannot be charged. In my case, we live in a condo and park in a garage two stories underground: there won't be a place to plug a car into for a long time, unless there are large government subsidies.

    4.

  69. Green is a fading fad thats why. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Green cars, recycling, "go green" and what not is more or less just a fad on its decline. Being green wont dissapear entirely but it will gradually decline over the next couple of years to the point where its no longer viable to the marketplace.

    People who "go green" do so because its whats in to do now. Most of them buy hybrids to fit in, feel better or think its a status symbol. Sure they will say its for the environment but its all bullshit. Like any fad they will eventually get tired of it and forget about green stuff and hybrids. Infact I bet most people wouldnt buy hybrids if "go green" wasnt the slogan and car manufacturers took advantage of the fad by saying how green their hybrids are, youll save the enviornment and you too can be as progressive and cool as george clooney said he and san francisco is all with the tiny purchase of a car that has this logo on the side of it. Just like it used to be all about breast cancer awareness and everyone wearing their little pink bracelletes to show everyone they are on board also, before that recycling was the big thing that was the craze of the country and so on. Sure those things are around but not nearly as prominent as they used to be simply because it got old and wasnt a hip thing to do. Thats why the hybrid owners wont likely want to buy another is they are slowly getting out of the excitement of being on that bandwagon and want their bigger cars with more horsepower back.

    "Go green" hybrid products and so on will only last as long as they make money. If anyone thinks a car manufacturer actually makes a hybrid because they care about the enviornment then your out of your god damned mind. They make hybrids because people will buy them. Infact anything with the green slogan on it has that slogan on it to make money because they want to appeal to the dollars of those people, they dont give a shit about saving the enviornment, they care about profit margins. So the second going green and hybrids stops being profitable companies will cease to have anything to do with it.

  70. Wait a minute... by djfake · · Score: 2

    FTFA, "If you factor out the super-loyal Toyota Prius buyers ... No other hybrid was anywhere close [in overal sales]." Well no duh. If you factor out the Prius, what do you have left? Cars that have hybrid engine options that sell at a premium. As a Prius owner, 7 years and 47000 miles later, I may not even have to buy another car!

    --
    www.itjerk.com
  71. Re:Sampling bias? by Locutus · · Score: 1

    not to be picky but that would be 2000( 12 years ) as the Honda Insight went on sale in early and the 2001 Prius went on sale in July of 2000.

    BTW, I think many who purchased the GM and Ford SUV hybrids are probably the majority of those who would not get another hybrid. The fuel economy improvements on those heavy wind pushers were minimal at best.

    LoB

    --
    "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
  72. My 2002 Prius by CymorC · · Score: 1

    Bought in 2003 for $13k with 24,000mi
    136,000+mi
    45mpg avg (EPA 41mpg)

    I'm very happy with it. I would buy again. I'd actually buy new if they come out with a 40mpg hybrid minivan.
    Three other people have bought hybrids because of my experience.

  73. So how loyal are Prius owners? by Xtifr · · Score: 1

    TFS didn't say, so I did some back of the envelope calculations. Someone posted that Prius owners make up 58% of all hybrid owners. I didn't check that, nor check to see how the number has changed over time, but assuming it as a constant, I come up with: 48.8% of Prius owners would buy another hybrid. That's less than half, but just barely. And it's nearly twice as many as the 25% for non-Prius owners.

    So, instead of spinning that hybrid owners don't like hybrids, we could just as easily spin that hybrids other than the Prius suck. (Which is a closer match to what I've been hearing from people over the last several years.)

    There's a lot of other questions left unanswered here (like why?, and is the age and/or efficiency of the hybrid technology--which has reportedly been improving steadily--a factor), but I'll leave those for others to raise.

  74. Obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Higher initial price. You can buy alot of gas for the 5-10k more that a hybrid costs.

    Higher maint costs. Most 'car guys' won't touch a hybrid, you're goin to the dealer for most stuff. You can buy alot of gas for the premium spent at the dealer.

    They don't seem to hold their value. The technology is changing fast and nobody wants a 'used' hybrid when the next version has that 2.0 upgrade. You can buy alot of gas for the price difference lost between a hybrid and a standard engine car.

    'Standard' high price replacements X years down the line. You can buy ALOT of gas for the cost of replacing the battery pack. Which seems like it's a given if you want to keep the car some years. People i've known have ended up having to replace the battery pack after only 1-3 years. At $5-8000. That's a TON of gas right there even at todays high prices. 40,000 miles worth or so.

    Everyone all around has dropped the ball on electric cars. Almost like it's being designed from the start to fail. And they can point to it and say 'look, we tried!'.
    Thats tinfoil hat area tho. Lets just say hybrid and electric so far is a REALLY BAD DEAL.

    1. Re:Obvious by garyebickford · · Score: 1

      At $5-8000. That's a TON of gas right there even at todays high prices.

      Actually, at 4 lbs. per gallon, $3.75 per gallon, it's 5333 lbs. - almost TWO TONS. :D

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
  75. Don't count on LoB's sense of time, lol! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's from 2007 in the post parent 2 this -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2772023&cid=39609055 , hmmm? Best not to troll others Locutus, you'll screwup again & get it THROWN IN YOUR FACE if you do, so "think twice" next time BOY... lol!

  76. Idiotic statistic by goodmanj · · Score: 1

    Took me a moment to realize, this statistic is totally meaningless. The average new car buyer keeps their car for at least 5-6 years -- more if they like the car. The vast majority of hybrid sales occurred after 2004.

    The reason only 35% of people who're selling their hybrid buy a new hybrid is because the people who *like* hybrids are STILL DRIVING the one they bought a few years ago!

    This statistic is basically like saying, "The majority of kids who throw their dinner plate on the floor say it tastes 'yucky'. Therefore, the majority of dinners are yucky."

    Ask this question again once the hybrid market has stabilized, and you may get a very different answer.

    1. Re:Idiotic statistic by Daetrin · · Score: 2

      Agreed. When my old car got totaled a couple years ago i priced several different types of used cars, including the Prius. Since i was comparing used cars the price differential was lower, and since i live in California i expected to be paying higher than average for gas. I've forgotten exactly how the math worked out, but i found that the Prius would pay for itself in a reasonable amount of time (i think about 5-6 years.)

      A little over two years later and i'm still quite happy with my purchase. Even more immediate than the gas savings though is the fact that i only have to stop to refuel about once every other week. It's also impressive how quiet it can be. And although it's certainly not worth the price of admission by itself, all the electronic charts on the dash panel relating to charging and mileage are kind of fun.

      I'd certainly get another hybrid (used of course) if i was in the market now, but i'm not, because i've already got a hybrid i'm quite happy with. If this care gets totaled or when i've driven it into the ground then i'll be in the market for another hybrid, unless of course something even better like fuel cell cars have come along by that point.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    2. Re:Idiotic statistic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From reading the summary, it appears that it's more of a projected number than an actual number.
      Ask 1000 hybrid owners if they would buy another hybrid for their next car. You get, according to the article, around 35%.
      Ask 1000 hybrid owners if they have already bought a second hybrid. The answer is pretty low, in part, because of the reasons you state.
      These two are very different questions. The summary includes the first, but does not address the second.

      I drive a hybrid that I've had for 2 years, and I don't have any major issues with it. The extra gas mileage is very nice, but it has the feel of a heavy car with a relatively small engine. I would probably fall into the 65% of the hybrid owners who would consider conventional gas cars over a hybrid for my next purchase.

  77. Son, you're gonna drive me to drinkin' by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    If you don't stop drivin' that hot rod Lincoln

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  78. Amazing math by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    If you factor out the super-loyal Toyota Prius buyers, the repurchase rate drops to under 25%

    So basically if you don't count the people who are likely to buy another hybrid, then people aren't likely to buy another hybrid. Instead of trying to claim that "the hybrid market is broken" how about admitting that every hybrid sucks except the Prius? And no, I don't own a Prius or even a Toyota.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  79. Re:Sampling bias? by Xenx · · Score: 1

    One would hope that is the case. However, people usual equate newer with better. This isn't always untrue either. It may not be economical or eco friendly, but it's true.

  80. I've a hybrid by mapuche · · Score: 1

    I've a Civic Hybrid and you're partly right at least on my case. I've never cared about gas prices, this was a bet for future techologies. It was clear a hybrid car wasn't a solution, but there was this craze about gigantic SUV and the industry balance has to move to the other side. Now I refill my gas tank monthly.

    Here in Mexico City had a lot of tax benefits for hybrid owners, these tax breakes will pay for the difference in 5 years. So it's a long term "investment". If car companies come with a better technology, I'll probably buy it in the near future.

  81. Poor question by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

    They should have asked "Will you replace your hybrid with another hybrid?" -- If you have a Prius, you may consider buying a truck as a supplementary vehicle to help move big stuff around. Hybrids aren't luxury cars, but since they're fairly new the owners are likely to be people who can afford more than one vehicle. Usually people who own more than one vehicle go for extremes -- the truck and the hybrid, the van and the Miata, etc.

    Regardless, I can would never drive a hybrid. The battery is just too much of a liability. My car may be old but at least I can take care of the maintenance myself and parts are cheap. Then there's the resell value -- who wants to buy something that depends on a battery that's already undergone countless charges and drains? Maybe someday Tesla will produce something so amazing it even blows off Jeremy Clarkson's socks and my mind will be changed, but I'm not holding my breath.

    Hopefully there really is a lot of dissatisfaction among hybrid owners (I'd be dissatisfied if my car couldn't beat a dirt bike in a half mile race) that will lead to more bivalent liquid hydrogen/gasoline engines.

    --
    "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    1. Re:Poor question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have a Prius, you may consider buying a truck as a supplementary vehicle to help move big stuff around. Hybrids aren't luxury cars, but since they're fairly new the owners are likely to be people who can afford more than one vehicle.

      I recently bought a Sony 55" Bravio and a stand for it. I drove my Prius to the loading dock and they didn't think it could fit. I folded the back seats down and everything went in easy and I closed the rear hatch. This thing has more cargo capacity than any "big" car I drove before.

      The few times I need to move something really big, I rent a truck. You don't have to buy a pickup truck just because you might need to move something every 6 months, that's silly.

    2. Re:Poor question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then there's the resell value -- who wants to buy something that depends on a battery that's already undergone countless charges and drains?

      And yet the resale value for the Prius is fantastic! I guess there's a lot of people who don't mind buying a used Prius.

  82. Ten minute red by tepples · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That trafic signal is there only because a car is a danger for everything around it. There is no need to control the bike (and the ciclist will even control hinself if he wishes to live - what's not granted).

    "What's not granted" with this sort of intersection is a cyclist's ability to stop the cross traffic in order to get a green light to cross the road safely. As the operator of a vehicle (albeit a non-motorized one), I'm under the impression that I have the right to an eventual green light. I'd just prefer not to have to wait ten minutes in order to be "chaperoned" through an intersection by whatever car occasionally happens to show up. There's no pedestrian call button or marked crosswalk at this intersection either, or I'd have been using that. Nor does the city seem to want to fix the sensors so that they can see my bike.

    1. Re:Ten minute red by jaymemaurice · · Score: 1

      The city cannot fix the sensor to detect my carbon fiber/aluminum bike... so I use my blackberries speaker set on the coil.

      --
      120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
    2. Re:Ten minute red by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nor does the city seem to want to fix the sensors so that they can see my bike.

      Dear Sir,

      Fuck you, and fuck your bike.

      Warmest Regards,
          City Hall

    3. Re:Ten minute red by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      There's no pedestrian call button or marked crosswalk at this intersection either, or I'd have been using that. Nor does the city seem to want to fix the sensors so that they can see my bike.

      Get all the bicyclists in the city (haha) to go to a city council meeting and demand a button. I've seen them for bikes in cities before, mounted to whatever pole is in the center divider. Of course, if there isn't one there, you're just screwed. Odd to see a large signal sensor without a divided road though.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Ten minute red by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Call your department of transportation. I did when a call button wasn't functioning. It was fixed in a week. I also called them about half a mile of an over grown sidewalk that was un-ride-able. It took them longer than a week but finally an industrial mower came out and mowed the sidewalk. It has been kept that way for 2 years now.

      Make a few phone calls. You will be surprised what you can get. You might even get a fancy new call button that you don't even have to press. I have one that I only have to wave my hand in front of and I can see the cross signal timer start counting down from 30 seconds.

      Nathan

    5. Re:Ten minute red by operagost · · Score: 1

      There doesn't have to be a crosswalk, as long as there isn't a sign prohibiting pedestrians (unless you have some sort of stupid town ordinance that would basically keep people from crossing the street to visit a neighbor).

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    6. Re:Ten minute red by tepples · · Score: 1

      There doesn't have to be a crosswalk, as long as there isn't a sign prohibiting pedestrians

      Without a marked crosswalk, it's hard to communicate to motorists in cross traffic that I plan to get off my bike and walk it across the intersection. I was mostly illustrating the degree to which the intersection's design does not contemplate non-motorized users of the road.

  83. Re:Most hybrids are worth the extra cost by j-beda · · Score: 1

    1. All hybrids come with low rolling resistance tires. The tires on my wife's car needed to be replaced after 20,000 miles. Tires were worn down to the tread wear indicators. I replaced then with 40,000 mile + tires. Cost about $1000.
    Gas mileage dropped by about 1-1.5 miles per gallon. We were getting 23.6 mpg. Now we get about 22 mpg. At an extra $1000 every 20,000 miles, I will take the loss of MPG.

    For such a thrifty guy, I question your tire purchase decisions. I recently replaced all four tires on our car with LRR tires for about $500, with a rated lifetime of 100,000 miles (Kumho eco Solus). Rather than spending $1000 every 40,000 miles, maybe spending half as much, for 2.5 times as long life would be a wiser use of your money. LRR tires may improve fuel economy by as much as 3 or 4%, so can be cost effective even if higher priced than non-LRR tires. Obviously if they are actually cheaper that's even better.

    http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/vehicles/fuel_economy_tires_light.html

  84. When real estate is cost prohibitive by tepples · · Score: 1

    What kind of moron drives 150 miles a day to work

    Someone who can't afford real estate substantially closer to work, as mark-t mentioned. Or cases where two people living together work far from each other: if one moved closer to work, the other would have to drive 150 miles a day.

    1. Re:When real estate is cost prohibitive by Grishnakh · · Score: 0

      Then you go find a new job someplace more convenient. What's the point of being married if you're going to spend 4 hours/day in your car alone? You won't have any time left over at night to spend with your spouse that works far away in the opposite direction.

      Of course, someone will probably say something here about the "bad economy", "lack of jobs", etc., but people doing this kind of crap were likely doing it back when the economy was booming too.

    2. Re:When real estate is cost prohibitive by Crosshair84 · · Score: 1

      If people are choosing the 4 hour commute then they have obviously considered your option and rejected it for whatever reason.

    3. Re:When real estate is cost prohibitive by ryanov · · Score: 1

      I used to think that was obvious, but I'm finding out that people really don't seem to think about the things they do.

    4. Re:When real estate is cost prohibitive by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's hard to imagine a scenario in which the cost of commuting 150 miles per day isn't more expensive than living closer. And then there's the time cost, I don't know about you, but I value my personal time pretty highly. It's not just about getting paid for the time you're driving, because that is served by simply making more money further away; it's about never getting that time back. Life is too short to spend that much time in traffic.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:When real estate is cost prohibitive by chill · · Score: 1

      The DC metro area is like this as well. I currently drive 64-67 miles each way for work, depending on the route which depends on traffic. So about 130 miles round-trip.

      I am constantly -- about ever 2 weeks -- re-evaluating the cost of moving closer versus the cost of the commute. The problem is, there is a BIG difference in housing cost for moving closer. And, thanks to supply-and-demand, anything close to a train/subway stop is even more expensive.

      Right now, the costs balance out. If I move closer, the dollar costs saved on commute would be offset by the higher housing costs almost exactly.

      Yes, the "time" cost is a big factor that weighs in. Right now I use the commute time for listening to podcasts and audio books. Not a total waste.

      The REAL issue is I'm in an expensive-for-my-area big home. With the real estate crash, I could downsize 10% locally -- keeping the same 130 mile round-trip commute -- and save 30% on housing costs.

      That is what I'm looking hard at right now. That, and I'm saving my pennies towards a VW Jetta TDI for a commute car. I've been trying to figure out how to get a decent, modern turbo-diesel but they are rare as hen's teeth in the U.S.

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  85. Damn lies and statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Marketers decided they could make fake hybrids with a fan belt electric motor boost. They charged a silly markup that some paid just to say that a car was a hybrid. Predictably this situation is only temporary as fools eventually catch on. Hondas apparently had problems leaving only the Prius as a proper large volume representation of the market. The truer picture is that fakes are being recognized as a marketing ploy and one of the two real world options appears to be unreliable. The only model that performs reliably and is truly a hybrid that was available a few years back has a "super loyal" following. In other words the market is strong for good hybrids while punishing fakes and lemons. Since this is an unjust world the marketers can cry in their soup over the loss of the cheesy fake hybrid cash grab. In a just world I would have something to do with my pitchfork.

  86. Don't Overlook the Maintenance Aspects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see lots of comments here about efficiency and economic value but for us, the decision to not purchase again was purely logistical in regards to the extended maintenances we kept facing.

    We had a first gen Honda Civic Hybrid. being as it was relatively new technology and that always leads to kinks needing to be worked out, we opted for the extended maintenance plan, and thank the stars we did. We had 2 or 3 maintenance events per year. And each time it was a big hassle. The thing is, when parts of the engine or drivetrain had issues, the local dealership shops are not trained/empowered/allowed/whatever to work on them. Instead they run some diagnostics and find out which system or subsystem has issues. Then the manufacturer ships out a replacement system/subsystem for a black box swap out.

    What this means to us is that every time we had an issue, it was a minimum of a week to get it repaired and as long as 4 or even 6 weeks in the two cases where they replaced the entire engine and the entire drivetrain after attempting to replace various subsystems and could not correct the problem.

    When the car was a few months from dropping out of contract and would become thousands or even tens of thousands per year to maintain, we traded it in and got a non-hybrid.

    In the future, I'd be willing to get another hybrid/electric, but only after a few more years of the technology maturing. After what we went through, I'm not interested until it's rock solid.

  87. Lovely stats, there. by Altanar · · Score: 1
    That article's real knee-jerker. My favorite part: "If you factor out the super-loyal Toyota Prius buyers, the repurchase rate drops to under 25%" Let's rephrase that to what it really says: "If you ignore 58% of all hybrid-buyers, the statistics becomes more inflammatory."
    1. A couple fun facts not included in their stats:
    2. * As of March 2012, 3.44% of all car sales were hybrids. Higher than the 2.4% included in the article, and even higher than the 2.8 "high mark" from 2008 that the survey was using to give the impression of impending doom.
    3. * Total hybrid sales in March 2012 was +39.6% over the last year. Total vehicle sales over the same period was +12.7%.
    4. * 27,800 of the 48,206 hybrid cars sold in March were Toyota Prius's, those "super-loyal" customers that were so easily waved away.
    5. Source: Baum & Associates, via http://www.hybridcars.com/news/march-2012-dashboard-44059.html

  88. My 1992 Ford Festiva gets 40+ mpg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bought it 13 years ago for $700, and never put any real money into it. If gas goes over $5 a gallon, I can probably sell it for more than I paid for it. Of course a 1982 Honda CRX got around 50 mpg.

    Are electric cars really a bargain? Or really helpful to the environment? There may not be a tailpipe on the car, but what about the giant diesel generators at the power plant?

     

  89. CRZ handling still sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The CR-Z still cheaped out with strut suspension rather than Honda's sporty double wishbone suspension (docs on Honda's own website say exactly why struts provide poorer handling).

    Honda hasn't made a fun-to-drive car since they discontinued the S2000 and they should be deeply shamed.

  90. There were incentives that made them worth it by tlambert · · Score: 1

    There were incentives that made them worth it.

    Particularly in California, where you could get a tax rebate and carpool lane access stickers for your Prius. Now that that is phased out, people no longer buy Prius, and they go for the Volt or the Leaf, where you can get stickers still (the white ones instead of the yellow ones)..

    Generally going South on US101 before 9AM, when the car pool lane is closed to non-carpools, it's pretty much empty, while the other lanes are bumper-to-bumper gridlock. Those stickers added considerably to a Prius' resale value (in fact, the same car with the stickers and without had a $2000 difference in resale value.

  91. the economy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back during the housing boom it was easy to roll your car loan into your mortgage (refinancing). People had more money to spend, and hybrid cars were very much a novel new technology. Now that many people have negative equity in their homes after the refinance, most people can't afford the higher initial cost of hybrids.

    Once the economy comes back again, I believe hybrid sales will increase.

  92. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  93. Gas mileage is Decreasing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I own a 2003 Civic Hybrid - it's the first year the Civic was available as a hybrid. I get roughly 40MPG. New hybrids (excluding the Prius) can't match the technology from a decade ago. Why would I buy another hybrid when I can get a standard gas car that will get equivalent mileage?

    FWIW, the biggest reason Prius drivers are loyal is because the Prius consistently gets great mileage - no other (non-plugin) car out there approaches the gas efficiency of the Prius.

  94. My Prius has been a great car... by dtjohnson · · Score: 1

    Don't know about other hybrids but my 2006 Prius has 120K on it now and has never needed anything but maintenance and tires. It seems to still run as good as when it was new and it definitely saves a lot of fuel. Would I buy another one? Maybe...maybe not. It would depend on what I wanted the car for when the time came. If I was hauling firewood, towing trailers, transporting a big family or dealing with a mid-life crisis and needed a lot of raw power to impress women...then no. If I wanted reliable and thrifty transportation that hauls up to four fairly comfortably...then yes. TFA is misleading because...honestly...does ANYONE ever really buy the same car again? Our life circumstances change and the car we were happy with at one point is no longer suitable at a different stage. The 2-seater that we loved when we were 23 isn't so appealing when we're 34 with kids. That's just reality.

    1. Re:My Prius has been a great car... by raygundan · · Score: 1

      Between this effect and the market gaps in the range of available hybrids, I think we've accounted for most of it. I would like to see a "control" study that shows what percentage of people buy a car in the exact same class the next time as well. The compact you had in college may be replaced by a sedan that may be replaced by a minivan. That's fairly normal.

      But there aren't ANY hybrid minivans, and there isn't a very wide selection of hybrid sedans.

      Then you have weirdness like the small-SUV market, where Ford's Escape Hybrid was the most efficient option until they discontinued it, but new gas engines have suddenly made other options the most efficient in that segment. If I were to replace my now-discontinued Escape (which was the most efficient at the time) today, it would be with something like the 2013 Subaru Crosstour XV, which is more efficient but not a hybrid. It's not because I dislike hybrids. It's because I don't actually care how it works, I'm shopping for fuel efficiency.

  95. Not everyone thinks that way by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    Hybrids are an alternative for drivers who want to be green, think of diesel as the soot spewing lorries and buses of yesteryear, can't live with the short range and abysmal interior space of of pure electrics, and can afford the price premium.

    Well, I'm sure there are some people who feel that way but I'd bet not a lot of hybrid owners do. I own one. A 2007 Prius. I bought it because at the time it was the best decision to conserve gas. I researched the daylights out of my purchase before I bought one. I think you'll find a lot of hybrid owners do the same. It's not really a "joe sixpack" kind of a car in the first place.

    And now we have cars like these on the way. 60mpg, decent acceleration, and about half the price.

    This will be the next big green transport. Turbo diesel. Because biodiesel is ridiculously simple to make. And carbon neutral - that'll be important soon here too, once the world gets their collective heads out of their asses and decides to do something about global warming. Diesel will be the next Big Green Thing.

    Here, read this. It's a fantastic study on how feasible it would be to switch the USA entirely to algae biodiesel. Unfortunately it is no longer hosted at UNH but the wayback still has a copy. It's a brilliant read and a future I'd like to be a part of.

    And I really think things will go that way too someday. Drilling for oil is problematic (Gulf BP disaster for example), not carbon neutral and contributes to global warming, and there is always the specter of "peak oil" lurking about. Someday maybe we'll simply run out of oil. What then? The two best answers are Biodiesel and Hydrogen. Hydrogen is sexy, but problematic. Difficult to store. No existing infrastructure to distribute it. No efficient way to make it. That leaves Biodiesel.

    And everyone who buys a diesel helps usher in that future. So yeah, my next car will be a turbodiesel of some sort.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  96. BS!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We just bought our 2nd Hybrid this year: 2003 Honda civic hybrid.
    And the main reason was that my girl can't drive my 2000 Honda Insight (she only can drive automatic)

    The insight is the best car I ever have. It can make up to 100 miles per galon.

    I never will buy a non-hybrid again.

  97. Civic hybrid class action lawsuit is bunk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As a hybrid Civic owner, I can say that the class action lawsuit is bunk. Driven responsibly, the car gets the originally advertised mileage and more. Set the cruise control to 60mph, and my 2005 Honda Civid Hybrid gets a reliable 60+ mpg. Drive it to the extreme, and it can get 80+ mpg. Most of the class action sign-ons received a letter that offered them a $100 check in return for their signature. Plenty signed, no doubt, to collect a 'free' $100. I suspect few of them really know what their gas mileage is, and how much it varies with driving technique.
    Concerning would I buy again... After calculating the fuel cost savings versus my former vehicle (50mpg vs. 19mpg), and since I bought it used at a significant savings over new, the vehicle has been 'free'. That is, the savings in fuel (at average $3.00/gallon over 100,000 miles) exceeds the price I paid for the car. So would I buy a hybrid again? Well, the last one was free, so how could I not. Unless I wasn't paying attention to the numbers, which is what I suspect happens with most car owners.
    BTW, the Civic Hybrid has overall been the best car I've ever owned. Not for everyone, but perfect for many of us.
    Who paid for the study, anyway...

  98. Re:On "Why Florida?" as a long-time hybrid owner.. by blueg3 · · Score: 1

    It's pretty easy to switch it so that it runs the engine to generate heat to heat the interior. That said, the newer Prius has an electric heater as well to help with that. Of course, I live in a hilly area, so being too efficient isn't a problem.

    Engine runs pretty fast going up inclines, but at 70 mph up a very serious hill there's no net battery drain (it does the normal charge-discharge cycle).

    Never had any trouble with snow, except that the stock Prius tires are insufficient for serious weather.

  99. Re:Most hybrids are worth the extra cost by blueg3 · · Score: 1

    For one, you got shafted on tires.

    For another, I disagreed with you entirely until you got to "except for ... Prius". I don't know the situation for other hybrids, but the Prius has been around long enough that there's no motivation to take it to the dealer for regular maintenance. Any halfway-competent mechanic can work on them now. (It's true that this wasn't always the case, and may not yet be the case for other hybrids.)

  100. Because Hybrids Shouldn't Pay For Themselves by IBitOBear · · Score: 2

    You know, the -design- of the Prius et. al. was -not- to have it "pay for itself". This isn't surprising. My household refrigerator and washing machine don't "pay for themselves" either.

    The Prius was tuned for -emissions- -efficency- not mileage. I knew this. For instance, in climbing hills the gasolene engine goes -much- faster than a comprable non-hybrid sedan. The higher speed is turned into electricty and then back into torque. If I punch it on the hill the engine goes faster still. The rule of losses in the transformation of energy dictates that energy (mileage) will be lost to transformation. Entropy must be paid. But the whole thing is squeaky clean.

    People who expected to "make money" on their 40k car were idiots buying for the wrong reason. The rest of us bought for the green, and the smug, (be honest, there is smug to be had. 8-) and to drive down the price points as earily adopters.

    And "mileage" is nearly the worst measurement of efficency there possibly could be. It is no wonder that big flat florida has people who -are- making back their money. The state is -flat-. If my commute were flat it would my mileage would be much better than it is today (42mpg). I have gotten 55mpg driving from Seattle to Portland, and only 48 driving the other direction (the sawtooth patern of the hills along I-5 is a determinant, very helpful going south, somewhat wasteful going north).

    I lose most of my "mileage" in a prius in that once the engine starts it wants to run till it has "warmed up", which takes a significant part of my commute and is concentrated in the stationary time while I am stuck in surface street at terrible traffic lights, trying to get onto the highway. This meanst that all of my gas is spent pointlessly making heat.

    I will likely not buy another hybrid though. I am planning on going electric next (e.g. leaf). Or to a Volt-Alike hybrid if I must.

    Further on, I don't expect the electric to be much cheaper to run than the Prius. The state of Washington is gonny slap on a GPS tax any day, and electricty is clean but it aint as cheap as you might think. Ask anybody with an elevator or regularly used winch in a space they pay for. But I can aford the hit. I like having the smug, and I like having the cleaner tailpipe in general. -Someone- has to start paying to break the oil addiciton and having that opinion without willing to back it with my wallet would be hypocritical.

    Full Disclosure: I also am midst of installing a geothermal heat pump in my house. I am expecting some savings, and some resale value improvement, but I doubt it will "pay for itself" for a very long time if ever. I'd like to back it with solar pannels because if I can get my energy bill down I expect to be able to sell the flash of having a negative electric bill several times a year when I sell the house.

    --
    Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
    --"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
    1. Re:Because Hybrids Shouldn't Pay For Themselves by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      your refrigerator and washing machine most certainly do pay for themselfs, if you like clean clothes and food(while still eating nicely) - washing by hand is wasteful being unable to store food for even a day is super wasteful. the heat pump should pay for itself too.

      never played jones in the fast lane?

      why break the addiction on liquid fuels? it's only oil derived since that's cheapest. it's cheapest because it's already a liquid. it'll stay cheapest until there's no more, if it doesn't they don't have a market.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  101. $12 a gallon by johncandale · · Score: 1

    sooner or later gas will be $12 a gallon in the US. sooner or later hybrids will be cheaper, last longer and get even better mileage. They aren't going away.

  102. Lack of choice by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 1

    There are a few other cars that offer electric power, some even without a "regular" engine in them. However, there hasn't been any real development in actual purchasable cars at "normal" consumer rates for years and years. If you have a prius and want a new car after 5 years, what's the market for you? A lot of exciting new vehicles in all sorts of shapes, colors, classes and brands, some even pretty green, even compared to your prius and... wait for it, a prius. Oh, there's the honda and the Volt. They are all more or less compacts, fairly dull to drive, look utterly boring and even though they may have a tad more technology in them than the prius, they are still basically an oversized golf cart.

    Tesla offered an expensive short radius all electric sports car. It was a novelty, it could be fun if your drives are without a weeks worth of groceries, kids or further than 50 miles from home, but it wasn't practical as a primary car for most people. Hybrid SUVs are just gas guzzlers, even if they are relatively easy on the fuel for a big, gas guzzling car, there is no real incentive to buy one except when your name is Al Gore.

    The public is waiting for the next generation of hybrids and even if current hybrid owners are 15 times more likely to buy a hybrid again than non-owners, it's not going to happen until there is a new competitor on the block to tell the prius "exit stage left".

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
  103. may buy another one by pbjones · · Score: 1

    I have a secondhand 2003 Prius, now that there is a cheaper Prius C, at a reasonable price, I'll possibly buy another hybrid, now that the price has dropped.

    --
    There was an unknown error in the submission.
  104. No CVT by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1
    I agree with you about the Prius but I have a nitpick. The Prius doesn't have a CVT. That chain in there is fixed, it just allows the arrangement of the gears to be a little more compact. In conventional terms, the Prius has neither a gearbox nor a CVT, just a very, very clever three way planetary gear system, a gasoline engine and two electric motors one of which acts also as a generator and can go in reverse. There are explanations out there on the Internet, and they can boggle your brain. The Gen 3 eliminates the chain altogether.

    I think the reason that Prius owners are so loyal is that, put simply, the Prius is far and away the best of its kind. For the same money you can get faster cars, but none that will get you long distances with so little fatigue. The only other cars I can think of which are so good for long distances are Mercs, BMWs and Jaguars costing around 50% more to buy, and twice as much to run.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:No CVT by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The only other cars I can think of which are so good for long distances are Mercs, BMWs and Jaguars costing around 50% more to buy, and twice as much to run.

      You could buy an old Merc with a diesel. That costs about 5% as much to buy, although you'll probably spend twice the purchase price in the first five years in maintenance. It does still cost about a third again to run it, unless you manage to make your own fuel. On the other hand, I have a big floaty car on the freeway and an amazingly tight-handling sports sedan in the twisties, while a Prius is said to drive like a land yacht of the 1970s. I do know that they don't corner worth a fuck, nor do they actually go up hills well, you can witness both with the self-entitled cocks heading south on the 101 out of Marin in their Prii clogging up their lanes (typically more towards the left side of the road.)

      Wouldn't actually recommend it to anyone who's not a mechanic and a car hobbyist in general. Now, off to the junkyard to pull a dash and cover it in leather...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  105. I got a Harley by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, I got a Harley Sportster 1200 almost 10 years ago : way cheaper than a car, lots of fun ; and gets lots of mileage per gallon. Insurance is cheap. Also, Im never stuck in traffic, no matter how heavy is the rush hour traffic, I just keep going. So, if you really want to save gasoline, go buy a motorcycle. Japanese bikes save even more gasoline. In example, a 125 cc 4T engine from a small chinese bike can do almost 300 km with only 5 liters of gasoline. You can conmute all week or more with really no money , also those motorcycles cost very little to purchase. In short, to save money really, go buy a motorcycle or a moped.

  106. Forgot about inflation? by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

    Or interest? You're spending an extra $5000 right now, and getting it back over 10 or more years (unless you drive a huge number of miles per year). If you want to make a fair comparison, you need to factor in a reasonable rate of inflation or equivalently interest. The $1 you save in gas costs in year 8 is worth significantly less than the $1 you forked out today to buy the car. (And this is even more true for the younger people that tend to be hybrid buyers, who will have steadily rising wages over the next decade or so, as their careers mature. For these people, the labor required to afford $1 in hybrid car purchase now is quite a bit more than the labor they're spared as a result of $1 in gas cost saved in year 8.)

    Anyone who can convince himself that a hybrid makes economic sense in any but very unusual circumstances should not be allowed to manage his own 401(k) funds.

  107. Re:Most hybrids are worth the extra cost by jaymemaurice · · Score: 1

    And here I spent $2k on Michelin pilot sport ps2's that are only good for maximum 30,000miles... the market caters to all people...

    --
    120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
  108. bring on the diesel electrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i'm looking forward to when generator technology catches up.. so that a true diesel-electric car can be built.. a plug-in electric with on-board generator that can keep up with a typical draw from drivetrain and cabin electrical .. no mechanical link between engine and motors... the engine runs at quiet low rpm for efficiency and longevity to provide power to motors and battery charging when battery runs low.

  109. We will buy another Prius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here is my experience:

    My wife and I have a 2007 Prius that we paid $25,000 for, tax title and out the door. It gets 45 miles to the gallon, city and trip mileage combined. I have gotten as much as 78 mpg on short trips but that's unusual. It is not a car for leadfoots and requires a special technique (pulse and glide) to get the best mileage. And keep those tires filled to 42 pounds please.

      We have 70K on the car now and have had no problems with it at all. It is a intermediate sized car (very roomy in the back) and I can put my 5 adults (3 thin women and 2 average sized men) in the car and drive 650 miles to the beach. That is what we are going to do this summer. With minimum clothes and suitcases etc. You can't do that with a Golf diesel without exceeding a pain threshhold.

      We might have bought a Honda Accord or Toyota Camry for about $21,500. They both get about 28 mpg. We imagine that we will keep the Pri for about 150000 miles. At that point it will need a new battery ($2000, lsat I checked). One thing about the car, is that it is very gentle on wear and tear of the gas engine. I believe it would easily go another 150,000 with the new battery, but thats just speculation. At any rate, I would just buy a new Prius and likely give the car to one of my children, if they need it.

    During the 150,000 miles that we will have the car, it will use 3333 gallons of gas. The Camry or Accord would use 5357 gallons of gas. The difference is 2024 gallons. At $2.50 a gallon, that gas will cost $5060, more than enough to pay the $3500 premium that we paid for the car and a new battery. The higher the price of gas, the more worthwhile the Prius becomes. But even at lower levels the gas mileage on the Prius will pay for the increased cost of the car, at least in most cases.

    We have been very happy with the car and we will buy another.

  110. 6 by 20 by tepples · · Score: 1

    The most common induction loop sensor in my area is the 6 foot (1.8 m) octagon, which I can trigger most of the time even if it means laying my bike down. (Is that your "large circle"?) But I can't trigger the 6 by 20 foot (1.8 by 6 m) rectangle, and unfortunately, there's one of those on the most direct route to work.

    1. Re:6 by 20 by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      They key is to mimic a car wheel. Just think of where the wheel would be if a car were to stop over the loop. An upright wheel will do as well as laying the bike down, if the position is correct. And yeah, I was referring to the octogon ones, they usually have a circle etched over them. The only rectangular ones I have seen are these. They can be triggered by getting your wheel over any of the sides. I prefer the center one, as I would be triggering both he loops. If you see a different one, just mimic a car wheel, and it will certainly work.

      Slightly tilting you bicycle to one side, also helps. Its induces more changes in current than standing upright and being still.

  111. fool me once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fool me once, shame on you

    fool me twice, shame on me

  112. Uncontrolled access vs. controlled access highways by tepples · · Score: 1

    You stop at lights with a bike ?

    A bicycle is a human-powered vehicle and thus subject to the same rules of the road as any other vehicle.

    As for highways, if you are in Australian you can bike on them!

    There are two kinds of highways in the United States: uncontrolled access (those that pass through cities and become major streets) and controlled access (those accessible only by a few exits, and which have a minimum speed of about 95 km/h). "State" and "federal" highways are uncontrolled access, while "interstate" highways are controlled access. The term "interstate" is sort of a misnomer because "interstate" highways with three digit numbers don't leave the state; instead, they're a spur or loop to one city. Bicycles and other non-motorized vehicles can travel only on "state" and "federal" highways.

  113. Cacophonous racket of our laughter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At u running from disproving apk's points on hosts -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2750765&cid=39500841 you troll him & he always runs you off w/ the simple request to disprove his points on hosts files, idiot. Ever wonder why everyone here thinks you're a joke? Don't, troll.

  114. Want to see something funny people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TheRaven64 says he wrote some books - what's their title & publisher then? Watch him run.

  115. Re:Most hybrids are worth the extra cost by j-beda · · Score: 1

    Sure, but if someone is complaining about purely financial payback issues, the PS2's probably are not the best choice....

  116. Sounds like u pulls scams like that often by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that ur game, TheRaven64? We already KNOW u r a liar: TheRaven64 says he wrote some books - what's their title & publisher then? Watch him run.

  117. So ur a taxi driver (vs. an author)? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TheRaven64 says he writes books - Title & publisher? See him run.

  118. America is great, u aren't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TheRaven64 says he writes books - Title + publisher? See him run.

  119. We measure by honesty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TheRaven64 said he writes books - Title/publisher? See him run.

    1. Re:We measure by honesty by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Hello APK, still trolling? Check my post history and you can easily find the titles. Here's a hint: look for stories about Xen for the first one...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:We measure by honesty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Big deal. APK has written MANY books including: How to protect your computer against malware (Windows Fanzine, August 1992); My big fat geek hosts file (Windows is Awesome Newsletter, January 1997); and also "How to remove apkapp2backgrounddaemonprocessengine.exe from infected computers" (still working on that!)

      And all you've done is write a book on motorcycle maintenance. That qualifies you to talk about motorcycles but not computers my friend!

      APK 1. You: 0.

  120. Even if I do mimic a car wheel by tepples · · Score: 2

    They can be triggered by getting your wheel over any of the sides. I prefer the center one, as I would be triggering both he loops.

    The 6x20 I'm talking about looks sort of like that, but there is no center one. Because there is no center one, the traffic engineers turn down the sensitivity so that large delivery trucks in adjacent lanes don't trigger it. Someone from the city's traffic department suggested that I make a right* turn on red, a U-turn on the busy street, and then another right* turn.

    If you see a different one, just mimic a car wheel, and it will certainly work.

    It ends up happening not to. I do mimic a car wheel to the best of my ability. I've tried upright on the crack, I've tried tilting slightly into the loop on the crack, and I've tried laying it down on the crack. Nothing trips it except a car. A bike wheel is so much smaller than a car wheel that its smaller metal surface doesn't generate enough induction. Should I bring a camcorder next time so that people like you can watch my video and tell me exactly what I could change in order to stop failing?

    Its induces more changes in current

    Except I don't know the exact timing of when the signal set's computer is going to poll the loop, and I don't want to waste energy and look like an idiot continually moving my bike back and forth for several minutes so that it happens to be changing at the moment the computer polls the loop.

    * This is the USA; substitute left in GB/AU/NZ.

    1. Re:Even if I do mimic a car wheel by operagost · · Score: 1

      Someone from the city's traffic department suggested that I make a right* turn on red, a U-turn on the busy street, and then another right* turn.

      That man is an idiot. OK... why don't you guys dismount and walk across?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    2. Re:Even if I do mimic a car wheel by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      Looks like the city doesnt care about cyclist. See if you can talk to the local bike club. Anyways, you can add a copper loop along the wheel. Its much more conductive, and you can assured of triggering the signal.

  121. The advantage of a Hybrid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look, I drive a 2008 Camry Hybrid. Was I going green? No, but I wanted to swap the highway and city mpg numbers. And hybrids do just that. There are some tricks you can use to make them more efficient in city traffic. Controlling your temper is the biggest. Slam the loud pedal, and you keep restarting the engine. Just relax, and enjoy the golf-cart effect under 40 mph in the stop-'n'-go in the city. For me, the Prius was a no-sale. Great for kids at college, but at the end of the day, part of my commute is still highway, and a Camry is still a Camry. A Prius feels way too underpowered for five lanes with trucks.

    Fuel-wise, I get about 33 to 36, compared to 26 to 30 in an equivalent non-hybrid, but again, it's my particular commute and driving style that makes it work for me.

    In this case, your mileage may vary. :-)

  122. Cost VS ROI by SomeWhiteGuy · · Score: 1

    My wife and I have the 2005 Toyota Prius (40+mpg) and are currently debating on whether to try for another. The cost for the vehicle is higher than a standard car, and the new regulations make newer cars almost as efficient (30+mpg) as the hybrids in city. Our biggest issue has been the cost of repairs for the vehicle. The electric engine has given us more issues than the gas supplied side plus our other gas powered vehicle combined.

  123. Imagine California. Twice. by tepples · · Score: 1

    LA and the Bay Area are probably the canonical examples of places with a sharp cost-of-living gradient that encourages long-distance commuting. I guess trying to get that time back is one reason why people buy audio books.

    1. Re:Imagine California. Twice. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The Bay Area just isn't THAT bad given the price of fuel, and in many cases even parking. You might have to compromise on space but that's part of what living in the city is all about. You don't NEED as much stuff if you live near a jillion other people, because there's available shared resources.

      As for Los Angeles, there's nothing about it that's not a blight. I favor cutting off the water and letting it dry up and blow away.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Imagine California. Twice. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I used to think that, but then I was sent to Orange County on a business trip. That's actually a pretty decent place; certainly a lot nicer than the Phoenix area where I currently live.

  124. Not surprising... by Foske · · Score: 1

    One colleague drives a Toyota Prius, another a Volvo C70 Diesel. The Volvo has a better MPG than the Prius, and though the owner of the Volvo is not a pedal to the metal-type, he is anything but a relaxed driver. The Prius owner is one of those guys who drives dangerously slow because the CVT makes sure the engine starts whining as soon as you only look at the throttle. I'd love to drive electric, but hybrid ? No thanks.

  125. Cars are getting more efficient, too. by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

    Any thought I had about getting a hybrid evaporated when I saw that the Ford Fusion 2013 will have a turbo-charged, direct-injection I4 2.0 L engine that puts out 237 HP. The Ford Edge is a cross-over SUV with that same engine and gets 21 MPG in city driving. CITY DRIVING. I am going to bet that the smaller Ford Fusion will get better fuel efficiency than that.

    --
    A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
  126. Those damn battery packs... by perdera · · Score: 1

    The battery on my wifes Honda Civic 'went bad', whatever that means. I didn't care about the specifics, but a light came on on the dashboard, we took it in, they said the battery needed to be replaced. It had failed with less than 1,000 miles left on it's warranty. I can't even begin to tell you how much I would have RAGED if it waited a little longer to fail and we were in for thousands of dollars for a replacement. Of course, the new battery doesn't come with a new warranty, but they 'assured' us it will never fail, 'battery technology has improved a lot in the past several years'...yeah, probably true, but we'll see.

    Comparing her Civic Hybrid to my Jetta TDI (Diesel)...I just really don't see the point in the Hybrid. Really seems like a whole lot of additional complexity for not much of an improvement in other regards.

    1. Re:Those damn battery packs... by LeadSongDog · · Score: 1

      If the makers really want hybrids to sell, they'll find a way to control that risk. I'd go for it if I could get a battery warranty as part of power train coverage. I'd want about 10 year/200,000 km to match competitively priced gasoline models. What is nuts is expecting customers to eat that risk with zero control or visibility into the design life.

      --
      Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
  127. This would fix the lack of organs, too! by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 1

    Yup, a lot more motorcycle ridership would likely fix our organ shortage. Lots more organ donors!

    It's about 20x more risk of death per mile on a motorcycle.

    --PM

    1. Re:This would fix the lack of organs, too! by sdguero · · Score: 1

      And 80% of fatal accidents involving motorcycles in California are the fault of a person driving a car...

      I hope I don't die on my bike, and I appreciate you pointing out how dangerous it is.

  128. Any fool can 'write a book' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Big deal: There's 2 kinds of people in this world - those who DO, & those who write about those that DO, do. What was the publisher? The "philosophical press"?? (where you PAY them to publish it for you, which per my subject above, ANYONE can do, easily enough). We're not impressed: Show us something in code instead that did well in respected publications OR that you have commercially sold code to your credit. Then, we might be impressed. Otherwise? See above.

    1. Re:Any fool can 'write a book' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was doing some research into TheRaven64 and there's quite a good FAQ on the subject here: http://tinyurl.com/6nq9up3

      You're welcome.

  129. Buying my hybrid today by cavis · · Score: 2

    What timing... I take delivery of my first hybrid today, a 2012 Toyota Prius. I did some basic math in making my decision, so I'll share:

    This vehicle will replace a 2005 Chevy Uplander that we drove an average of 27,500 miles per year. The Uplander is getting 17.9 MPG at this point (according to the onboard computer), consuming 1,536 gallons of fuel annually. At the current price of $3.95 per gallon in my area, it costs $6,068 per year in just fuel (87 octane). Running the numbers again for the Prius, and assuming 45MPG, fuel will cost $2,413 per year... a savings of $3,655 annually, or $304 per month. Even after my wife added all the bells and whistles and extended warranty (she did that while I was out of the room), we will only be seeing a net outlay of $170 per month. And when my 13-year-old son goes to college, he will take this vehicle with him.

    The Prius owners that I know are extremely satisfied, and one has had his since 2003. Although there are many other factors to consider, my monthly budget is certainly a major factor. I'm viewing this purchase this way: I'm buying a new car for $170 per month.

  130. Diff. between alleged authors & pros? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2734503&cid=39495861 after you trolled him like the worm u are here http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2734503&cid=39406223

    Trying to 'defend yourself' was pitiful doing it by AC replies in the 1st link - you were annihilated for it, point-by-point!

    So much for YOU, "the author" (big deal, anyone can write a book), actually KNOWING what's he's doing in computing (which anyone can take a look at the links above and KNOW it was you trying to 'defend yourself' after trolling, nobody else would - APK wasted you easily).

  131. Funny how apk blew you away troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read where you trolled him by ac posts here http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2734503&cid=39406223

    Then later in that exchange I saw you trying to 'defend yourself' by an ac post and you were destroyed point by quoted point here http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2734503&cid=39497061 and trust me, we know it was you doing it.

    (Nobody else would defend you here and especially so late into a forums debate).

    If people like you are writing books in the field of computing, we're in trouble.

  132. railroads suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for many reasons, railroads suck...

    a railroad right-of-way cuts communities -- and worse, it can only be used by special cars -- owned by the railroad operator.

    and and and...

  133. Not all hybrids are the same by JTsyo · · Score: 2

    I sure if you poll those that own a the following cars they would be more likely to buy another hybrid: -Prius -Fusion -Insight -Escape The others were just companies trying to sell towards a fad without much engineering behind it.

    1. Re:Not all hybrids are the same by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Google the study. The linked story here (LA Times) is very thin on details. I read a much more detailed version of the same study on Jalopnik (I think). The basic premise is that owners of "real" hybrids like the Prius are more likely to buy another than people with the fake "hybrid-assist" vehicles like the Tahoe.

  134. Most of y'all are blinder-handicapped nuts!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I love my Prius Hybrid. I think Toyota GOT IT RIGHT and keeps improving it! IMHO, I think the American car makers are just trying to do a cheap-and-it-doesn't-work-well-knock-offs. This Prius is my 2nd. I plan to always drive a Prius. I can't get over the pleasure of 50+mpg on my 80-mile daily commute!!! And cost? It cost less than my Jeep did 8 years ago. All of us in the United States need to get our nose in joint and set goals to produce good designs with 0% flaws. Be innovative and smart. The Volt is an embarrassment. Our ingenuity should have produced something that can do a quick charge costing less than the gas or power that charges it, gets an overall 100mpg adding up the electric 'run' and the gasoline-driven 'run,' and it needs to feel like a solid car (my 2011 Prius does). My maintenance on my old Prius (traded at @150,000 miles) and the new one is minimal. Do your homework!

  135. I CALL BULLSHIT by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

    If you factor out the super-loyal Toyota Prius buyers, ...

    Simple translation:

    "if you factor out the hybrid car which actually delivers its estimated EPA to its buyers...

    The government needs to come down on these manufacturers harder with respect to their fakey-fake estimated EPA numbers. I have driven a Prius and I can tell you it gets 50 MPG just like it says it does if you simply refrain from driving like a 16 year old.

    Honda's claims for their hybrids, on the other hand, are lawsuit worthy:

    http://www.azcentral.com/12news/news/articles/2012/02/01/20120201woman-wins-suit-honda-hybrid-mpg.html

    And if you RTFA on the website of the "researchers" , you have to wonder if they included in those "hybrid" owners people who bought "flex-fuel" vehicles, which are are pretty useless according to owner's I've talked to (they just allow you to use ethanol if you can find it) .

    Finally the research on the reasercher's own site is opaque. It doesn't specify the study's methods were, what questions they asked , To whom they were asked and how those people were selected, what constitutes "a hybrid" or what even what their raw data was. It's just a results table.

    Results without methods tells us nothing except what the "researcher" wants us to hear. Sorry, I am not sure this is even news or newsworthy as opposed to some propaganda piece designed to be put into some lobbyist firm or senator's mouth at some televised hearing or debate on whether Americans want hybrids or EVs or even cares about fuel efficiency.

    1. Re:I CALL BULLSHIT by raygundan · · Score: 1

      The government needs to come down on these manufacturers harder with respect to their fakey-fake estimated EPA numbers.

      The government makes those numbers. They're generated by the EPA itself testing the cars. On top of that, those numbers are the only numbers the manufacturer is allowed to display or advertise in the US.

      You could fairly complain that the EPA testing could be more accurate or more representative-- but this is not something manufacturers are doing.

  136. Called. Rep said "Sorry." by tepples · · Score: 1

    Call your department of transportation.

    My reply to Admiral_Grinder explains what good phone calls did.

  137. Hybrids Don't Pay For Themselves...Anymore by SkimTony · · Score: 1

    In 2005-2008 when most of the first round of hybrids were being purchased, there were tax rebates that defrayed some of the additional cost of buying a hybrid instead of a traditional gasoline-only car. Since those subsidies have expired, the price of a hybrid car has effectively gone up by $1200-1500, which is a decent amount of money when you're car-shopping in the new-small-car range.
            Consider also that there was a lot more money in pockets leading up to 2008, and lenders were practically throwing it at people if they so much as made eye contact. I saw loads ads for 0.9% or 1.9% car loans on a new car back then. That, in combination with the tax incentives, made it much cheaper to buy a new car, including hybrids. Now, interest rates on car loans are higher and money is tighter; the $3,000 premium on buying a hybrid is a bigger bite to chew.
            Also, "returning to the market" in 2011? The real greenies are going to drive that hybrid car they bought in 2007 until 2020; at which point they'll probably be lining to buy electric.

  138. No such button by tepples · · Score: 1

    I've done that at other intersections. But there is no such button here, as I mentioned earlier and as one can verify using Street View on the intersection in question.

  139. Not sold at my bike shop by tepples · · Score: 1

    How would a magnet affect an induction loop? I asked about a magnet kit at a local bike shop, and the sales associate had never heard of this method.

    1. Re:Not sold at my bike shop by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Maxwell's equations. Know them.

      What does happen when you move a coil through a magnetic field?

      What devices use this principle?

      Seriously, just try it with an big old magnets you've got lying around.

      You don't need to change the inductance to trigger the detector. Induce transient voltages with moving magnetic fields.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:Not sold at my bike shop by tepples · · Score: 1

      Induce transient voltages with moving magnetic fields.

      As I wrote in this comment, I don't know exactly at what points during the phase the sensor is "listening" to the induction loop, which means I don't know when to move the permanent magnet.

    3. Re:Not sold at my bike shop by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Test it. I don't have any sensors turned way the fuck down to test with.

      I'd be surprised if it didn't test many times per second.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  140. It's not because they are hybrids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Apparently the hybrids other than the Prius must suck. I have a Prius, and I plan to buy a second Prius, and will likely replace the first Prius with another Prius when that time comes. My first 2005 Prius only has 100,000 miles on it, and I suspect it has another 100,000 left on it. The thing has required almost no maintenance, other than the periodic oil change. Everyone I know who has a Prius will buy another Prius, or already has. It's nice that it gets 45 mpg, but there are so many other ways that the Prius is simply a great car. That's why the loyalty is so high.

    This result is therefore not inherent in hybrids since the Prius is a clear counterexample, but rather a characteristic of the particular implementation of most of hybrids that were quickly pushed out onto the market in response to the Prius success.

  141. mod parent up by shiftless · · Score: 1

    This is actual practical, usable advice for the OP, unlike the other replies given

  142. Re:On "Why Florida?" as a long-time hybrid owner.. by garyebickford · · Score: 1

    The AC works much better.

    Oddly enough, there's your answer. AC is more than 100% efficient on the heat side. They should build the AC so you either the hot side or the cold side blows into the car. It would also heat up almost instantly. Such AC systems (AKA 'heat pumps') exist - my boat has one. It either heats the water in the ocean and cools me, or heats me and cools the water in the ocean.

    --
    It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
  143. Nobody should need to replace a hybrid yet by DigiTechGuy · · Score: 1

    I don't understand why any hybrid buyers would be getting a replacement car so soon, even if you bought a first generation. Cars last 30-50+ years. If these are only alsting a decade or less, there's your problem. That and they won't ever pay for the additional cost. Just as you come close to breaking even or actually break even, it's time to drop $5k-$10k on batteries.

  144. Prius AND Lexus Hybrid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's right, I bought the Lexus CT200h specifically because of the Prius that I also own and love...

  145. Yes, yes it does. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless you only drive on Sundays, to church and back. Good God man, the average commuter could get a hell of a lot of use out of a hybrid. I sure as hell could. I go 70 to 80 miles a day.

    Compare a Honda Insight (hybrid) to a low end Civic, or a sub-compact from any maker, even the stupid "Smart" car.

    My theory on current owners not buying another? Because a lot of them were the environmental folk, they're probably going electric. Give them a plug-in hybrid and they'll return.

  146. Some Ideas by assertation · · Score: 1

    - hybrids cost more upfront

    - only the Prius eventually makes a difference in terms of
        less money paid out for fuel

    - hybrids have lousy resale values. The battery eventually has to be replaced to the tune of several thousand dollars.

    - electric cars are coming out. Hybrids are transition vehicales

  147. This is demonstratably true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    U ran when asked 2 disprove apk's points on hosts after u trolled him http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2750765&cid=39500841 & u ran like the wuss u are red headed stepchild.

  148. Re:Most hybrids are worth the extra cost by stewbacca · · Score: 1

    $1000 bucks for 15" economy tires??? Um, yeah, somebody got ripped off. My 18" 40 profile z-rated tires can be purchased and installed for roughly $600 with some decent shopping around the major brands.

  149. It really isn't worth it...yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm confident that eventually the cost will come down to a point where it makes sense for the average person. But right now, it doesn't work out so well. Been doing the lease thing for the last few cars, and every time I make a chart with the msrp of the hybrids, and of the conventional cars. Last time, it would have taken 12 years to break even with the cost of the conventional car with the gas savings of the hybrid. There are other factors to consider for sure, so lets say 12 years, plus or minus 2 years.

    What is the average lifespan of a car? If you keep it until it dies, sure you will come out on top, maybe 15 years. But I think most folks get a new car every 8 to 10 years, so if you can't break even, then why bother?

    No, the truth is, that hybrid is merely a stepping stone to the real solution. It allows car manufactures the ability to make money why they develop better electric engines. Once they have that down, it doesn't matter too much what the fuel source is, only that it can generate the electricity needed to drive the engine.