Archives

Delta's Notes:

EV's don't have the range to get market share
Fuel Cell Vehicles are at least ten years away
The author quote of hybrid fuel economy must be with NASCAR drivers. :rolleyes: Certainly not comparing EPA figure when comparing hybrids vs. 1980's cars.
Since the 1980's, cars are heavier to take crashes better and to have airbags
Since the 1980's people want cars go from 0-60mph in ten seconds - not fifteen.
How mnay times have we all heard this?
_____________________________________________________________________________

from http://www.dailynews-record.com/opinion_details.php?LID=1850 (http://www.dailynews-record.com/opinion_details.php?LID=1850)
Hybrid Cars Won’t Help Energy Woes

Everyone (almost) believes that hybrid cars will minimize or eliminate pollutions that cause a myriad of problems from global warming to health problems.
This is a myth being presented to us by politicians, auto builders, and global warming activists. Just look at the facts.
Hybrids get anywhere from 32 to 47 miles per gallon — remember miles per gallon. Old time Dodge Shadows got 32 to 37 miles per gallon. New Honda Civics get 27 miles per gallon. Hyundia Elentra gets 34 miles per gallon. Geo Metro gets 45 or more mpg.
The significant thing about this is the cost and maintenance of the hybrids are much more than the normal car. They provide no significant improvement of mpg's which equates to no improvement in air quality per mile driven. If we want economy with good quality air and to reduce global warming we want either fully electric or fuel cell-powered cars. Fully electric cars have limited range without a recharge and the fuel cells require hydrogen fuel stations, which are supposedly unsafe.
But your kids will some day drive hydrogen cars. The point is that we are led to believe that hybrids will solve all problems and the truth is that they are no better than gas engine vehicles. If you watch TV, one candidate is selling himself by saying he will put through legislation for hybrid cars. But he hasn't done his homework — more myth being presented to the public as fact. The hybrids are much higher in cost.
George Lampron
Broadway

from http://www.dailynews-record.com/opinion_details.php?LID=1850
Hybrid Cars Won’t Help Energy Woes

Hybrids get anywhere from 32 to 47 miles per gallon — remember miles per gallon. Old time Dodge Shadows got 32 to 37 miles per gallon. New Honda Civics get 27 miles per gallon.

George Lampron
Broadway


:confused: :confused: I had a '91 shadow and never even sniffed 37 mpg. I usually got around 33 when I was on the highway.

New Honda Civics are rated 30/40 for automatic transmission. Now, I didn't major in math, but I'm pretty sure if you average 2 numbers, the result can't be lower. Maybe if I had taken calculus 4 ... ;)

Looks to me like someone's been drinkin' a little too much of the Kool-Aid.

"...the cost and maintenance of the hybrids are much more than the normal car."

DIY maintenance costs me about 2 cents per mile, including letting Toyota techs do the hard stuff. Based on several sources for full-Toyota maintenence of Prius, I reckon it is about 4 cents per mile. This includes estimates for eventual replacement of suspension components, etc. It excludes the rare, expensive "gotchas" because we cannot estimate their incidence yet. Still too rare. But even if they do develop, they amortize down to very small costs per mile over a reasonable vehicle lifetime.

We read all the time about high maint costs for hybrid vehicles, yet drivers' experiences (at least as known to me) indicate otherwise. Frustrating, isn't it?

DAS

GM stated that according to Toyota, a Prius will only last 100k miles. Just like my Camry's only at ~156k miles, and pickup's only at ~248k miles... What was I thinking, I need to take these to a junkyard and dispose of them immediately! :rolleyes:

That page seems to be empty, now. I searched for the article on the website and I couldn't find it.

At least the article is pasted on the first post of this thread.

Doesn't matter what the new technology is, someone will have something bad to say about it...how it either isn't a good enough solution or is somehow actually making things worse despite the shiny, grand image. Let's say manufacturers did bypass hybrids to go straight to EV sales. Let's be even more ambitious and say that these EVs have a 500mi range at 65mph and can be "trickle" charged overnight or quick charged in an hour and a half...a totally arbitrary but relatively short period of time. Some opinion writer would wake up in the morning, go "Oh, no, I'm uncomfortable with change!," and write about how slow, unsafe, inefficient, wasteful, and silly the whole thing is. Replace the EV with the hydrogen fuel cell and you get images of the Hindenbergh. Replace all vehicles with Star Trek-style transporter beams and that guy will write about the 50/50 shot you have of ending up at your destination with somebody else's left buttock, which probably won't fit properly.

To heck with 'em all. At first everybody resists, then only some people resists, and eventually nobody remembers what we did without the shiny new technology. The detractors will change their tune the minute it becomes unfashionable.

The transporter thing brings to mind a new slogan: "Hybrids: It's this or your a**!" :D