Rick Courtright

"Dave Null Sr." wrote:

> Which is why I always promote lowering consumption as a tool to keep
> your costs down - it is very effective.

I agree, but it seems to be an alien concept to way too much of our
population. TV stations trying to make news are having a field day with
runaway gas prices here in SoCal, and only one thing seems to be
constant with the attitude of people interviewed: "I can't afford these
prices, but no way am I gonna get rid of my gas hog or cut back on my
driving." With that kind of attitude, is there any solution until we run
out completely?

Rick

oothlagre

That's funny. They took the same attitude over the rolling blackouts. New
power plants were needed to be built, but "not in my backyard" attitude
prevailed.

Just an observation.


"Rick Courtright" <rcourtright@iname.com> wrote in message
news:40B236C2.1B2342F9@iname.com...
> "Dave Null Sr." wrote:
>
> > Which is why I always promote lowering consumption as a tool to keep
> > your costs down - it is very effective.
>
> I agree, but it seems to be an alien concept to way too much of our
> population. TV stations trying to make news are having a field day with
> runaway gas prices here in SoCal, and only one thing seems to be
> constant with the attitude of people interviewed: "I can't afford these
> prices, but no way am I gonna get rid of my gas hog or cut back on my
> driving." With that kind of attitude, is there any solution until we run
> out completely?
>
> Rick

Ignignokt

*** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***

Dave Null Sr. wrote:
>
> Using today's average gas price here, the typical 20k kms per year
> and city consumption (the hybrid forte), yearly gas costs are:
>
> Civic Si (gas only) $1456
> Civic Hybrid $892
> Insight $710
> Prius $728
>


Hybrids are most effective in city driving -- lots of stop-and-go. This is
the environment where internal combustion engines are least efficient. Here
in the US most people (not all) tend to drive longer distances at constant
speeds. I know I do. Hybrids lose their advantage in such long-distance
driving. This is why they're so much more popular in Japan and congested
parts of Europe than here in the United States. I'm not trying to dismiss
the benefits of hybrids, just to put those benefits into a realistic
context. The benefit a particular person will see from a hybrid depends a
great deal on the type of driving he does. And my mother owns a Prius, so
I'm not talking *completely* out of my butt here.

- Greg Reed

--
2001 Chevy Astro AWD (wife's)
2004 Subaru Forester Turbo 5-Speed




-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----

BRH

Not true....The legal requirement is to not post numbers that are HIGHER than the
EPA tests. The CAN legally post lower numbers. But, of course, they would be
crazy to do so.



Fruit Pie the Magician wrote:

> In article <2hcjj0FaujecU1@uni-berlin.de>,
> "Charles Perry" <pipesandtobacco@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You may have missed a few recent articles in US newspapers regarding
> > hybrids. It seems they get MUCH worse mileage than their EPA ratings. The
> > EPA tests do not accurately measure the true fuel consumption of a hybrid
> > vehicle.
> >
> > Charles Perry P.E.
>
> Note that they're still getting the best mileage overall. The big
> problem is that Toyota, et al, CANNOT use realistic numbers -- they are
> required by law to display and advertise the EPA numbers and as you
> note, the EPA's testing gives erroneous numbers for hybrids.
>
> -FPtM

Al

In article <40BB7871.FAC54979@comcast.net>,
BRH <"bhoenig<no-spam>"@comcast.net> wrote:

> Not true....The legal requirement is to not post numbers that are HIGHER than
> the
> EPA tests. The CAN legally post lower numbers. But, of course, they would
> be
> crazy to do so.
>
>
>
> Fruit Pie the Magician wrote:
>
> > In article <2hcjj0FaujecU1@uni-berlin.de>,
> > "Charles Perry" <pipesandtobacco@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > You may have missed a few recent articles in US newspapers regarding
> > > hybrids. It seems they get MUCH worse mileage than their EPA ratings.
> > > The
> > > EPA tests do not accurately measure the true fuel consumption of a hybrid
> > > vehicle.
> > >
> > > Charles Perry P.E.
> >
> > Note that they're still getting the best mileage overall. The big
> > problem is that Toyota, et al, CANNOT use realistic numbers -- they are
> > required by law to display and advertise the EPA numbers and as you
> > note, the EPA's testing gives erroneous numbers for hybrids.
> >
> > -FPtM
>

Not worth the extra cost. My gas cost for my vehicle is about $600/yr.
Right, I don't drive a lot, and you know, I don't need to. At any rate,
for the $3000 premium for a hybrid, I can drive for 5 yrs..and then it's
trade-in time. So what's the point? And how much does it cost to replace
the batteries? Think life cycle costs and you'll stick with IC engines.

Al

--
There's never enough time to do it right the first time.......

Todd H.

Al <no.spam@here.com> writes:
> In article <40BB7871.FAC54979@comcast.net>,
> Not worth the extra cost. My gas cost for my vehicle is about $600/yr.
> Right, I don't drive a lot, and you know, I don't need to. At any rate,
> for the $3000 premium for a hybrid, I can drive for 5 yrs..and then it's
> trade-in time. So what's the point? And how much does it cost to replace
> the batteries? Think life cycle costs and you'll stick with IC
> engines.

Think clean air for your children and a reduced dependence on dead
dino juice from a terribly unstable region of the planet, and demand
more efficient vehicles.

Hard dollar thinking and gas prices that were (quite artificially)
lower than the cost of a gallon of milk have gotten us to where we are
today....both in terms of gas prices, and continued involvement in
that political nightmare known as the Middle East.

--
Todd H.
2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4
Chicago, Illinois USA

Walt Kienzle

"Todd H." <subaru@toddh.net> wrote in message
news:m0ekozbbov.fsf@ripco.com...
> Al <no.spam@here.com> writes:
> > In article <40BB7871.FAC54979@comcast.net>,
> > Not worth the extra cost. My gas cost for my vehicle is about $600/yr.
> > Right, I don't drive a lot, and you know, I don't need to. At any rate,
> > for the $3000 premium for a hybrid, I can drive for 5 yrs..and then it's
> > trade-in time. So what's the point? And how much does it cost to replace
> > the batteries? Think life cycle costs and you'll stick with IC
> > engines.
>
> Think clean air for your children and a reduced dependence on dead
> dino juice from a terribly unstable region of the planet, and demand
> more efficient vehicles.
>
> Hard dollar thinking and gas prices that were (quite artificially)
> lower than the cost of a gallon of milk have gotten us to where we are
> today....both in terms of gas prices, and continued involvement in
> that political nightmare known as the Middle East.
>
> --
> Todd H.
> 2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4
> Chicago, Illinois USA

I disagree with both of your claims and believe that you have fallen into
the trap of the eco-fanatics. 10 years ago, production cars were being
made - and sold - that had emissions that were cleaner that the ambient air
that they took in. With the current emission standards ("current" being
those in place since 1985), a highway full of automobiles is causing less
pollution than a herd of cows. Nobody is protesting this existence of cows
or asking for the development of hybrid cows. Contrary to the cries from Al
Gore, the automobile is not our greatest enemy. Now if we could get the
same reduction in pollution from heavy equipment, you would have something.
But I don't see anybody making, buying, selling or talking about hybrid
Freightliners, Mack trucks or diesel locomotives.

For someone that spends only $600/year on gasoline, and I am in that camp
along with the OP, the few gallons saved by going to a hybrid isn't going to
reduce the rate of dependence on "dead dino juice". We could fuel our cars
with ethanol and get that result without the expense of hybrids. Since you
live in the Chicago area, as I do, you are already using gasoline with 10%
ethanol. Many cars (and trucks) are equipped to run on 85% ethanol. Did
you hear that it was on a promotional sale for $0.85/gal a couple of weeks
ago in Chicagoland? That would have been the thing to buy to reduce
emissions and dependence on oil. Oil goes into more things than
automobiles. It is used to generate electricity, make plastics and
chemicals, and more. Saving a minute amount of oil by switching to a hybrid
vehicle isn't going to make any difference in when we run out.

The problem I have with hybrid vehicles is that they still use gasoline and
they have batteries, which IMHO are not a very efficient method for storing
energy. What about all the pollution generated and/or energy needed to
dispose of or recycle the batteries in that hybrid at the end of their
useful life? I see the true solution to the items you ask us to think about
is by developing vehicles that operate on something other than oil.

Walt Kienzle

Byron

>Now if we could get the same reduction in pollution from heavy equipment,
>you would have something. But I don't see anybody making, buying, selling
>or talking about hybrid Freightliners, Mack trucks or diesel locomotives.
>
>
GM hasn't made hybrid cars or light trucks (yet) because it's focusing
on the big pollution producers.
http://www.thecarconnection.com/inde...&sid=173&n=156
They delivered a fleet of 235 diesel-electric hybrid buses which will
save Seattle 750,000 gallons of fuel a year.
And the maintenance schedule is less expensive too.

>Saving a minute amount of oil by switching to a hybrid
>vehicle isn't going to make any difference in when we run out.
>
>
Um, changing to hybrid buses saves one city a lot of gallons. (a mere
drop multiplied by many cities)
If in 5-10 years the world auto market switched almost entirely to
hybrid (especially diesel powered ones) powertrains and saved a
conservative 25% in fuel economy, don't you think that will help
conserve the supply for a while?

>The problem I have with hybrid vehicles is that they still use gasoline and
>they have batteries, which IMHO are not a very efficient method for storing
>energy.
>
Depends what kind of efficiency. Batteries used on modern EVs are quite
efficient storing and giving back electrical power. However they are
very inefficient when compared to liquid fuels with an energy to weight
ratio.

>What about all the pollution generated and/or energy needed to dispose
>of or recycle the batteries in that hybrid at the end of their useful life?
>
Might be equivalent to reducing the number of tankers (sea and land)
needed to carry all that gasoline weight around the world.

>I see the true solution to the items you ask us to think about
>is by developing vehicles that operate on something other than oil.
>
I agree on that point, but fuel cell cars are probably decades away from
being produced economically. They exist now, but check out the
development costs. And don't forget to factor in the cost of replacing
or augmenting most every gas station in the world with a
hydrogen/whatever station. Hybrids will help bridge the gap. Plus,
what if the hydrogen needed to power fuel cells is most economically
derived from oil?

- Byron

Todd H.

"Walt Kienzle" <wkienzle@iwic.net> writes:

> I disagree with both of your claims and believe that you have fallen into
> the trap of the eco-fanatics. 10 years ago, production cars were being
> made - and sold - that had emissions that were cleaner that the ambient air
> that they took in. With the current emission standards ("current" being
> those in place since 1985), a highway full of automobiles is causing less
> pollution than a herd of cows. Nobody is protesting this existence of cows
> or asking for the development of hybrid cows.

Rightly so cus cows aren't manufactured goods.

> Contrary to the cries from Al Gore, the automobile is not our
> greatest enemy.

It's certainly the most numerous.

> Now if we could get the same reduction in pollution from heavy
> equipment, you would have something.

How many front end loaders or locomotives do you see on our morning
commute?

> For someone that spends only $600/year on gasoline, and I am in that camp
> along with the OP, the few gallons saved by going to a hybrid isn't going to
> reduce the rate of dependence on "dead dino juice". We could fuel our cars
> with ethanol and get that result without the expense of hybrids. Since you
> live in the Chicago area, as I do, you are already using gasoline with 10%
> ethanol. Many cars (and trucks) are equipped to run on 85% ethanol. Did
> you hear that it was on a promotional sale for $0.85/gal a couple of weeks
> ago in Chicagoland? That would have been the thing to buy to reduce
> emissions and dependence on oil. Oil goes into more things than
> automobiles. It is used to generate electricity, make plastics and
> chemicals, and more. Saving a minute amount of oil by switching to a hybrid
> vehicle isn't going to make any difference in when we run out.

That's where your math is troublesome. If you can double the mileage
of all production automobiles, you multiply that by how many millions
of vehicles there are... and you sure as hell make a huge difference.

It's progress that tailpipe emissions on a given automobile are
cleaner than they once were. It's embarassing from an engineering
perspective that average mileage is little changed over the past 15
years. With the SUV boom, average mileage I believe has in fact gone
down.

> The problem I have with hybrid vehicles is that they still use gasoline and
> they have batteries, which IMHO are not a very efficient method for storing
> energy. What about all the pollution generated and/or energy needed to
> dispose of or recycle the batteries in that hybrid at the end of their
> useful life? I see the true solution to the items you ask us to think about
> is by developing vehicles that operate on something other than oil.

If Subaru made a natural gas fired outback, I'd buy one. Nothing out
the tailipe but water vapor.

If one isn't part of the solution on this issue, they're part of the
problem.

Consumers only looking at the bottom line of today's fuel cost are
hampering the adoption of LEV's and alternative fuel vehicles, and the
future doesn't look too rosey

--
Todd H.
2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4
Chicago, Illinois USA

oothlagre

The conflict in the Middle East is only a portion of gas prices. Both China
and the US have increased consumption and with the trend of bigger, heavier
and less-efficient vehicles continuing, well, it comes down to supply and
demand. Greater demand means greater price.

It's been over 100 years for the life of the IC engine. It's time for a new
alternative that does not fund terrorist organizations.

Henry

"Todd H." <subaru@toddh.net> wrote in message
news:m0ekozbbov.fsf@ripco.com...
> Al <no.spam@here.com> writes:
> > In article <40BB7871.FAC54979@comcast.net>,
> > Not worth the extra cost. My gas cost for my vehicle is about $600/yr.
> > Right, I don't drive a lot, and you know, I don't need to. At any rate,
> > for the $3000 premium for a hybrid, I can drive for 5 yrs..and then it's
> > trade-in time. So what's the point? And how much does it cost to replace
> > the batteries? Think life cycle costs and you'll stick with IC
> > engines.
>
> Think clean air for your children and a reduced dependence on dead
> dino juice from a terribly unstable region of the planet, and demand
> more efficient vehicles.
>
> Hard dollar thinking and gas prices that were (quite artificially)
> lower than the cost of a gallon of milk have gotten us to where we are
> today....both in terms of gas prices, and continued involvement in
> that political nightmare known as the Middle East.
>
> --
> Todd H.
> 2001 Legacy Outback Wagon, 2.5L H-4
> Chicago, Illinois USA