OT -- Prius = Speed Bump

[Mike W.]

I wonder if 20 MPG using bio diesel fuel is cleaner than under 40 MPG using gasoline in a Prius.

Who's ever gotten under 40 mpg in a Prius? I've had the opportunity to drive a few, and by absolutely wringing the shit out of one I managed to average 38 mpg on a 10-mile trip. It's quite tough to get them below 40 mpg. Also, the people who use biodiesel don't keep track of the energy input it takes to make it. People running straight WVO are doing better, but modern diesels aren't easily retrofitted to that (and WVO runs dirtier from an exhaust standpoint).

Face it, the Prius is more energy efficient. That doesn't mean it will save the owner money, but it does mean it will use less energy.

That woman is a crazy shitbag, and lots of Prius drivers are terrible drivers, but the hatred shouldn't be aimed at the car.

-tammer

I think I've seen as low as 32 in a Prius, but that's in a campus enviornment where .25 or .5 mile trips are the norm and mashing on the pedal at every stop sign. They do quite well mileage wise, and probably pollution wise while running, regardless of what may have been emitted in production.

There are a bunch of diesel drivers who use it as an excuse to be an a-hole, and they are noisy, but that woman was completely over the top. At most, speak your piece and be done with it, don't get in someones face and keep on and on and on, then go back for more. She's probably one of the ones driving 55 in a 65 or 70 in her prized Prius holding up traffic.

[wkohler]

The smugness is the problem with the Prius. It might not be the car itself, but it's the people who buy them. Kinda similar to much of the current E30 crowd.

Also, just looking at the car makes me upset. It's such a smug-looking design. A neighbor across from my parents' house always has some cheap comment to make about whatever it is I might be driving on a given day. I just tell him that I'm not the one that has a Prius in the driveway.

[Brian in TN]

A neighbor across from my parents' house always has some cheap comment to make about whatever it is I might be driving on a given day. I just tell him that I'm not the one that has a Prius in the driveway.

Snap.

[WilNJ]

Also, just looking at the car makes me upset. It's such a smug-looking design.

So much so, that Honda ripped them off.

[Karl Grau]

I have nothing against the Prius but I do think that a segment of the buyers are of the “I am greener - therefore better than you” type. As far as looks, it really isn’t any uglier than all the other side-impact pregnant jelly bean looking appliances out there. Also, I don’t really care how green it is compared to X or Y vehicle. These cars are produced as much for the marketing angle as the green angle. “Green” appeals to a market segment just as macho trucks or sporty convertibles do. The car makers are just producing what they think they can sell with the added bonus of appearing green.

The smugness is the problem with the Prius. It might not be the car itself, but it's the people who buy them. Kinda similar to much of the current E30 crowd.

Funny, 'smug' never pops into my head concerning e30 owners. Young, broke, illiterate and ricey come to mind but not so much smug.

[wkohler]

I don't mean it like that. Just saying there's a type that defines "E30 guy."

[Karl Grau]

I'm probably not being fair to the e30 guys as most my exposure to them has been via R2D2v3Limited.

e28 type as seen by e30 guys:

[wkohler]

Throw in some Wayfarers and I'll be that guy.

[davintosh]

Lookin' good, Mr. Kohler.

[Brian in TN]

Lookin' good, Mr. Kohler.

Annnnnnnnnnd FTW!

[winfred]

i think i know that asshole

[Mr.ProjectCar535]

Lookin' good, Mr. Kohler.

[DiLLiGaF - IA]

I got my FXXK YOUR PRIUS stickers in the mail today, I will post the pics when I get it on. Thanks Chris!

[Cooperman]

The reason that these hybrids share the same body style is because they are all patterned after the boxfish, which has an amazingly low drag coefficient. It doesn't have much to do with aesthetics. If they look smug, it's not because they are trying to have a certain "look".

http://www.treehugger.com/cars/daimlerc ... t-car.html

[wkohler]

I don't care WHY they look like they do. They just do. The shape might have not started out that way, but it's what they became.

The Miata didn't start out as the official Rainbow Coalition car, but it became so.

[leadphut]

[carnutdallas]

I read an article somewhere that the Prius has more negative effects than positives for the Earth because the process of making them has terrible consequences for the surrounding environment.

EDIT: Here is a quote from said article:

"The Prius' battery contains nickel, which is mined in Ontario Canada. The plant that smelts this nickel is apparently nicknamed "the Superstack" because of the amount of pollution it puts out; the area for miles around it is a wasteland because of acid rain and air pollution.

But the main problem that the "Dust to Dust" study has with the Prius' impact on the environment comes next.

That smelted nickel then has to travel (via container ship) to Europe to be refined, then to China to be made into "nickel foam," then to Japan for assembly, and finally to the United States. All this shipment for each tiny step in the production process costs a great deal, both in dollars and in pollution.

The study then concludes that -- all the production costs in mind -- the Prius costs about $3.25 per mile and is expected to last about 100,000 miles. The Hummer, on the other hand, with all the same factors counted, costs about $1.95 per mile and is expected to last about 300,000 miles. "

"Dust-to-Dust" is not to be trusted. Hummer vs. Prius Redux: Prius (Still) Leaves Hummer in the Dust.

Hmmmm.....I am 100% sure that the nickle comes from Canada (if not it comes from somewhere). It is smelted. Its is made into a limited life battery. It is shipped to a manufacturer who then ships car back to USA or where ever. It does cost more than a same sized none hybrid car that gets similar or at least 80% of that same MPG. So why do Prius people ignore simple math and obvious environmental "elephants" in the room?

[wkohler]

Ron's link cites Consumer Reports data. I, among others, don't thing they're as impartial as they say they are.

As George Costanza said, "What Consumer? I'm the consumer."

[RonW]

Hmmmm.....I am 100% sure that the nickle comes from Canada (if not it comes from somewhere). It is smelted. Its is made into a limited life battery. It is shipped to a manufacturer who then ships car back to USA or where ever. It does cost more than a same sized none hybrid car that gets similar or at least 80% of that same MPG. So why do Prius people ignore simple math and obvious environmental "elephants" in the room?

All those things cost money, which is reflected in the price of the car. Why would anyone buy a BMW 3-Series when a Hyundai Elantra gets better fuel economy and is cheaper?

"Dust-to-Dust" compared the Prius to a Hummer. There's a difference between saying that a VW Diesel is more cost-effective than a Prius, and saying that a Hummer is. If you do a lot of highway commuting, it's really worth doing the math; the VW may in fact be cheaper over its life. If you do a lot of city driving, that's different. A Prius (or other hybrid) as a NYC taxi makes a lot of sense.

I drive 30k miles/year due to my commute, and I've been doing so for 10 years. That's 12,000 gallons of gas. The same thing in a Prius would be 6,250 gallons. At $3.50/gallon, that's $20k savings over 10 years. The same thing in a VW Diesel would save only $17,000. Worth it? Maybe, maybe not. But a Hummer gets 10 mpg. That's $63k more in gas over the same 10 years than my ancient 535i, never mind the Prius or the VW. It's a stretch, to say the least, to say that the Hummer is cheaper than the Prius.

[Mike W.]

The early ones just looked Japanese car dumpy, not as odd as the later ones.



Yes they are efficient, yes they are mostly marketing, yes they tend to be driven by people with an attitude, but I'd damn lot rather see those on the road than more Hummers, or 6,000 pound Suburban assault vehicles waiting to flatten you if you happen to be where they aren't watching. Think of how much worse they could be instead of how much better. They could be a lot worse.

[carnutdallas]

Hmmmm.....I am 100% sure that the nickle comes from Canada (if not it comes from somewhere). It is smelted. Its is made into a limited life battery. It is shipped to a manufacturer who then ships car back to USA or where ever. It does cost more than a same sized none hybrid car that gets similar or at least 80% of that same MPG. So why do Prius people ignore simple math and obvious environmental "elephants" in the room?

All those things cost money, which is reflected in the price of the car. Why would anyone buy a BMW 3-Series when a Hyundai Elantra gets better fuel economy and is cheaper?

"Dust-to-Dust" compared the Prius to a Hummer. There's a difference between saying that a VW Diesel is more cost-effective than a Prius, and saying that a Hummer is. If you do a lot of highway commuting, it's really worth doing the math; the VW may in fact be cheaper over its life. If you do a lot of city driving, that's different. A Prius (or other hybrid) as a NYC taxi makes a lot of sense.

I drive 30k miles/year due to my commute, and I've been doing so for 10 years. That's 12,000 gallons of gas. The same thing in a Prius would be 6,250 gallons. At $3.50/gallon, that's $20k savings over 10 years. The same thing in a VW Diesel would save only $17,000. Worth it? Maybe, maybe not. But a Hummer gets 10 mpg. That's $63k more in gas over the same 10 years than my ancient 535i, never mind the Prius or the VW. It's a stretch, to say the least, to say that the Hummer is cheaper than the Prius.

Ron, I am the first to admit I am a math moron, but common sense I have plenty of. To go 300k in the Prius, you will have to buy 3 battery packs at 100K, 200K and 300K (300k is optional) so at least 2 packs for sure. That is an average of $3500 plus install at a dealer. So the "simple" math, is it will cost more when you include the up-front initial cost of the Prius . My quick google search for pricing was $26k on Jetta TDI and $33k on Prius with similar options. Jetta gets 42MPG on HWY, so please check the numbers for me again. Seriously I can not do math

PLUS...Hybrids and full electrics are bad ways to build cars at this point. They are way to expensive and only done as a marketing ploy (and a way to improve the CAFE numbers for a manufacturer). We should be focusing our efforts on more fossil fuel efficient cars and use the materials readily available to us that burn easily and provide a high BTU energy source for locomotion. At this point only one or two cities, maybe 3 tops in the US, has a true electric market where huge sectors of the population have very little use for a car that has to drive over 40 miles a day. Top Gear did a great show on full electrics and their limitations. Funny stuff. The Jetta blows the hybrid away on all levels from cost of ownership, available power and driving range. Plus you do not have to own two cars in the case of the all electric. The Hybrid bridges the gap well for a city owner who needs to go more than 40 miles a day, but the Jetta for comparison is still a better buy financially - at current fuel prices. If fuel went to 5, 6 or $7 dollars, then the hybrid and pure electrics become way, better deals - baring a huge inflationary purchase price.

I am a firm believer in the electric car if it can go 300 miles plus and be recharged in an hour - TOPS! That day may be coming and then we may have a real challenge for fossil fuels. I am also all for people having a choice and driving whatever they want. I am not for government mandates about cars or ethanol (another story) and a lack of oil drilling that handicaps the USA.

Hybrid owners are seriously misinformed of their environmental superiority. I am pretty sure most of the reports and news about the environment are misleading and self serving for those in the global warming camp, where Hybrids originally sprang from. The science is flawed. The world will outlast all of us and many, many of those after us. I am 100% sure the fear in 1975 or 1976 was a coming ice age. May have to do a Lexus-Nexus search for Time, Newsweek, LIFE and the New York Times. Plastered on the covers - WORLD is COOLING!!!

I do not a have all the answers. I am not opposed to those searching, studying and creating new technologies. Great innovation comes from those that think outside the box and drive new ways of thinking. BUT as a car lover, builder, restorer, technician, service writer and driver - I am seriously opposed to politically incited and misled Hybrid proliferating green community who wants to destroy my right to drive what ever I want. To spend what ever money I want to and burn gas or diesel at whatever rate I can afford to support!!!!

[m5chaser83]

I would have said "hay lady my car my may kill the environment but your car kills blind people!!!!"

[Das_Prachtstrasse]

Thank god there was never a hybrid e30.

[Tammer in Philly]

Ron, I am the first to admit I am a math moron, but common sense I have plenty of. To go 300k in the Prius, you will have to buy 3 battery packs at 100K, 200K and 300K (300k is optional) so at least 2 packs for sure. That is an average of $3500 plus install at a dealer. So the "simple" math, is it will cost more when you include the up-front initial cost of the Prius . My quick google search for pricing was $26k on Jetta TDI and $33k on Prius with similar options. Jetta gets 42MPG on HWY, so please check the numbers for me again. Seriously I can not do math :oops:

That may not be a valid assumption. A friend of mine just bought a first-gen Honda Insight for under $2500 bucks. It's nearing 200k miles on the original battery packs, and they're just now dying. The current-gen Prius has better battery tech than the early Insight/Prius did, so 100k battery intervals is absolutely NOT a given.

Similarly, when you look at long-term expense, you have to do both cars. The Jetta will probably need HPFP replacement. That's $3000 out of warranty. DI engines are having longevity issues, so there may be injector or other issues down the road that are not insignificant.

PLUS...Hybrids and full electrics are bad ways to build cars at this point. They are way to expensive and only done as a marketing ploy (and a way to improve the CAFE numbers for a manufacturer). We should be focusing our efforts on more fossil fuel efficient cars and use the materials readily available to us that burn easily and provide a high BTU energy source for locomotion.

By that rationale, BMW should never build an M5 because it's a marketing ploy. Early adoption isn't for everyone, but it's unfair to say it's a "bad way to build cars." Given the numbers of Priuses on the road, they are clearly working for some consumers, even if the TCO is higher. If it's what they want to spend money on, why shouldn't they?

At this point only one or two cities, maybe 3 tops in the US, has a true electric market where huge sectors of the population have very little use for a car that has to drive over 40 miles a day. Top Gear did a great show on full electrics and their limitations. Funny stuff. The Jetta blows the hybrid away on all levels from cost of ownership, available power and driving range. Plus you do not have to own two cars in the case of the all electric. The Hybrid bridges the gap well for a city owner who needs to go more than 40 miles a day, but the Jetta for comparison is still a better buy financially - at current fuel prices. If fuel went to 5, 6 or $7 dollars, then the hybrid and pure electrics become way, better deals - baring a huge inflationary purchase price.

You're mixing up a couple of arguments here. Yes, full electric has huge limitations that hybrids and conventional fuels avoid. But again, for many people they are viable, and more choice is good.

I am a firm believer in the electric car if it can go 300 miles plus and be recharged in an hour - TOPS! That day may be coming and then we may have a real challenge for fossil fuels. I am also all for people having a choice and driving whatever they want. I am not for government mandates about cars or ethanol (another story) and a lack of oil drilling that handicaps the USA.

I don't know why you think a lack of drilling is handicapping the US. The total oil extraction over 20 years wouldn't amount to more than a couple % of what we use. It's high-risk and low-reward.

Hybrid owners are seriously misinformed of their environmental superiority. I am pretty sure most of the reports and news about the environment are misleading and self serving for those in the global warming camp, where Hybrids originally sprang from. The science is flawed. The world will outlast all of us and many, many of those after us. I am 100% sure the fear in 1975 or 1976 was a coming ice age. May have to do a Lexus-Nexus search for Time, Newsweek, LIFE and the New York Times. Plastered on the covers - WORLD is COOLING!!!

Now you've stopped making any sense. Using less energy is a good thing no matter what.

I do not a have all the answers. I am not opposed to those searching, studying and creating new technologies. Great innovation comes from those that think outside the box and drive new ways of thinking. BUT as a car lover, builder, restorer, technician, service writer and driver - I am seriously opposed to politically incited and misled Hybrid proliferating green community who wants to destroy my right to drive what ever I want. To spend what ever money I want to and burn gas or diesel at whatever rate I can afford to support!!!!

So you're for YOUR freedom to burn gas, but not for others' freedom to do differently? Nice double standard.

-tammer

[Brian in TN]

Ron, I am the first to admit I am a math moron, but common sense I have plenty of. To go 300k in the Prius, you will have to buy 3 battery packs at 100K, 200K and 300K (300k is optional) so at least 2 packs for sure. That is an average of $3500 plus install at a dealer. So the "simple" math, is it will cost more when you include the up-front initial cost of the Prius . My quick google search for pricing was $26k on Jetta TDI and $33k on Prius with similar options. Jetta gets 42MPG on HWY, so please check the numbers for me again. Seriously I can not do math

That may not be a valid assumption. A friend of mine just bought a first-gen Honda Insight for under $2500 bucks. It's nearing 200k miles on the original battery packs, and they're just now dying. The current-gen Prius has better battery tech than the early Insight/Prius did, so 100k battery intervals is absolutely NOT a given.

Similarly, when you look at long-term expense, you have to do both cars. The Jetta will probably need HPFP replacement. That's $3000 out of warranty. DI engines are having longevity issues, so there may be injector or other issues down the road that are not insignificant.

PLUS...Hybrids and full electrics are bad ways to build cars at this point. They are way to expensive and only done as a marketing ploy (and a way to improve the CAFE numbers for a manufacturer). We should be focusing our efforts on more fossil fuel efficient cars and use the materials readily available to us that burn easily and provide a high BTU energy source for locomotion.

By that rationale, BMW should never build an M5 because it's a marketing ploy. Early adoption isn't for everyone, but it's unfair to say it's a "bad way to build cars." Given the numbers of Priuses on the road, they are clearly working for some consumers, even if the TCO is higher. If it's what they want to spend money on, why shouldn't they?

At this point only one or two cities, maybe 3 tops in the US, has a true electric market where huge sectors of the population have very little use for a car that has to drive over 40 miles a day. Top Gear did a great show on full electrics and their limitations. Funny stuff. The Jetta blows the hybrid away on all levels from cost of ownership, available power and driving range. Plus you do not have to own two cars in the case of the all electric. The Hybrid bridges the gap well for a city owner who needs to go more than 40 miles a day, but the Jetta for comparison is still a better buy financially - at current fuel prices. If fuel went to 5, 6 or $7 dollars, then the hybrid and pure electrics become way, better deals - baring a huge inflationary purchase price.

You're mixing up a couple of arguments here. Yes, full electric has huge limitations that hybrids and conventional fuels avoid. But again, for many people they are viable, and more choice is good.

I am a firm believer in the electric car if it can go 300 miles plus and be recharged in an hour - TOPS! That day may be coming and then we may have a real challenge for fossil fuels. I am also all for people having a choice and driving whatever they want. I am not for government mandates about cars or ethanol (another story) and a lack of oil drilling that handicaps the USA.

I don't know why you think a lack of drilling is handicapping the US. The total oil extraction over 20 years wouldn't amount to more than a couple % of what we use. It's high-risk and low-reward.

Hybrid owners are seriously misinformed of their environmental superiority. I am pretty sure most of the reports and news about the environment are misleading and self serving for those in the global warming camp, where Hybrids originally sprang from. The science is flawed. The world will outlast all of us and many, many of those after us. I am 100% sure the fear in 1975 or 1976 was a coming ice age. May have to do a Lexus-Nexus search for Time, Newsweek, LIFE and the New York Times. Plastered on the covers - WORLD is COOLING!!!

Now you've stopped making any sense. Using less energy is a good thing no matter what.

I do not a have all the answers. I am not opposed to those searching, studying and creating new technologies. Great innovation comes from those that think outside the box and drive new ways of thinking. BUT as a car lover, builder, restorer, technician, service writer and driver - I am seriously opposed to politically incited and misled Hybrid proliferating green community who wants to destroy my right to drive what ever I want. To spend what ever money I want to and burn gas or diesel at whatever rate I can afford to support!!!!

So you're for YOUR freedom to burn gas, but not for others' freedom to do differently? Nice double standard.

-tammer

Tammer. You type too much.

[Tammer in Philly]

My reply was shorter than the post I replied to.

-tammer

[Brian in TN]

Twas TIC.

[Jeremy]

Tammer, I don't know if you missed his point intentionally or not, but it appears that you did. Let me point out some things that stand out to me.

Using less energy is a good thing no matter what.

Really? CFLs use way less energy in general than incandescent. You would support the banning of regular incandescent bulbs even it meant massive mercury pollution at dumps because people don't dispose of them properly? Similarly, you'd support non-environmentally friendly mining methods in order to get more of the rare earths used in advanced technology batteries and electric motors? Would you support the rationing of electricity or gasoline in order to force a reduction in usage?

I don't believe you would, but using less energy isn't the be all end all "at any cost" goal you make it out to be here.

So you're for YOUR freedom to burn gas, but not for others' freedom to do differently? Nice double standard.

It's not a double standard, you're misinterpreting what he said. He's saying that every person should be free to make their own choice on how their vehicle works. Open market.

The "greenies" want every car on the market to be either completely electric or hybrid powered. There's a significant desire within that community to outlaw "wasteful" technology like the internal combustion engine entirely. THAT'S what he objects to, a legislated unshared morality.

It's a bit like California attempting to ban the sale of plasma televisions because they're not power efficient enough. I watch, on average, no more than 2-5 hours of television per week. When I do, I want the best picture possible. LCD TVs are power efficient, but the best LCD TVs don't compare to what plasma technology offers in terms of contrast ratios and off-axis viewing. Why should I be forced to choose an inferior technology, particularly when the power it's consuming is pretty inconsequential, even if similar behavior is attributed to a broader population? My TV isn't a major contributor to my energy consumption. Home TVs in general are not, either. Why go to such legislative lengths to regulate them?

I'm not opposed to environmental friendliness or energy conservation. I'm opposed to specific technologies being shoved down my throat via government mandate, doubly so when I see little or no environmental or energy savings advantage by doing so or when there are major obvious drawbacks to their "solution".

I see the same sort of sentiment when I read carnut's post.

Jeremy

[Tammer in Philly]

Tammer, I don't know if you missed his point intentionally or not, but it appears that you did. Let me point out some things that stand out to me.

Using less energy is a good thing no matter what.

Really? CFLs use way less energy in general than incandescent. You would support the banning of regular incandescent bulbs even it meant massive mercury pollution at dumps because people don't dispose of them properly? Similarly, you'd support non-environmentally friendly mining methods in order to get more of the rare earths used in advanced technology batteries and electric motors? Would you support the rationing of electricity or gasoline in order to force a reduction in usage?

I don't believe you would, but using less energy isn't the be all end all "at any cost" goal you make it out to be here.

So you're for YOUR freedom to burn gas, but not for others' freedom to do differently? Nice double standard.

It's not a double standard, you're misinterpreting what he said. He's saying that every person should be free to make their own choice on how their vehicle works. Open market.

The "greenies" want every car on the market to be either completely electric or hybrid powered. There's a significant desire within that community to outlaw "wasteful" technology like the internal combustion engine entirely. THAT'S what he objects to, a legislated unshared morality.

It's a bit like California attempting to ban the sale of plasma televisions because they're not power efficient enough. I watch, on average, no more than 2-5 hours of television per week. When I do, I want the best picture possible. LCD TVs are power efficient, but the best LCD TVs don't compare to what plasma technology offers in terms of contrast ratios and off-axis viewing. Why should I be forced to choose an inferior technology, particularly when the power it's consuming is pretty inconsequential, even if similar behavior is attributed to a broader population? My TV isn't a major contributor to my energy consumption. Home TVs in general are not, either. Why go to such legislative lengths to regulate them?

I'm not opposed to environmental friendliness or energy conservation. I'm opposed to specific technologies being shoved down my throat via government mandate, doubly so when I see little or no environmental or energy savings advantage by doing so or when there are major obvious drawbacks to their "solution".

I see the same sort of sentiment when I read carnut's post.

Jeremy

I haven't seen anyone calling for the banning of ICEs. Find me the greenies wanting to ban all non-electrics or hybrid vehicles. 10 crazies don't count; I'm talking about a viable movement. There is no credible threat to the gas or diesel engine in this country at this time. You and carnut are both sounding a bit paranoid.

As for your CFL question, I specifically wrote in my post that "more choice is good."

-tammer

[TurboChris]

I don't know why you think a lack of drilling is handicapping the US. The total oil extraction over 20 years wouldn't amount to more than a couple % of what we use. It's high-risk and low-reward.
-tammer

How do you arrive at this conclusion?

A quick Google search shows this


"The United States cannot meet its oil consumption needs exclusively through domestically produced oil; in 2009 the U.S. consumed roughly 18 billion barrels of oil per day However, the U.S. only produced about five billion barrels of oil per day. This means that the United States had to import 72 percent of its oil to meet its consumption needs in 2009. Most of these imports come from Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Canada, Nigeria, and Venezuela. "

Hardly a "couple %"

28% of what we use is domestically drilled oil.Why don't you believe that additional domestically produced oil is a benefit?

http://www.globalization101.org/index.p ... ubs&id=8#2