Gas Prices -- What would it take to get you out of your SUV?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CyberDuck

Senior member
Oct 10, 1999
258
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Welcome to P&N and thanks for that report Jostein :thumbsup:

The Oil Company supporters here in the U.S. defend their use of big horsepower engines constantly and still are. Just before this latest run up in gas prices the TV commericals were loaded with vehicles featuring engines over 300 HP and many in 240 HP plus.

The Auto Compnaies are also fighting any regulations calling for higher gas mileage.

All this should tell you how many people are in bed with the Oil Companies here.

Thanks for the welcome dmcowen

I suppose its the american auto comanies that run these commercials? They probably run them because they can make cars with dated technology and big engines cheaper than more modern and efficient cars. That does not mean thay cant make good and efficient cars though, as Fords success in Europe show. I don't know for sure, but i think that the most popular european models are not sold in th U.S.? The most popular here is the Ford Focus wich was the most sold car in Europe this spring. On the third spot is Ford Fiesta, a smaller car. Overall Ford is second most sold car brand, only Volkswagon sell more cars in Europe. Families with the need for a lot of space usually buy station wagon's, there is no need for a very large engine in those.


Edit: I visited wikipedia, and it indeed seems that the international and U.S versions of the focus is not similar. While there are a lot of efficient small engines available in the rest of the world, only larger engines are available in the U.S.

International version

North american version

Regards

Jostein





 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: CyberDuck
Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Welcome to P&N and thanks for that report Jostein :thumbsup:

The Oil Company supporters here in the U.S. defend their use of big horsepower engines constantly and still are. Just before this latest run up in gas prices the TV commericals were loaded with vehicles featuring engines over 300 HP and many in 240 HP plus.

The Auto Compnaies are also fighting any regulations calling for higher gas mileage.

All this should tell you how many people are in bed with the Oil Companies here.

Thanks for the welcome dmcowen

I suppose its the american auto comanies that run these commercials? They probably run them because they can make cars with dated technology and big engines cheaper than more modern and efficient cars. That does not mean thay cant make good and efficient cars though, as Fords success in Europe show. I don't know for sure, but i think that the most popular european models are not sold in th U.S.? The most popular here is the Ford Focus wich was the most sold car in Europe this spring. On the third spot is Ford Fiesta, a smaller car. Overall Ford is second most sold car brand, only Volkswagon sell more cars in Europe. Families with the need for a lot of space usually buy station wagon's, there is no need for a very large engine in those.


Edit: I visited wikipedia, and it indeed seems that the international and U.S versions of the focus is not similar.

While there are a lot of efficient small engines available in the rest of the world, only larger engines are available in the U.S.

International version

North american version

Regards

Jostein

Of course the Oil Baron supporters here in this forum will say it's what the American Consumer wants.

Yeah right.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: rbV5
I can afford fuel prices considerably higher for my SUV.

I think its obscene (OK, hillarious) for you idiot hypocrites that spew your dogma simply because you "maybe" use "less" oil based fuel.

most of it is jealousy of people who can live better than they can. Its very easy to villify someone if you have some "high sounding" means, like the environment.

Hell I never owned an SUV till last year (granted a Murano isn't exactly a real SUV). I doubt I would go back to a regular car, well unless a hybrid convertible appears. The versatility is amazing, seating and spaciousness is great as well. Ease of entry and exit is better than any car. Plus when you have dogs (another excess in the eyes of many enviro-whackos) the space is a plus.

You two are unreal. Of course it's a good thing to want to protect the environment. Give me one reason why it isn't. Give me one good reason why we shouldn't. Furthermore, it's also a good thing to want to use less oil and get our country off of our oil-dependence so we can stop fighting idiotic wars half-way around the planet.

But please, continue blaming it on "jealousy" and/or stick your head in the sand about how much more gas giant SUVs and trucks use. You're both pathetic.
 

rbV5

Lifer
Dec 10, 2000
12,632
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: rbV5
I can afford fuel prices considerably higher for my SUV.

I think its obscene (OK, hillarious) for you idiot hypocrites that spew your dogma simply because you "maybe" use "less" oil based fuel.

most of it is jealousy of people who can live better than they can. Its very easy to villify someone if you have some "high sounding" means, like the environment.

Hell I never owned an SUV till last year (granted a Murano isn't exactly a real SUV). I doubt I would go back to a regular car, well unless a hybrid convertible appears. The versatility is amazing, seating and spaciousness is great as well. Ease of entry and exit is better than any car. Plus when you have dogs (another excess in the eyes of many enviro-whackos) the space is a plus.

You two are unreal. Of course it's a good thing to want to protect the environment. Give me one reason why it isn't. Give me one good reason why we shouldn't. Furthermore, it's also a good thing to want to use less oil and get our country off of our oil-dependence so we can stop fighting idiotic wars half-way around the planet.

But please, continue blaming it on "jealousy" and/or stick your head in the sand about how much more gas giant SUVs and trucks use. You're both pathetic.

Pathetic is using the SUV tag as a distinction between saving the environment vs destroying the environment.

This forum is filled with energy wasters and obviously you yourself didn't get the "lifer" tag without spending a fair deal of time wasting electricity, cruising deal forums and posting here, as well as contributing to the environmental damaged caused by the computer industry itself.

What makes you think you do more for the environment than I do? You've got no idea, so shove your pathetic, self righteous assumptions.

Those who yell loudest generally have the most to hide, so I'll assume you're in no better position to play the judgement card than the rest of you SUV hypocrites.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: rbV5
Pathetic is using the SUV tag as a distinction between saving the environment vs destroying the environment.

True or false: Large SUVs and light trucks use more gas than passenger cars?

This forum is filled with energy wasters and obviously you yourself didn't get the "lifer" tag without spending a fair deal of time wasting electricity, cruising deal forums and posting here, as well as contributing to the environmental damaged caused by the computer industry itself.

Thats awful white of you, considering you're a "lifer" too. Hypocrite. :roll:

What makes you think you do more for the environment than I do? You've got no idea, so shove your pathetic, self righteous assumptions.

I will just as soon as you stop diverting from the fact that SUVs and light trucks use more gas and send more pollutants into the atmosphere.

Those who yell loudest generally have the most to hide, so I'll assume you're in no better position to play the judgement card than the rest of you SUV hypocrites.

Do you actually have a point? Or are you simply here to divert from the real issues at hand? You can attack me all you want and it still won't change the facts.
 

imported_Shivetya

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2005
2,978
1
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: CyberDuck
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

I don't know if it's true or not, but I'm under the impression that vehicles in America are less fuel efficient than their European counterparts that are the same size and weight or at least same shape and volume. Is that true? Could it be that American safety requirements have made the vehicles less fuel efficient?


I don't know much about the american safety requirements, but i think they are just as strict in Europe. In many european countries new cars are taxed based on the size of their engine, in other's like mine, they are taxed based on their emmisions. That means cars with larger and more polluting engines will be (much) more expensive to buy. Fuel prices are also much higher in Europe than in the U.S., and have been so for a very long time. In my country the price is more than 7$ / gallon for normal gasoline. Roads in Europe are also generally narrower and there is less space for parking wich means people prefer smaller vehicles. Another factor in Europe is the popularity of modern diesel engines wich have a higher milage / $ than petrol cars since diesel burns more effitiently. Some people still buy SUVS though, but generaly not with as large engines as in the U.S, and often with modern diesel engines.

Regards

Jostein

(Btw, did you know that the most sold car last month in Europe was a Ford?)

Welcome to P&N and thanks for that report Jostein :thumbsup:

The Oil Company supporters here in the U.S. defend their use of big horsepower engines constantly and still are. Just before this latest run up in gas prices the TV commericals were loaded with vehicles featuring engines over 300 HP and many in 240 HP plus.

The Auto Compnaies are also fighting any regulations calling for higher gas mileage.

All this should tell you how many people are in bed with the Oil Companies here.

and we can thank moonbats in California for keeping diesels out of the states so well.... we would have been well on our way to diesels and low sulfur fuel ages ago except for namby-pamby states ruining it
 

imported_Shivetya

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2005
2,978
1
0
Originally posted by: CyberDuckI suppose its the american auto comanies that run these commercials? They probably run them because they can make cars with dated technology and big engines cheaper than more modern and efficient cars.

Yeah! Ignorance for the win.

All car companies offer over powered monsters here in America.

and guess what, MORE POWER TO THEM.


Its freedom of choice, if someone wants to pay through the noze to fill up their gas guzzling luxolimo I say let them, they pay more in taxes than I do to go the same distance.
 

imported_Shivetya

Platinum Member
Jul 7, 2005
2,978
1
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: rbV5
I can afford fuel prices considerably higher for my SUV.

I think its obscene (OK, hillarious) for you idiot hypocrites that spew your dogma simply because you "maybe" use "less" oil based fuel.

most of it is jealousy of people who can live better than they can. Its very easy to villify someone if you have some "high sounding" means, like the environment.

Hell I never owned an SUV till last year (granted a Murano isn't exactly a real SUV). I doubt I would go back to a regular car, well unless a hybrid convertible appears. The versatility is amazing, seating and spaciousness is great as well. Ease of entry and exit is better than any car. Plus when you have dogs (another excess in the eyes of many enviro-whackos) the space is a plus.

You two are unreal. Of course it's a good thing to want to protect the environment. Give me one reason why it isn't. Give me one good reason why we shouldn't. Furthermore, it's also a good thing to want to use less oil and get our country off of our oil-dependence so we can stop fighting idiotic wars half-way around the planet.

But please, continue blaming it on "jealousy" and/or stick your head in the sand about how much more gas giant SUVs and trucks use. You're both pathetic.

when do you start crying for me? Its gotta be close.

want some cheese?
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: rbV5
I can afford fuel prices considerably higher for my SUV.

I think its obscene (OK, hillarious) for you idiot hypocrites that spew your dogma simply because you "maybe" use "less" oil based fuel.

most of it is jealousy of people who can live better than they can. Its very easy to villify someone if you have some "high sounding" means, like the environment.

Hell I never owned an SUV till last year (granted a Murano isn't exactly a real SUV). I doubt I would go back to a regular car, well unless a hybrid convertible appears. The versatility is amazing, seating and spaciousness is great as well. Ease of entry and exit is better than any car. Plus when you have dogs (another excess in the eyes of many enviro-whackos) the space is a plus.

You two are unreal. Of course it's a good thing to want to protect the environment. Give me one reason why it isn't. Give me one good reason why we shouldn't. Furthermore, it's also a good thing to want to use less oil and get our country off of our oil-dependence so we can stop fighting idiotic wars half-way around the planet.

But please, continue blaming it on "jealousy" and/or stick your head in the sand about how much more gas giant SUVs and trucks use. You're both pathetic.

when do you start crying for me? Its gotta be close.

want some cheese?

I'll take that as yet another duh-version. Keep 'em coming.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,307
136
pfft... at $3.65/gal., I'm almost out of my Subaru. I've been motorcycle shopping this week. I'm thinking something reasonable, with 50+ mpg, and suitable for longer-distance trips, maybe like a Honda Shadow. Looks like it's gonna be a beautiful summer.
 

Dashel

Senior member
Nov 5, 2003
226
0
71
Liberals like to feel they are "do gooding" so let them. If they want to get self righteous about what car you drive just smile and nod. Meanwhile they'll happily jump a flight to Europe and use a lot of electricity and likely have a bigger "carbon footprint" than you do, but hey, they care dammit. And that's what matters.



 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,307
136
Originally posted by: Dashel
Liberals like to feel they are "do gooding" so let them. If they want to get self righteous about what car you drive just smile and nod. Meanwhile they'll happily jump a flight to Europe and use a lot of electricity and likely have a bigger "carbon footprint" than you do, but hey, they care dammit. And that's what matters.
Well... putting aside the partisan name-calling for a moment, (and the message in this post is for everyone, not just as reply here) it is true that people should care about their own environmental impact, and not so much about what vehicles other people drive. If you want to screw yourself over with 10 mpg at $4/gal., that's your problem. Maybe you only drive a few thousand miles each year and need to haul stuff/people with most of your trips. And if they need to feel smug about their 35 mpg (real life mileage) Prius, that's probably because they have a hour-long one-way commute and drive 50k miles per year, or they feel they need something to offset the Hummer in the driveway. Or maybe not...

It makes it easy, I know, to point out flaws in other people by fixating on simple single solutions, but real life doesn't work that way. Change always begins with oneself, not with other people. As long as you (or anyone) is focused on the need for other people to change, your perspective of the world around you will only get worse and more and more pessimistic, because you're just in denial/making excuses for why you yourself won't change.

And like I said, I'm getting out of my Subaru and into an economical motorcycle for the summer. Beat that footprint if you can!
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Vic
pfft... at $3.65/gal., I'm almost out of my Subaru. I've been motorcycle shopping this week. I'm thinking something reasonable, with 50+ mpg, and suitable for longer-distance trips, maybe like a Honda Shadow. Looks like it's gonna be a beautiful summer.

I miss my Shadow

It got left behind on Georgia with my ex wife back in June 2004.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Originally posted by: rbV5
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: rbV5
I can afford fuel prices considerably higher for my SUV.

I think its obscene (OK, hillarious) for you idiot hypocrites that spew your dogma simply because you "maybe" use "less" oil based fuel.

most of it is jealousy of people who can live better than they can. Its very easy to villify someone if you have some "high sounding" means, like the environment.

Hell I never owned an SUV till last year (granted a Murano isn't exactly a real SUV). I doubt I would go back to a regular car, well unless a hybrid convertible appears. The versatility is amazing, seating and spaciousness is great as well. Ease of entry and exit is better than any car. Plus when you have dogs (another excess in the eyes of many enviro-whackos) the space is a plus.

You two are unreal. Of course it's a good thing to want to protect the environment. Give me one reason why it isn't. Give me one good reason why we shouldn't. Furthermore, it's also a good thing to want to use less oil and get our country off of our oil-dependence so we can stop fighting idiotic wars half-way around the planet.

But please, continue blaming it on "jealousy" and/or stick your head in the sand about how much more gas giant SUVs and trucks use. You're both pathetic.

Pathetic is using the SUV tag as a distinction between saving the environment vs destroying the environment.

This forum is filled with energy wasters and obviously you yourself didn't get the "lifer" tag without spending a fair deal of time wasting electricity, cruising deal forums and posting here, as well as contributing to the environmental damaged caused by the computer industry itself.

What makes you think you do more for the environment than I do? You've got no idea, so shove your pathetic, self righteous assumptions.

Those who yell loudest generally have the most to hide, so I'll assume you're in no better position to play the judgement card than the rest of you SUV hypocrites.

I agree. Im willing to bet my car destroys the environment alot more than a Hummer H1 does.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Dashel
Liberals like to feel they are "do gooding" so let them. If they want to get self righteous about what car you drive just smile and nod. Meanwhile they'll happily jump a flight to Europe and use a lot of electricity and likely have a bigger "carbon footprint" than you do, but hey, they care dammit. And that's what matters.
Thanks for stereotyping, because as we all know, liberal envirowacko treehuggers are all hypocrites. Blah, blah, blah <- that's you.

I think the message here is clear: Being green and reducing our use of oil are both good things. Do what you can, no one is telling you what to drive, but this attitude of not giving a sh!t or worse, attacking people that are doing something about it is beyond obnoxious.

It's a free country, feel free to ****** all over the environment and drive your hummer if you want to be an obnoxious prick, but don't come in here bragging about it and expect a f'n medal for it. People like that are part of the problem and I will continue pointing that fact out.
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: CyberDuck
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

I don't know if it's true or not, but I'm under the impression that vehicles in America are less fuel efficient than their European counterparts that are the same size and weight or at least same shape and volume. Is that true? Could it be that American safety requirements have made the vehicles less fuel efficient?


I don't know much about the american safety requirements, but i think they are just as strict in Europe. In many european countries new cars are taxed based on the size of their engine, in other's like mine, they are taxed based on their emmisions. That means cars with larger and more polluting engines will be (much) more expensive to buy. Fuel prices are also much higher in Europe than in the U.S., and have been so for a very long time. In my country the price is more than 7$ / gallon for normal gasoline. Roads in Europe are also generally narrower and there is less space for parking wich means people prefer smaller vehicles. Another factor in Europe is the popularity of modern diesel engines wich have a higher milage / $ than petrol cars since diesel burns more effitiently. Some people still buy SUVS though, but generaly not with as large engines as in the U.S, and often with modern diesel engines.

Regards

Jostein

(Btw, did you know that the most sold car last month in Europe was a Ford?)

Welcome to P&N and thanks for that report Jostein :thumbsup:

The Oil Company supporters here in the U.S. defend their use of big horsepower engines constantly and still are. Just before this latest run up in gas prices the TV commericals were loaded with vehicles featuring engines over 300 HP and many in 240 HP plus.

The Auto Compnaies are also fighting any regulations calling for higher gas mileage.

All this should tell you how many people are in bed with the Oil Companies here.

and we can thank moonbats in California for keeping diesels out of the states so well.... we would have been well on our way to diesels and low sulfur fuel ages ago except for namby-pamby states ruining it

And California says you're very welcome, and please don't drive polluting diesels that cause lung disease and cancer.
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Dashel
Liberals like to feel they are "do gooding" so let them. If they want to get self righteous about what car you drive just smile and nod. Meanwhile they'll happily jump a flight to Europe and use a lot of electricity and likely have a bigger "carbon footprint" than you do, but hey, they care dammit. And that's what matters.
Well... putting aside the partisan name-calling for a moment, (and the message in this post is for everyone, not just as reply here) it is true that people should care about their own environmental impact, and not so much about what vehicles other people drive. If you want to screw yourself over with 10 mpg at $4/gal., that's your problem. Maybe you only drive a few thousand miles each year and need to haul stuff/people with most of your trips. And if they need to feel smug about their 35 mpg (real life mileage) Prius, that's probably because they have a hour-long one-way commute and drive 50k miles per year, or they feel they need something to offset the Hummer in the driveway. Or maybe not...

It makes it easy, I know, to point out flaws in other people by fixating on simple single solutions, but real life doesn't work that way. Change always begins with oneself, not with other people. As long as you (or anyone) is focused on the need for other people to change, your perspective of the world around you will only get worse and more and more pessimistic, because you're just in denial/making excuses for why you yourself won't change.

And like I said, I'm getting out of my Subaru and into an economical motorcycle for the summer. Beat that footprint if you can!

Hey Vic, that's awesome that you're getting out of your "cage" and getting a bike.
But the real benefits are not saving fuel, it's getting out of the cage. It won't really save you that much in money, but you will be a lot happier when you get there.
But why the hate for the Toyota Prius? Prius drivers are polluting less than the average car, and using less oil.

Emissions ? 89 percent fewer smog-forming emissions than the average new car, exceeding the standards for a Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle (SULEV)
http://www.hybridcars.com/compacts-sedans/toyota-prius-overview.html

In the city under stop and go traffic, I didn?t quite meet the EPA gas mileage estimate of 60 miles per gallon, but with a light foot I did reach a very healthy 58 miles per gallon. The Prius? ability to run using only the electric motor certainly makes a positive effect on gas mileage when traffic speeds are slow.
On the highway, the Prius was adequately powered. With a 0-60 time of about 10 seconds, I was able to merge and pass with absolutely no worries. There was some additional road noise due to the open rear cargo area, but it was still reasonable for a mid sized sedan. I met the EPA gas mileage estimate of 51 miles per gallon on the highway by keeping acceleration slow and easy and not exceeding the speed limit.
I did not do any interstate driving or need to use the air conditioning. These factors would have likely reduced the gas mileage. In the real world I?ve seen Toyota Prius drivers getting an average of around 48 miles per gallon.http://hybridcars.about.com/od/toyotaprius/fr/2005toyotaprius.htm
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,307
136
Well, marin, the Prius' overall environmental footprint is not as kind as its fans would make it out to be. Just because you might get good gas mileage (and not every Prius owner does) does not change the fact that the nickel for the batteries comes from the Sudbury deposits in Ontario, Canada, where the ore has high concentrations of sulfur. As such the acid rain from the smelting in the region is so bad, and the vegetation of the region so devastated by it, that the Apollo astronauts trained there. But nah, that 1250 foot high super smokestack fixed that problem, right?
Whew, are we all glad that you're worried about diesels!

In the cause for the environment, one simple fact sifts through all the BS. Consume less. That's it. Anything else is lies. But, like some fat ass sweating on the treadmill and slugging one slimfast after another before he goes out to eat at Outback, we just don't want to see the truth.
 

CyberDuck

Senior member
Oct 10, 1999
258
0
0
Originally posted by: marincounty

But why the hate for the Toyota Prius? Prius drivers are polluting less than the average car, and using less oil.

Emissions ? 89 percent fewer smog-forming emissions than the average new car, exceeding the standards for a Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicle (SULEV)
http://www.hybridcars.com/compacts-sedans/toyota-prius-overview.html

In the city under stop and go traffic, I didn?t quite meet the EPA gas mileage estimate of 60 miles per gallon, but with a light foot I did reach a very healthy 58 miles per gallon. The Prius? ability to run using only the electric motor certainly makes a positive effect on gas mileage when traffic speeds are slow.
On the highway, the Prius was adequately powered. With a 0-60 time of about 10 seconds, I was able to merge and pass with absolutely no worries. There was some additional road noise due to the open rear cargo area, but it was still reasonable for a mid sized sedan. I met the EPA gas mileage estimate of 51 miles per gallon on the highway by keeping acceleration slow and easy and not exceeding the speed limit.
I did not do any interstate driving or need to use the air conditioning. These factors would have likely reduced the gas mileage. In the real world I?ve seen Toyota Prius drivers getting an average of around 48 miles per gallon.http://hybridcars.about.com/od/toyotaprius/fr/2005toyotaprius.htm



The Prius is good, but in my opinion quite ugly. For city traffic the prius and other hybrids is probably the best choice. For highway (and similar road) driving the modern diesel engines sold in europe are actually better. Example Ford Focus with 1.6 Duratorq TDCi engine (109 bhp) gets 58.8 miles/gallon. In city though it gets only 38 miles/gallon, combined just under 50. There are of course even less poluting cars (like the tiny Smart fortwo CDI with 71 miles/gallon combined).

Regards

Jostein
 

Dashel

Senior member
Nov 5, 2003
226
0
71
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Thanks for stereotyping, because as we all know, liberal envirowacko treehuggers are all hypocrites. Blah, blah, blah <- that's you.

Mmm yes, wouldnt want to stereotype

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Americans are so short-sided sometimes

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Capitalism is fine and great, but that still doesn't disprove that Americans are famously short-sided.

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I think the message here is clear: Being green and reducing our use of oil are both good things. Do what you can, no one is telling you what to drive, but this attitude of not giving a sh!t or worse, attacking people that are doing something about it is beyond obnoxious.

Wrong on all counts. being green is not necessarily a "good thing". Doing something simply because you term it "green" is not by definition then "good". Second, no nobody is currently forcing you to drive something you dont wish too, we're simply seeing people targeted and scorned for what they do drive and then stereotyped into knuckle dragging baby seal clubbers because they *gasp* drive something bigger than a Prius.


Originally posted by: DealMonkey
It's a free country, feel free to ****** all over the environment and drive your hummer if you want to be an obnoxious prick, but don't come in here bragging about it and expect a f'n medal for it. People like that are part of the problem and I will continue pointing that fact out.

And here is an example of what I just mentioned. But no, we're meant to believe the people who drive the SUV's are the obnoxious ones, not the self righteous envirogelicals who berate them.

As to the safety question, it's not just in relation to accidents with other paper thin cars that makes an SUV safer, it's any and all collisions. With other SUVs with telephone polls, dividers, deer, trees... whatever. You're safer in an SUV.

For the original question, when gas prices get too high we will buy more efficient cars. When an alternate fuel source becomes cheaper and more efficient than gasoline, we will switch to it. And for the record, I drive a 4 cylinder volkswagen, not an SUV.

 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,198
4
76
Originally posted by: Dashel

And here is an example of what I just mentioned. But no, we're meant to believe the people who drive the SUV's are the obnoxious ones, not the self righteous envirogelicals who berate them.

As to the safety question, it's not just in relation to accidents with other paper thin cars that makes an SUV safer, it's any and all collisions. With other SUVs with telephone polls, dividers, deer, trees... whatever. You're safer in an SUV.

For the original question, when gas prices get too high we will buy more efficient cars. When an alternate fuel source becomes cheaper and more efficient than gasoline, we will switch to it. And for the record, I drive a 4 cylinder volkswagen, not an SUV.

Actually, the safest vehicles on the road are large sedans, followed by large SUVs. Mid-size sedans also score very well. The large the vehicle you're in does not translate to being safer. What increases safety is having more vehicle infront of you (or infront of whatever is being hit, I should say). A large SUV just has a big ass.
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Originally posted by: Vic
Well, marin, the Prius' overall environmental footprint is not as kind as its fans would make it out to be. Just because you might get good gas mileage (and not every Prius owner does) does not change the fact that the nickel for the batteries comes from the Sudbury deposits in Ontario, Canada, where the ore has high concentrations of sulfur. As such the acid rain from the smelting in the region is so bad, and the vegetation of the region so devastated by it, that the Apollo astronauts trained there. But nah, that 1250 foot high super smokestack fixed that problem, right?
Whew, are we all glad that you're worried about diesels!

In the cause for the environment, one simple fact sifts through all the BS. Consume less. That's it. Anything else is lies. But, like some fat ass sweating on the treadmill and slugging one slimfast after another before he goes out to eat at Outback, we just don't want to see the truth.

Of course the Toyota Prius' environmental footprint is not as bad as the hybrid haters would make it out to be. The Prius consumes less fuel, so you should love it.
link

One of the most misleading ones, which has been spread by countless blogs over the past several weeks, and cited without verification by several sources that appear reputable, looks to have originated in a story last November in England's Daily Mail, a right-leaning, British tabloid paper, which bore the gleefully spiteful title 'Toyota factory turns landscape to arid wilderness.' An editorial, published last month in a newspaper for a small state university on the East Coast, helped bring this misleading report a new life.

But it isn't a Toyota factory at all. The automaker has, in fact, only been purchasing significant amounts of nickel from the Sudbury , Ontario , Inco mine for its batteries in recent years, while the environmental disaster the headline is referring to largely occurred more than thirty years ago.

And that ore is at the core of a semi-urban legend that leads to dumb headlines like "HUMMER Greener than Prius," and others we've seen recently
Toyota says that nickel has been mined from in Sudbury since the 1800s, and that "the large majority of the environmental damage from nickel mining in and around Sudbury was caused by mining practices that were abandoned decades ago." Out of the Inco mine's 174,800-ton output in 2004, Toyota purchased 1000 tons, just over a half-percent of its output. The plant's emissions of sulfur dioxide are down 90 percent from 1970 levels, and it's targeting a 97-percent reduction in those emissions by 2015, according to Toyota.
Of course, metal-hydride hybrid batteries aren't the only use for nickel. One widespread use of nickel is for the chrome (chromium-nickel) plating that's widely used in trim and wheels for luxury vehicles. And according to the Nickel Institute, which represents trade groups, manufacturers, and nickel producers, about two-thirds of all nickel mined goes toward stainless steel, which is of course widely used in vehicles - exhaust systems, for instance. Another significant portion goes toward engine alloys - pistons, rings, liners and the like; in general, the larger the engine, the more nickel it's likely to have.



But Toyota also says that the study uses an unrealistically low estimated lifetime for hybrids, and that there's no data to support its assumptions in this. For instance, according to the study the average Prius is expected to go 109,000 miles over its lifetime, while a Hummer H1 would go 379,000 miles. CNW says about hybrids: "?these are generally secondary vehicles in a household OR they are driven in restricted or short range environments such as college campuses or retirement neighborhoods."


 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,307
136
It's always some freakin' stupid left-wing vs. right-wing rhetoric with you, isn't it, marin? :roll:

Take your propaganda elsewhere. Black and white extremism is for morons who lack the ability to think for themselves. The real world is analog. And the fact is that manufacturing the Prius (or any current production hybrid) requires significant amount of nickel, and nickel smelting is bad for the environment.
Consider this analogy. Ford doesn't own the Chevron oil rigs off the Nigerian coast, do they? Yet that doesn't stop you from condemning Ford (and other automakers) for contributing to that kind of environmental impact, now does it? Nor does it stop me from doing the same. So why then do you pick up the partisan extremist's blinders to apology for Toyota?

Probably because you hate children.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Dashel
Mmm yes, wouldnt want to stereotype

How is it stereotypical to accuse Americans of buying gas-inefficient vehicles when gas prices are only spiking higher? That's quite nearly the very definition of short-sighted. If gas prices are lurching towards $4.00/gallon and you go out and buy a Ford Expedition, do you really think you're thinking long-term? Do you think you're thinking about energy consumption let alone conservation when you make that decision? Of course not. But please, go ahead and make baseless accusations.

Wrong on all counts. being green is not necessarily a "good thing". Doing something simply because you term it "green" is not by definition then "good". Second, no nobody is currently forcing you to drive something you dont wish too, we're simply seeing people targeted and scorned for what they do drive and then stereotyped into knuckle dragging baby seal clubbers because they *gasp* drive something bigger than a Prius.

So let me get this straight - wanting to preserve the environment is a BAD thing? There are demonstrable ways to be clean and efficient and protect the environment. Give me one good reason why we shouldn't? I'm not talking about buying carbon offsets here, I'm talking about yanking up average MPG across the board on all vehicles. In other words, "good" is self-evident. If a looming energy crisis is causing us to get mixed up in crazy political bullsh!t like Iraq, perhaps taking steps to reduce our dependence on energy is a good thing. Yeah? I mean come on, how obvious can it get?

And here is an example of what I just mentioned. But no, we're meant to believe the people who drive the SUV's are the obnoxious ones, not the self righteous envirogelicals who berate them.

They are the ones using the most gas, why shouldn't their negative behavior be pointed out? Seriously, when there's a problem, and it's obvious to everyone (Hell, even Bush recognizes the truth of energy dependence), those who ignorantly exacerbate the problem should be put on notice. Do you seriously expect that we're just supposed to ignore the one of the biggest contributors to our reliance on foreign oil? Why? Because you say so?
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
Originally posted by: Vic
It's always some freakin' stupid left-wing vs. right-wing rhetoric with you, isn't it, marin? :roll:

Take your propaganda elsewhere. Black and white extremism is for morons who lack the ability to think for themselves. The real world is analog. And the fact is that manufacturing the Prius (or any current production hybrid) requires significant amount of nickel, and nickel smelting is bad for the environment.
Consider this analogy. Ford doesn't own the Chevron oil rigs off the Nigerian coast, do they? Yet that doesn't stop you from condemning Ford (and other automakers) for contributing to that kind of environmental impact, now does it? Nor does it stop me from doing the same. So why then do you pick up the partisan extremist's blinders to apology for Toyota?

Probably because you hate children.

My propoganda? Do you truly believe a hummer is better for the environment than a Prius? The fact is manufacturing ANY car is bad for the environment. And every car uses some nickel as an alloying element in steel and in stainless steel. The Prius uses less fuel, and less steel than a Hummer.
This is not a left versus right issue.
I like Toyota, get it. They make very fuel efficient and reliable vehicles, Hummer doesn't.
Take your ignorance elsewhere.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |