Just want to cry

[LandRover]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: LandRover
Craptastic hard plastic? That just seems like a really ridiculous statement. I forgot that all other cars have interior panels that are covered in silk. ALL new cars have plastic panels, and the Prius is no worse.

i'm not a dashboard stroker by any stretch of the imagination, but i got in one for the first time the other day and was shocked by the cheapness of the interior. and in its price range its the only car with a cheap plastic interior. there is a difference between cheap hard plastic and high quality stuff. cheap plastic is what is found in ford focii and nissan sentras, higher quality stuff is in the VW jetta.

22K for a Prius with side air bags, ABS, traction control, etc., etc. That's just brutal. When compared with an equally equipped car, the price difference is not at all as large as many people seem to believe.

you're off by $5,500 from the number i quoted. that's 25% more than what you're thinking. i dunno about you, but i don't keep $5,500 laying around.

a vehicle that gets excellent mileage and is extremely environmentally friendly

see, there is the rub: it isn't that environmentally friendly. again, you've fallen into the trap that thinking that consuming a NEW car can be environmentally friendly. especially one with two drive trains and a trunk full of batteries. oh boy it gets better mileage on the road! but so much extra energy is used when building the thing that it isn't as energy efficient, manufacturing to salvage, as other cars. and it certainly isn't as efficient as keeping the car you have running.

No, I'm not off. You can get exactly what I stated for $22,850. Side curtain air bags are now standard on all 2007 models.

I've noticed a new phrase that is becoming standard among those that like to complain about the Prius, and that is "a trunk full of batteries". To the uninformed, that actually makes it sound like the trunk space is limited due to it being full of batteries. They are actually in the rear floor and do not interfere with cargo space.

Reason.org? Umm... okay. A Prius is only good for 100k and a Hummer can pull off 300k? Wow! That's one of the most ridiculous things I've heard. Look around online at some of the first gen Prius for sale. You wouldn't have to look hard to see them with well over 100k miles on the clock. And they were most likely traded in for a 2nd generation Prius.

The batteries last for at least 10 years, and they are becoming less expensive and less time consuming to produce. Not to mention that the combustion engine in the Prius is said to have an extremely long life, due to its periods of inactivity, which over the long run, significantly add up.

How much extra energy goes into making any large SUV or truck over a regular mid-size car?

Comparing manufacturing energy costs and resources is like someone that had a horse comparing it to all the energy that was put into making a Model T Ford, and saying it was a dead end. I'm not surprised if initial energy costs to make a hybrid could exceed some regular cars. Is that not expected with new technology?

Your claim about current generation hybrids being a dead end is nothing more than a personal opinion. That doesn't make it a fact.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: F22 Raptor

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
The US auto industry cares about money. They have no vision whatsoever. That's why unless the consumers press - which they do, usually by buying foreign - they'll keep pumping out the same sorry sh!t.
I'm used to Euro cars, and the fact of driving a US vehicle - ANY vehicle - sends shivers down my spine. Cheap interior, bad design, floaty sickening ride, no steering feel, ancient engines and transmissions.

The US Auto industry made big $ out of SUVs and trucks. A vehicle like the F150 is super cheap to make (being based on a primitive ladder-frame structure, much like full size trucks, not unibody like normal cars) and sells for good $. Why would they want to change that?

The market share of the big 3 has been shrinking for quite a while now and if not for SUVs, they would be in a critical situation long ago. Ford is loosing biliions, so does GM.

The good news are that the shakedown has been going on for quite a while now and like any other industry, US could lead the pack. I'm all for the US, but it'll take some time.

Yeah only US car makers are trying to make money, and only the US makers has that as their main goal. Get over yourself.

Never thought I'd find myself giving a reading comprehension lesson to an American. WTF?
I'll put in in other words for you and that bozo Vic: There's a profound difference between making money as a side result of having vision, good engineering, efficient production and good products (i.e. Toyota, Porsche, Renault-Nissan), and making money by focusing on an unexplained trend for commercial vehicles (= cheap) in disguise. If not for the F150 and the Explorer, Ford would have been in deep sh!t 10 years ago.

That's why, if not for the hard lesson they are taking from the Japanese and European companies, they would have continued to spew out the same crap in 20 years, such as La Sabres, trucks and rolling over SUVs.

Do you understand it now? And you, Vic?

Yes, you're a double-thinking fanboi with zero understanding of business and economics. I get it.
"Unexplained trend in commercial vehicles"??? Are you saying that businesses don't or shouldn't vehicles? Or that that isn't a viable market? :roll:

Let me apologize for confusing you. The Explorer and the F150 I gave as examples are based on commercial vehicles, at least in principle. That's what I meant.

Now, let me help you understand. Competition always fosters innovation. No competition, no innovation. So your "hard lesson" bullsh!t is just that. Some competitors fail to innovate as fast as others, and they pay the price for that, as Ford and GM are doing. Greed has nothing to do with it, quite the opposite.

"Greed" is selling a cheap-to-manufactur, technologically-inferior, dangerous (Explorer) product for full price and thinking you'll be able to do so for good because customers are stupid. Fortunately, Americans aren't nearly as dumb as Ford/GM think they are and began demanding better products, simply by buying foreign.

If what the foreigners did to the domestic industry isn't qualififed as a "hard lesson", then I don't know what is.

Oh, and that:

And "Euro quality" cars? Do you actually believe the sh!t you post? European cars are the least reliable cars in the industry, proven fact.

They might be least reliable, but they are also the benchmark to which other makers adhere. Lexus was started in order to imitate Mercedes, not the other way around. It's unfortunate your only way to judge cars is through JD surveys, though.

oddly enough, merc has started to imitate lexus. mechanized factories, tighter tolerances, etc. merc was starting to be like cadillac when merc overtook caddy.


anyway, your point about money making being a side result of vision is horsesh!t. toyota is a company, and their number 1 priority is to make money. if you think it's any other way than that i've got a bridge to sell you. their vision is their strategy to make money, and they're one of the best companies at doing so (making money).

as for making money based on 'commercial vehicles', toyota has a more extensive SUV lineup than anyone else. obviously they're trying to capitalize on it too. again, your argument is horsesh!t.

and i don't know why you think the things are cheap. explorers gained in popularity when they became luxurious inside. they were expensive. trucks have become ever more popular as the insides have become more car-like. and more expensive. just because they have higher margins than cars does not mean they are cheaper to manufacture. again, horsesh!t.

and as for unexplained, well, why wouldn't you want a vehicle able to haul your family and all your stuff, including a trailer? after the death of the station wagon at the hands of the minivan, the explorer was about the only place to go for people who didn't want minivans, or might want to tow something. you'll note that SUVs like the bronco and blazer weren't all that popular when station wagons were around and SUVs were rugged spartan offroaders. again, 'unexplained' is horsesh!t.

yup cheap and easy to make but not sold cheap. 2006 ford explorer 26,530-35,940 for the privilige of guzzling gas. http://auto.consumerguide.com/auto/new/reviews/full/index.cfm/id/38673/

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: LandRover
No, I'm not off. You can get exactly what I stated for $22,850. Side curtain air bags are now standard on all 2007 models.

carsdirect.com, bud. i don't care what MSRP is on the things when you can only get one with a $5,000 markup. that's like trying to compare prices between honda, toyota, gm, and ford without taking into account the ridiculous incentives that the latter two (and sometimes toyota) put into their vehicles.

How much extra energy goes into making any large SUV or truck over a regular mid-size car?

not much more, steel is dirt cheap in terms of the energy needed to make it into something useful from raw ore. aluminum, on the other hand, is ridiculously expensive. (~16,000 kilowatt-hours per ton to smelt it from bauxite). if you could extract 100% of the energy in a gallon of gasoline (you can't), that's the equivalent of 450 gallons. and that hasn't changed much in the 120 years since the hall-heroult process was invented, iirc. so, while you can build a car that is several hundred pounds lighter and gets better mileage by making the chassis from aluminum, you're already several hundred gallons of gas down, in terms of energy usage.

i make the claim based on the fact that damn near everyone thinks hydrogen fuel cells are the answer. also, if ford's pneumatic hybrid pans out, it will absolutely kill battery hybrids.

 

[dpopiz]

marketing people know what americans want

 

[spikespiegal]

o, while you can build a car that is several hundred pounds lighter and gets better mileage by making the chassis from aluminum, you're already several hundred gallons of gas down, in terms of energy usage.

The metal is a already forged (used to work in that biz), so it's an irrelevant arguement. I suppose next you'll blame the reverse intertia of stamp presses on slowing the rotation of the earth.

Smaller / lighter vehicles also result in lower road repair costs.

I'm honestly waiting for Ultra-Capacitor technology to hit the hybrid market, and result in a drastic improvement in efficiency. Current battery technology is simply anchoring the technology down too much.

Otherwise, I dont see why we're blaming unions for lack of long term R&D on the part of Ford/GM/Chrysler. Unfortunatley, too many of you want to drive big vehicles that handle like my front porch and invoke voodo math to justify them. Here in West Michigan, where winter driving conditions are among the worst and most unpredictable on earth, SUV's make up most of the 'ditch party' celebrants during severe winter snow squalls.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: spikespiegal
I'm honestly waiting for Ultra-Capacitor technology to hit the hybrid market, and result in a drastic improvement in efficiency. Current battery technology is simply anchoring the technology down too much.

Otherwise, I dont see why we're blaming unions for lack of long term R&D on the part of Ford/GM/Chrysler. Unfortunatley, too many of you want to drive big vehicles that handle like my front porch and invoke voodo math to justify them. Here in West Michigan, where winter driving conditions are among the worst and most unpredictable on earth, SUV's make up most of the 'ditch party' celebrants during severe winter snow squalls.

when contractual costs like healthcare for people who don't work there any more go up, that means less money left over for other stuff, like r&d (although, GM is the world leader in fuel cells), or tighter tolerances.

not to mention that the union really doesn't like modern factories. more modern factories = less jobs.

and then there is the fact that driving a fork lift nets you $80,000 a year.

i won't even get into the 'job bank'

for an anecdote, let's say two sprinters are in a race. one of them has a millstone around his neck. who is going to win?

Originally posted by: spikespiegal
The metal is a already forged (used to work in that biz),

it didn't come out of the ground that way, now did it?

 

[LandRover]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

carsdirect.com, bud. i don't care what MSRP is on the things when you can only get one with a $5,000 markup. that's like trying to compare prices between honda, toyota, gm, and ford without taking into account the ridiculous incentives that the latter two (and sometimes toyota) put into their vehicles.

i make the claim based on the fact that damn near everyone thinks hydrogen fuel cells are the answer. also, if ford's pneumatic hybrid pans out, it will absolutely kill battery hybrids.

They can be bought at MSRP if you shop around and have some patience. That is a fact. Are some dealers marking them up? Yes. But definitely not all of them by any means, bud.

Hydrogen fuel cells are the answer? Seems like they keep reminding us of that every 10 years, just in case we've forgotten. Sounds great, if it ever actually becomes a viable and cost effective option in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, hybrid technology is helping to fill the void. It's a shame you can't see that.

And you think hydrogen fuel cell cars will just magically be on-par price wise with all other cars? And they will be economical to manufacture with little or no extra resources? Fat chance. When that time finally comes around, people like you will be saying the same things then, that you are now about gas/electric hybrids. You'll complain no matter what.

 

[0roo0roo]

blaming unions and such other stuff for lack of r&d is not going anywyere. the fact is the american car companies recieved heavy government subsidies to develop electric vehicles, technology which could been transfered into making hybrids. gm had hybrid versions of ev1's in the works before they just tossed the entire project. it was funded under Clinton Administration's $1.25 Billion Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles Project. the ev1 was lousy sure, but they could have had a huge head start on hybrids from all that work. dumbasses the lot of em


as for the absurd dust to dust study done by that private research group, i wonder who funded that research hm? guys a hired gun last i checked

 

[wetcat007]

Originally posted by: shabby
Lets try some math here on the benefits(or lack of) of hybrids.

Civic sedan base - $15010 - 30/40 city/hwy mpg so 35mpg avg
Civic hybrid base - $22150 - 49/51 city/hwy mpg so 50mpg avg

Using 0roo0roo's formula we get...
Civic sedan 35mpg/100,000 miles = 2857 gallons
Civic hybrid 50mpg/100,000 miles = 2000 gallons

Civic sedan uses 2857 gallons x $2.5 per gallon = $7142 of fuel for 100,000 miles
Civic hybrid uses 2000 gallons x $2.5 per gallon = $5000 of fuel for 100,000 miles

Every 100,000 miles you save $2142 with the hybrid, however since the hybrid costs $7140 more from the start you would have to drive the hybrid 333,333 miles so you could offset its higher price.
I dont know about you but im not gonna drive a car for over 25 years. If hybrids were the same price as the current car then it would make sense, but since they're not it doesnt. Only to the tree huggers it does, but theres not many of those so who cares.

I believe the hybrid has a lot of features of the higher end model civics that go for about 18-20k? Correct me if I'm wrong though.

 

[Pandamonium]

Shrug. People use cars for different purposes.

I use mine to move me from point A to point B. Sometimes it carries stuff like groceries. Because I'm not willing to put up with a long commute (>20min by my standards), a hybrid makes perfect sense to me. I don't derive much pleasure from driving, so the transmission type, how "connected I am to the road", et. al. features mean nothing to me.

You could probably find a dozen more active ATOT posters who feel the exact opposite. Neither opinion is wrong, they are just different and mutually exclusive.

That said, I (a recent college grad) have no intention of considering domestic autos when my 94 Camry craps out. Maybe it's my demographic (New England), but I find domestics hideous, and the poor fuel economy does nothing for me either. When I get my next car, it will be an import hybrid for a few reasons:

1) tax break benefits for hybrids
2) cheaper perceived expense when considering upkeep
3) far improved fuel economy (since I rarely use the highway for more than 10 minutes at a time)

This won't necessarily apply to everyone though. It also doesn't mean that it doesn't make perfect sense to some.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
I wonder what emotional switch I've hit, hehe

The one where you've annoyed the crap out of me with your stupidity.

Well, when you see an opinion that is too difficult for your pea-brain to grasp, you could just as well move on. No need to get all upset.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
blah blah blah

so now you've changed your argument from saying that money is a side result of vision to saying that they're in it for money. after damning the US auto industry for capitalizing on SUVs and trucks you've admitted that everyone is doing it.

good job.

and i was unaware that a fully boxed ladder frame wasn't a 'real chassis'

:roll:

next.

Here are the facts:

1. US Auto makers didn't invest in proper R&D and technology because they had SUVs and trucks, CHEAP to make while selling at a PREMIUM price, thus a high margain product.

2. Therefore, US Auto makers have nothing like the Prius, nor do they have many cars that could be sold on any other merit than price.

3. US cars can't compete in the global market.

4. US firms are looking for foreigners to save their product line, as could be seen in the DaimlerChrysler merger, and now GM.

5. There's not much vision in the US auto industry, at least at past times. Toyota's vision are pushing them towards the #1 spot. They don't need patriotism or cheap pricing; They have good R&D and products.

6. There's nothing wrong in capitalizing on a certain market segment, like SUVs, and obviously everyone is doing it. But there's quite a big difference in the way it's done. If you stop selling trucks in the US, Toyota takes a hit, but Ford is practically dead in the water. There's nothing morally wrong with it, the problem is that the money in the Truck/SUV segment has been too easy for the good of US automakers, leading to stagnation in their other products.

 

[Blazin Trav]

Originally posted by: TheLonelyPhoenix
Your friend drove 1200 miles to buy a more fuel-efficient vehicle, which he will have to drive well over 100k miles before he makes back the $7-8k extra he paid over a Civic.

Consumerism stupidity at its finest.

Convenience of not having to fill up as much coupled with the illusion that they are saving the environment.

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: letdown427
I got over 60mpg in a 1.5diesel Renault Clio. And damn the Prius is ugly.

My brother has one too - 1.5dCI with the variable geometry turbine (80+ horse power), and the best (highway/low load/55mph) MPG he had was around 60.
A Prius, on the other hand, gives you better mpg in city

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: giantpinkbunnyhead
Regarding the Prius, I think not everyone buys it expecting to break even.

Maybe they are expecting even more expensive fuel costs, and this increase in fuel costs will drive prices of everyting up, and prices of fuel-friendly cars even more.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: letdown427
I got over 60mpg in a 1.5diesel Renault Clio. And damn the Prius is ugly.

the prius is like 2x the size of a renault clio. and diesel has more energy in it per gallon. kilojoules per mile is a better way to look at it if you're comparing different fuels, and i'm sure the prius slaughters the clio at that measure.

Not really that much bigger than the new gen Clio. Between the original and new gen it's put on a qtr of a ton in wieght.

My GF's new Gen PETROL(gas) Clio gets 39/40mpIg (Imperial). Less when I drive it..., but then it has 243 less HP than my daily driver.

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: Vic
The real crying shame is that idiots keep thinking that they can save the environment through consumerism.

Choosing to buy a new car - one with high mpg and low emissions - might be better for environment than choosing to drive a very old car that consume much more fuel, throws out partially burned fuels, and "eats" oil (thrown out on the exhaust pipe partially-burned and unburned)
The problem is: where can a line be drawn, when a new car is more damaging than an old one?

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: shabby
Lets try some math here on the benefits(or lack of) of hybrids.

Civic sedan base - $15010 - 30/40 city/hwy mpg so 35mpg avg
Civic hybrid base - $22150 - 49/51 city/hwy mpg so 50mpg avg

Using 0roo0roo's formula we get...
Civic sedan 35mpg/100,000 miles = 2857 gallons
Civic hybrid 50mpg/100,000 miles = 2000 gallons

Civic sedan uses 2857 gallons x $2.5 per gallon = $7142 of fuel for 100,000 miles
Civic hybrid uses 2000 gallons x $2.5 per gallon = $5000 of fuel for 100,000 miles

Every 100,000 miles you save $2142 with the hybrid, however since the hybrid costs $7140 more from the start you would have to drive the hybrid 333,333 miles so you could offset its higher price.
I dont know about you but im not gonna drive a car for over 25 years. If hybrids were the same price as the current car then it would make sense, but since they're not it doesnt. Only to the tree huggers it does, but theres not many of those so who cares.

:thumbsup:

 

[CVSiN]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CVSiN

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k

Originally posted by: CVSiN

Originally posted by: randym431
A friend just got the toyota prius link

All I can say is WHY is the US auto industry not in front on this?
Why did my friend have to drive 600 miles to get one, made by toyota, and not Ford or GM or "some" US auto maker???

The take holds 12 gallons. They filled up and drove the 600 miles back and still had plenty of gas in the tank. This car is just so nice. Its a crying shame US auto makers rather lay off auto workers because the industry will not change and give the people what they want. Really sad, but the car is great!

Check out the inside 360 view on their site...WOW

Um why the F00k would i want one of these POS...

Im american and want horsepower not some little toy car..

If I wanted good gas mileage I'd go back to riding my motorcycle..
turn in you and your friends man cards and go be metro...

at least here in Texas you still see 6/10 vehicles is a V8 pickup truck or SUV or American Sportscar... (mostly trucks though) the other 4 cars per 10 are still gas guzzling BMWs or Mercedes.

thank heavens for red blooded americans..

instead of pansey ass treehugging hippies in thier toy cars.

:laugh:xInfinity

Sad that you're actually serious. I know plenty of Texans who drive imports like fvckin Miatas and whatnot, and they'd lay your ass on the pavement for questioning their masculinity. Guys that live and breath Texas and don't need some jacked up rig because they're compensating for their tiny in-bred peckers. I guess that's the difference between educated red-blooded americans and dipsh1t white trash.

Yah the educated ones are the ones driving the BMWs and Mercedes and the other gas guzzlers cause we can afford them...

Miata.. LOLX10000000000000000000000 turn in your texan card as well as your man card..
thats almost as bad as the Prius...

Ill stick with my gas guzzling 300 HP Mustang convertable thanks =)

Don't knock the Miata. It's a great car.

Ah, but have you seen how the Solstice performed at the AutoX Nationals? Scary good. Dominated their class. Mazda needs to go back to the drawing board or performance-minded Miata owners are going to starting trading in their cars for Solstices and Skys.

Solstice/Sky >> Miata yah thats a cool little car and with the updated horsepower version its quicker than an old 5.0 stang... and the only Miata that is/was cool was the 400 HP monster Miata with a supercharged mustang motor in it =-)
now thats a mans Miata!

 

[CVSiN]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: CVSiN

Originally posted by: randym431
A friend just got the toyota prius link

All I can say is WHY is the US auto industry not in front on this?
Why did my friend have to drive 600 miles to get one, made by toyota, and not Ford or GM or "some" US auto maker???

The take holds 12 gallons. They filled up and drove the 600 miles back and still had plenty of gas in the tank. This car is just so nice. Its a crying shame US auto makers rather lay off auto workers because the industry will not change and give the people what they want. Really sad, but the car is great!

Check out the inside 360 view on their site...WOW

Um why the F00k would i want one of these POS...

Im american and want horsepower not some little toy car..

If I wanted good gas mileage I'd go back to riding my motorcycle..
turn in you and your friends man cards and go be metro...

at least here in Texas you still see 6/10 vehicles is a V8 pickup truck or SUV or American Sportscar... (mostly trucks though) the other 4 cars per 10 are still gas guzzling BMWs or Mercedes.

thank heavens for red blooded americans..

instead of pansey ass treehugging hippies in thier toy cars.

um.... congrats on being white trash?

Who says I'm white? I'm actually 1/2 American Indian (Cherokee) and 1/2 Spanish.. but nice try...

And liking fast cars and hating Japanese garbage doesnt make one white trash.. it makes one a patriot that supports his countries automakers...
I will NOT own a Japanese Car period...

whats in my driveway right now is ..
1995 FORD Mustang GT
2000 FORD Expedition
2004 Harley Davidson 1200 Sportster

the only Japanese Vehicles that I support (mainly cause HD cant get it right) are Sport Bikes.. But if HD (or anyone else finally gets it right) I will buy American on those too.

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: LandRover
Craptastic hard plastic? That just seems like a really ridiculous statement. I forgot that all other cars have interior panels that are covered in silk. ALL new cars have plastic panels, and the Prius is no worse.

i'm not a dashboard stroker by any stretch of the imagination, but i got in one for the first time the other day and was shocked by the cheapness of the interior. and in its price range its the only car with a cheap plastic interior. there is a difference between cheap hard plastic and high quality stuff. cheap plastic is what is found in ford focii and nissan sentras, higher quality stuff is in the VW jetta.

22K for a Prius with side air bags, ABS, traction control, etc., etc. That's just brutal. When compared with an equally equipped car, the price difference is not at all as large as many people seem to believe.

you're off by $5,500 from the number i quoted. that's 25% more than what you're thinking. i dunno about you, but i don't keep $5,500 laying around.

a vehicle that gets excellent mileage and is extremely environmentally friendly

see, there is the rub: it isn't that environmentally friendly. again, you've fallen into the trap that thinking that consuming a NEW car can be environmentally friendly. especially one with two drive trains and a trunk full of batteries. oh boy it gets better mileage on the road! but so much extra energy is used when building the thing that it isn't as energy efficient, manufacturing to salvage, as other cars. and it certainly isn't as efficient as keeping the car you have running.

read this

wow, a hummer costs less in energy than a honda civic hybrid! (although that figure is whack because the guy expects the life to be 300,000 miles... maybe a gov't issue one in military service, but i doubt more than a handful of civilian hummer-branded vehicles turn over 300,000 miles)

hybrid sales were down year to year for the first 6 months of this year, with consumers citing mileage that isn't very good combined with high costs!


face it, hybrids in their current battery-powered form are a dead end. in 50 years they'll just be an interesting footnote in automotive history (like the 4-6-8 toronado).

"For instance, the dust-to-dust energy cost of the bunny-sized Honda Civic hybrid is $3.238 per mile. This is quite a bit more than the $1.949 per mile that the elephantine Hummer costs"
So, the Hummer costs less over its lifetime than a Civic hybrid. As it uses more fuel, I understand that it costs less to build. A Civic hybrid build costs are about $20,000 (close to its selling price), so the Hummer is built for less than that. As a result, lots and lots of money as profit. Even more, they could compete on price with the Civics!
Don't believe everything you read (including my post)

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: SamurAchzar
I wonder what emotional switch I've hit, hehe

The one where you've annoyed the crap out of me with your stupidity.

Well, when you see an opinion that is too difficult for your pea-brain to grasp, you could just as well move on. No need to get all upset.

Well... your "opinion" has been refuted multiple times here by multiple people. The only one not grasp difficult things with their pea-brain is you.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Vic
"Boy racers" race on the street. :roll:

AutoX is exactly the kind of driving skill and training that should be mandatory to get a license, but pussy wankers who praise incompetence as safety won't allow.

i bet more accidents per vehicle mile are caused by boy racer wankers trying to show off their 'skills' than by normal attentive drivers.

note i said attentive, not cell phone users, people grooming themselves or eating their egg mcmuffin.

Insurance statistics say otherwise. The average autox-er is in his 30's. OTOH, the most dangerous drivers are the 16-21 group and the 70+ group.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Calin

Originally posted by: Vic
The real crying shame is that idiots keep thinking that they can save the environment through consumerism.

Choosing to buy a new car - one with high mpg and low emissions - might be better for environment than choosing to drive a very old car that consume much more fuel, throws out partially burned fuels, and "eats" oil (thrown out on the exhaust pipe partially-burned and unburned)
The problem is: where can a line be drawn, when a new car is more damaging than an old one?

New cars, including hybrids like the Prius, emit CO2 and water vapor almost exclusively -- both greenhouse gases. Particulates and unburned HC's OTOH contribute to global cooling (while admittedly causing other health and environmental issues).
My point is that things are not as cut and dried as you're trying to make it.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
This thread cracks me up. So if you buy a hybrid to save money on gas you're an idiot that sucks at math (ZOMG U HAVE 2 DRIVE LIEK ELEVENTY BILLION MILES FRIST!@1evelen). However, if you buy a hybrid because you're environmentally concious then you're a smug asshole. Some of you people are utterly rediculous. It's not wonder there's been so little progress in the US auto industry. Ignorant fvcktards like you make it easy for auto manufacturers and oil companies to stick with their same old dinosauric bullsh1t.

Oh, and I think mugs wins "Ignorant Douchebag of the Day" with his two posts on page 1. :roll:

Exactly. It never fails to amaze me when I see people promoting the waste of our natural resources. God forbid we think of the future of our planet. Typical self absorbed douchebags thinking only of themselves.

Dumbasses unite!!!

because buying a NEW car with a trunk full of batteries is such a great use of resources :roll:

they've moved the energy costs from the pump to the production line, and in doing so increased the total energy use the vehicle will see over its lifetime (from initial construction through driving and eventual disposal) and everyone jumps on it as the green alternative. what a crock of sh!t.

Do you have empirical evidence of this? That a Prius requires more energy to produce than it will save over the lifetime of the car when compared to a comparable gas-powered vehicle?