James Robinson wrote:
> "Steve W." wrote:
>>
>> "Ronnie Dobbs" wrote:
>>>
>>> How so? An automatic uses a viscous coupling, and there is always
>>> going to be slippage. Some slushboxes have lock-up torque
>>> converters, which help mileage in top gear, but the tranny still
>>> slips during acceleration.
>>>
>> Maybe you had better take a look at current autos. ALL of them have
>> lockup converters and 99% have overdrive as well. They are MUCH better
>> than a stick for mileage now.
>
> You might like to look at the EPA test results. Cars with manual
> transmissions get something like 1 mpg better mileage than the same car
> with an automatic:

At least 1 mpg. In some vehicles, the real world difference can be over 5
mpg (depending on the driver).

--

http://www.ronniedobbs.com/

 

"flobert" <nomail@here.NOT> wrote in message
news:4oqls1dp5mlkmvmloi24js9m5j0nl7lf6u@4ax.com...
> Look at how many highly promoted hybrids there are, and their real
> world (not EPa) economy figures. Then look at small european diesels
> and their real world MPg figures. see what the difference is.
>
The difference is that diesels with conventional power trains still don't do
well in town, most especially for the short trips that most people make. Our
2002 Prius gets real-world mid-40s mpg in town, even with short trips and
cold weather. I am disappointed if it drops below 50 mpg in mild weather -
what diesel compares to that? The extreme Lupo with the tiny engine and the
manual tranny? The Prius is quiet and powerful, a joy to drive in town. Our
7000 foot elevation doesn't slow it down a whit, and it has the exact same
throttle response cold as when warmed up. The "ECVT" (actually a fixed gear
system) is perfectly smooth and has almost nothing to fail.

Turbo diesels are wondrous things on the highway, but until the turbo gets
its mojo working any bicycle can beat them. A turbo diesel providing the
motive power in a hybrid power train would be a huge improvement.

Mike

 

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 20:13:48 -0700, "Michael Pardee"
<michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> graced this newsgroup with:

>"flobert" <nomail@here.NOT> wrote in message
>news:4oqls1dp5mlkmvmloi24js9m5j0nl7lf6u@4ax.com.. .
>> Look at how many highly promoted hybrids there are, and their real
>> world (not EPa) economy figures. Then look at small european diesels
>> and their real world MPg figures. see what the difference is.
>>
>The difference is that diesels with conventional power trains still don't do
>well in town, most especially for the short trips that most people make. Our
>2002 Prius gets real-world mid-40s mpg in town, even with short trips and
>cold weather. I am disappointed if it drops below 50 mpg in mild weather -
>what diesel compares to that? The extreme Lupo with the tiny engine and the
>manual tranny? The Prius is quiet and powerful, a joy to drive in town. Our
>7000 foot elevation doesn't slow it down a whit, and it has the exact same
>throttle response cold as when warmed up. The "ECVT" (actually a fixed gear
>system) is perfectly smooth and has almost nothing to fail.
>
>Turbo diesels are wondrous things on the highway, but until the turbo gets
>its mojo working any bicycle can beat them. A turbo diesel providing the
>motive power in a hybrid power train would be a huge improvement.
>
>Mike
>



....as long as you purchased the Prius for it's green advantages and
not the mpg you perceive you're saving, I agree. If you purchased the
car to save money on gas, you'll need to own the car for 7 years
before you realize any savings back.

 

"kegler@bowling.net" <nospammers dot nospam dot net> wrote in message
news:9k7ms11ib01uqbbso7k7l1tl87ut8suqhc@4ax.com...
> ...as long as you purchased the Prius for it's green advantages and
> not the mpg you perceive you're saving, I agree. If you purchased the
> car to save money on gas, you'll need to own the car for 7 years
> before you realize any savings back.
>
>
We purchased it for both fuel savings and the driving experience; it is the
second most fun car to drive I've ever had (I still miss my Lotus, though).
We traded in my old '84 Nissan 300ZX for it, so we went from 18-20 mpg to
45-50 mpg. That amounts to 1000 gallons of gasoline over the last 50K miles
instead of 2500, so at an average of $2 per gallon we are $3000 US better
off so far, to the tune of $1000 per year at current gas prices. The Nissan
was crumbling at 150K miles, mostly electrical system intermittents, and was
abominable in snow. The Prius has ABS and the hybrid system protects itself
with a wheel slip limiter that behaves like a primitive traction control in
snow - press the accelerator and drive.

No car made ever pays for itself - they all depreciate, use fuel and require
maintenance and repair. What's the payback period for a turbo, or a premium
sound system? How long does it take for a Lexus to pay for itself compared
to a Toyota, or a Toyota compared to a Kia? The Prius just bleeds us less
than most while delivering solid reliability, and since we typically hold on
to cars for 15 years or more (my Volvo is 21 this year) it should be a good
choice.

Mike

 

Michael Pardee <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:

> The Prius just bleeds us less
> than most while delivering solid reliability, and since we typically hold on
> to cars for 15 years or more (my Volvo is 21 this year) it should be a good
> choice.

There are two potential trouble areas that could be problematic down the
road: battery replacement cost (if you have to buy a pack out of
warranty) and the extremely complex electrical system to control all the
components.

I once owned a house with an advanced heat pump that didn't use outside
air for exchange, but rather ground water in a big loop of plastic pipe
buried in the side yard. We did have lower electrical bills, but the
annual repair costs on the heat pump and the big bill for replacing all
the underground pipe when it sprang a leak more than negated our
savings.

 

"RJ" <re_j99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1h98fh8.qtswyu1wg627cN%re_j99@hotmail.com...
> Michael Pardee <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:
>
>> The Prius just bleeds us less
>> than most while delivering solid reliability, and since we typically hold
>> on
>> to cars for 15 years or more (my Volvo is 21 this year) it should be a
>> good
>> choice.
>
> There are two potential trouble areas that could be problematic down the
> road: battery replacement cost (if you have to buy a pack out of
> warranty) and the extremely complex electrical system to control all the
> components.
>
> I once owned a house with an advanced heat pump that didn't use outside
> air for exchange, but rather ground water in a big loop of plastic pipe
> buried in the side yard. We did have lower electrical bills, but the
> annual repair costs on the heat pump and the big bill for replacing all
> the underground pipe when it sprang a leak more than negated our
> savings.
>
Inasmuch as the hybrid system is warranted for 100K miles or 8 years (150K
and 10 years in California and a few other states) I am not worried. One of
the techies in the Yahoo Prius Technical forum bought a battery pack from a
wreck for $500 US, barely twice the core value. There is a supply of
batteries from totalled Prius cars and no demand.

If you drive a car newer than 1980, you have a lot of sophisticated and
critical electronics in it, too. ECU, transmission controller, ABS
controller, probably power window and power lock controllers (depending on
make/model/year). Any of those is as vulnerable as the hybrid system
computers in the Prius and many are about as expensive... and are about as
available on the used market and as reliable. Electronics in a car are
nothing to be scared of these days - the moving parts are still the big
problems, and the Prius as fewer of those than probably any conventional car
on the market.

Buying any car is a risk. Head gaskets in some 2.5L DOHC Subaru engines,
throttle position controllers in some years of Volvo (not to mention the
transmissions and evaporators in '93 and '94 Volvo 850s), automatic
transmissions in some years of Honda/Acura V6s - all of these are real and
present frustrations experienced by buyers of conventional cars. The least
of those will set the owner back $1000. Some (like the trannies) are three
times that much and some unlucky owners have to drink from that well several
times.

It is interesting to google 'honda transmission fail' and 'prius battery
fail' - the first produces nearly half a million hits, mainly dealing with
why the transmissions are failing and what to do about them. The second
produces nearly 100K hits, mainly wondering if the battery will fail and
when that would be. Notice one post that claims to document a hybrid battery
failure - if you follow the link http://tinyurl.com/ahc2x it's clear it is
bogus. He claims the battery put out sulfur dioxide, while there is no
sulfur in the NiMH hybrid battery. I suspect the 12 volt lead-acid aux
battery failed instead, unless the post is just a hoax. I canna change the
laws of chemistry.

In the end, we are not born to live in fear. We pay our money and take our
chances. The experiences of people who have a lot more miles (183K miles for
the Yahoo Prius forum owner, last I heard) and a few more years on their
Prius than I have on mine are very encouraging indeed.

Mike

 

"Ronnie Dobbs" <watNOSPAMuzi@yahoo.com> wrote in message > But can we trust
USDA studies? With the anti-science bent of the current
> administration, and Big Oil's hands in the administration's pockets, there
> is a real chance the studies are totally bunk.
>

Why are you ing political hog wash about this administration. This
administration has done many things to try to lower are demand for foreign
oil. They offered a 2000 dollar tax credit for people that buy Hybrids cars,
I know because I almost got one and the dealer told this to me many times.
Plus offered ground breaking help from the Government for people to use
Biofuels. I have a friend that collects hamburger grease to burn in his
diesel VW and told me about it plus you may still be able to read about it
at the biofuel sites. This is only the ones I know of first hand and am sure
there's more so don't political trash like that. What's this about
being anti-science bent and big oil in there pockets? You sound like another
Michael Moore nut. Get real.

 

Waiving the right to remain silent, "Michael Pardee"
<michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> said:

> No car made ever pays for itself - they all depreciate,...

That depends on the car. In 1976 I bought a new Corvette at the LA
dealer auction. Nine years later, I sold it for $800 less than the
purchase price. Had I maintained it better, I would have gotten more
than I paid.

--
Larry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail

"I've come here to enjoy nature. Don't talk to me
about the environment!" - 'Denny Crane'

 

Rob wrote:
> "Ronnie Dobbs" <watNOSPAMuzi@yahoo.com> wrote in message > But can we
> trust USDA studies? With the anti-science bent of the current
>> administration, and Big Oil's hands in the administration's pockets,
>> there is a real chance the studies are totally bunk.
>>
>
> Why are you ing political hog wash about this administration. This
> administration has done many things to try to lower are demand for
> foreign oil. They offered a 2000 dollar tax credit for people that buy
> Hybrids cars, I know because I almost got one and the dealer told this
> to me many times. Plus offered ground breaking help from the Government
> for people to use Biofuels. I have a friend that collects hamburger
> grease to burn in his diesel VW and told me about it plus you may still
> be able to read about it at the biofuel sites. This is only the ones I
> know of first hand and am sure there's more so don't political
> trash like that. What's this about being anti-science bent and big oil
> in there pockets? You sound like another Michael Moore nut. Get real.

The administration has demonstrated that they are anti-science by banning
federally-sanctioned stem-cell research, and by demanding religion being
taught as science (ID). And the Bush family has been a Big Oil family for
decades, look up Arbusto Energy for an example.
--

http://www.ronniedobbs.com/

 

"Ronnie Dobbs" <watNOSPAMuzi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Wt-dnRonJJFQzVbenZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@centurytel.net...
> Rob wrote:
> > "Ronnie Dobbs" <watNOSPAMuzi@yahoo.com> wrote in message > But can we
> > trust USDA studies? With the anti-science bent of the current
> >> administration, and Big Oil's hands in the administration's pockets,
> >> there is a real chance the studies are totally bunk.
> >>
> >
> > Why are you ing political hog wash about this administration. This
> > administration has done many things to try to lower are demand for
> > foreign oil. They offered a 2000 dollar tax credit for people that buy
> > Hybrids cars, I know because I almost got one and the dealer told this
> > to me many times. Plus offered ground breaking help from the Government
> > for people to use Biofuels. I have a friend that collects hamburger
> > grease to burn in his diesel VW and told me about it plus you may still
> > be able to read about it at the biofuel sites. This is only the ones I
> > know of first hand and am sure there's more so don't political
> > trash like that. What's this about being anti-science bent and big oil
> > in there pockets? You sound like another Michael Moore nut. Get real.
>
> The administration has demonstrated that they are anti-science by banning
> federally-sanctioned stem-cell research, and by demanding religion being
> taught as science (ID). And the Bush family has been a Big Oil family for
> decades, look up Arbusto Energy for an example.

Don't forget that the big agriculture producers are about as Big Business
as you can get. And they are home-grown. The idea that the Bush
administration
would rather see all that money go into the pockets of foreign oil-producing
governments like Saudi Arabia, instead of into the pockets of the domestic
farmers is preposterous. Saudi Arabia does not make significant political
contributions into US reelection campaign funds compared to the farmers.
Why the hell do you think the government is still propping up the tobacco
farmers with subsidies?

Ted

 

"James Robinson" <wascana@212.com> wrote in message
news:Xns974CDB6E2F9ABwascanamailcircuitco@216.196. 97.142...
> richard1969@usa.com wrote:
>
> > That study may have been tainted to show that fossil fuel is more
> > appropriate than natural fuels.
> > I'm not speaking of supplying a city's power.
> > That can be done the old fashioned way with water and turbines.
>
> There is a limit to the amount of hydroelectric power available. You
> can't dam up every river in the country.
>

But you can put in enough wind farms to supply the US's electrical
needs.

> > Alochol fuel is replenishable and therfor there would be abundance of
> > fuel for vehicles for as long as there is farm land to produce the raw
> > products.
>
> There is great debate about the value of alcohol fuels. Studies by a
> professor at Cornell University suggest that it takes more energy to
> grow the corn (fertilizer, plowing, harvesting, etc.) and distill the
> alcohol than you get out of the alcohol itself. Therefore, you really
> don't gain anything that would displace fossil fuels.
>

That is true for any kind of fuel. Even fossil fuels, if you add in the
total
energy that it took to grow the plants what you get out of it is much
less.

What matters with vehicles is having mobile fuel. Liquid, gas, and
chemical storage (ie: electric) is are all mobile and are what you got
to work with. Solid fuel (coal, etc.) isn't mobile unless your running
a reaction engine which is horribly inefficient, or your on rails. Solar
isn't feasible, since you need to drive your car in the dark at night.

Since just about all energy on Earth comes from the Sun, it must
be converted into either a liquid, a gas, or a chemical storage to be
used, that conversion is ALWAYS going to take more solar energy
input into the system than energy you get out by burning the fuel.
If you can let nature do some of that conversion it helps, of course.

Ted

 

"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in message
news:_vadnTe-Gsw0oFbeRVn-jg@sedona.net...
> "RJ" <re_j99@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1h98fh8.qtswyu1wg627cN%re_j99@hotmail.com...
> > Michael Pardee <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The Prius just bleeds us less
> >> than most while delivering solid reliability, and since we typically
hold
> >> on
> >> to cars for 15 years or more (my Volvo is 21 this year) it should be a
> >> good
> >> choice.
> >
> > There are two potential trouble areas that could be problematic down the
> > road: battery replacement cost (if you have to buy a pack out of
> > warranty) and the extremely complex electrical system to control all the
> > components.
> >
> > I once owned a house with an advanced heat pump that didn't use outside
> > air for exchange, but rather ground water in a big loop of plastic pipe
> > buried in the side yard. We did have lower electrical bills, but the
> > annual repair costs on the heat pump and the big bill for replacing all
> > the underground pipe when it sprang a leak more than negated our
> > savings.
> >
> Inasmuch as the hybrid system is warranted for 100K miles or 8 years (150K
> and 10 years in California and a few other states) I am not worried. One
of
> the techies in the Yahoo Prius Technical forum bought a battery pack from
a
> wreck for $500 US, barely twice the core value. There is a supply of
> batteries from totalled Prius cars and no demand.
>

But that is only now since most Priuses are still under the battery
warranty.
And those battery packs have a very short shelf life if they are not kept
charged up, like any battery. 2 years after the wreck unless the wrecker
has
been keeping the battery on a trickle charger, it's going to be shot just by
sitting there doing nothing, due to natural self-discharge.

10 years from now I think the used battery situation will be quite
different.
And there is another thing you and all the Prius owners should worry
about. Toyota does not seem at all interested in addressing the points
that the Prius critics keep bringing up about service and repair of the
Prius post-warranty expiration. It is constantly pointed out how expensive
a new replacement traction battery is. Toyota's response seems to
be that the traction battery never fails so why worry. Toyota should
be instead adressing these concerns and working with the aftermarket
to bring out alternatives that are cheaper, as well as every year reducing
the battery cost, as increasing volume production and economies of scale
reduce the cost of those batteries to Toyota. It is also pointed out that
the car is more expensive to repair since you can't take it to any other
place than special Toyota dealerships that have special hybrid techs
available. Toyota seems to be responding that the car never breaks
down and so never needs repair. Instead they should be offering
very low cost training to any independent mechanic that is interested
in working on these cars in his own shop.

It is like Toyota's whole attitude about the Prius is that there's this
big long warranty on it and the day after the car passes the end
of the warranty period, it should be scrapped. I'm surprised
that all you Prius owners aren't hammeing Toyota about reducing
the list cost on the traction battery.

>
> It is interesting to google 'honda transmission fail' and 'prius battery
> fail' - the first produces nearly half a million hits, mainly dealing with
> why the transmissions are failing and what to do about them. The second
> produces nearly 100K hits, mainly wondering if the battery will fail and
> when that would be. Notice one post that claims to document a hybrid
battery
> failure - if you follow the link http://tinyurl.com/ahc2x it's clear it is
> bogus. He claims the battery put out sulfur dioxide, while there is no
> sulfur in the NiMH hybrid battery. I suspect the 12 volt lead-acid aux
> battery failed instead, unless the post is just a hoax. I canna change the
> laws of chemistry.
>

There is a reason for this. The Prius hasn't been out that long. And
sophisticated
computerized chargers that continually probe battery condition and set
the charging optimally will add years to the life of any battery. But
batteries
are all time-dependent, they will fail You might get 10 years out of them,
15 tops., but that's it. And it has nothing to do with mileage.

Ted

 

In article <hPmdnZESXdztklbeRVn-pQ@sedona.net>,
"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:

> The difference is that diesels with conventional power trains still don't do
> well in town, most especially for the short trips that most people make.

Ummmm.....yes they do.

 

In article <_vadnTe-Gsw0oFbeRVn-jg@sedona.net>,
"Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:

> If you drive a car newer than 1980, you have a lot of sophisticated and
> critical electronics in it, too. ECU, transmission controller, ABS
> controller, probably power window and power lock controllers (depending on
> make/model/year). Any of those is as vulnerable as the hybrid system
> computers in the Prius and many are about as expensive...

Don't care aboqut the power windows and power locks failing on me on the
highway.

On the other hand, the computer is MUCH more integral to the simple
starting and driving away of the parallel hybrid (Toyota system) than I
like.

 

HLS@nospam.nix wrote:
>
> "Grumpy AuContraire" <Grumpster@GrumpyvilleNOT.com> wrote in message
> news:43CA9A99.EEE7C785@GrumpyvilleNOT.com...
> > Do the math.
> >
> > Initial Cost/Financing/Insurance/Maintenance vs. fuel efficiency.
> >
> > I'll betcha that the hybrid presents little advantage when looking at
> > the big picture...
>
> I also doubt the long term cost advantage. Same son just bought a bicycle.
> Now THAT is cost efficient, if he uses it.


Heh... You might hafta provide a little incentive. Just follow the
guv'ment's lead!

<G>

JT