This doesn't belong here, because it's not relevant and so
neverminddddd, though I gotta a feeling that a certain adaptive Korean
car manufacturer is duly interested.

My information & perception currently
is that Toyota has control of hybrid patents, and Hyundai therefore
couldn't bring-out a relatively inexpensive hybrid, because Toyota
wouldn't cut its own throat.

But if Hyundai could bring-one out for $10,000 less or whatever, there
would seemingly be a significant lessening of oil demand for awhile
(several years).

And when China does ditto, then...nirvana.

And so, if I were the presiding politico, I'd use my
influence/talent/finesse to encourage Toyota to consider the public
interest, perhaps by lubricating Toyota with
contracts/concessions/advantages so its stockholders would eagerly
cooperate.

A la Toyota makes U.S. mailsters & other government trucks & heaps so
long as Toyota licenses its patents reasonably/cheaply/cost-effectively
to its world competitors.

Any constructive ideas are welcome, because massive distribution of
hybrid technology is not unimportant in war 'n peace.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/au...=1&oref=slogin

Behind the Wheel
Honda Accord and Toyota Camry: Hybrids for Ozzie and Harriet

E-Mail
Printer-Friendly
Single-Page
Save Article


By JIM MOTAVALLI
Published: April 2, 2006
RELIABLE, practical and popular, the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry are
as mainstream as white bread and as exciting as mom's meatloaf. But
hybrid technology has transformed versions of these family cars from
conservative appliances into cutting-edge green machines.

Skip to next paragraph

2006 Honda Accord hybrid

The Quest for a Plugged-In Prius

2007 Toyota Camry hybrid
Having redesigned the Camry for 2007, Toyota joins Honda in offering a
midsize sedan with a hybrid gas-electric powertrain. Honda, meanwhile,
has freshened and mildly restyled its Accords, including the hybrid.

While both cars wear hybrid labels, Toyota's approach is markedly
different.

The Accord was the first hybrid built around a V-6 gasoline engine, and
it has emphasized performance over economy - as have the Toyota
Highlander Hybrid and Lexus RX 400h that came later, also with V-6's.
But in the Camry Hybrid, Toyota uses a four-cylinder engine, which it
paired with an electric motor more powerful than Honda's. The Camry can
be expected to attain significantly higher mileage, especially in city
traffic.

The Accord Hybrid arrived in late 2004. While it carried a fuel economy
rating of 29 m.p.g. in town and 37 on the highway - respectable but
hardly breathtaking - it was also quicker than the conventional
Accord with a V-6. The hybrid's 3-liter engine produced 240 horsepower,
plus 16 from the electric motor. (The horsepower figure has since been
revised to a total of 253 because of a shift in how the number is
calculated.) Half of the cylinders shut down when power demand is low
(below 3,500 rpm), turning the 6 into a 3.

At a price of $29,990, the original Accord Hybrid cost some $3,500 more
than the similarly equipped EX V-6 model. It lacked both a spare tire
- there was an air compressor and a can of sealant instead - and a
sunroof, both sacrificed to save weight. While Honda expected to sell
20,000 a year, cumulative 15-month sales through February totaled just
19,021.

For 2006, the improved Accord Hybrid added the moonroof and a temporary
spare - and gained 85 pounds. That pushed the car into a higher
weight class for E.P.A. testing and reduced the mileage rating to
25/34. In the real world, an owner is unlikely to notice the drop,
since new underbody panels make the car more aerodynamic.

Other additions include a standard electronic stability control, L.E.D.
taillights, a rear spoiler, new alloy wheels and heated outside mirrors
with built-in turn signals. The price is now $31,540 including shipping
- or $33,540 with a navigation system.

The Accord Hybrid uses its small electric motor mostly for added boost,
but the Camry actually runs on batteries alone at low speeds. Toyota's
approach is different in other ways, too. Instead of a sizable V-6, it
has a 2.4-liter 4-cylinder engine rated at 147 horsepower. But the
Camry's electric motor contributes more than the Accord's.

The Camry reaches 60 m.p.h. in 8.9 seconds, a decent showing that
nonetheless pales before the zippy Accord's 6.9 seconds.

Last week, Toyota announced that Camry Hybrid prices would start at
$26,480, giving the car a $5,000 edge over the Accord.

The Accord comes loaded - a navigation system is one of the few
options - and the Camry Hybrid is nearly as well equipped as the
similarly priced top-of-the-line XLE, from its Bluetooth-compatible
audio system (which includes a six-CD changer and can also play your
MP3 files and dock your iPod) to its dual-zone climate control. The
Accord throws in the sunroof and leather upholstery. The Camry counters
with a split folding rear seat - a neat trick, considering how much
of the trunk was sacrificed to accommodate the battery pack (30
percent, versus 18 percent in the Accord).

The Camry's economy edge is significant, with an E.P.A. rating of 40
m.p.g. in the city and 38 on the highway. According to the trip
computer, my performance varied: I drove the Camry 269 mostly highway
miles, achieving a "personal best" of 39.3 m.p.g. and an average of
31.7. By happenstance, I was the first journalist in the Northeast to
drive both the Camry Hybrid and the freshened Accord Hybrid. The Accord
test car came with only 125 miles on the odometer, and that may account
for my poor indicated mileage: in 192 miles of mixed driving, I
averaged 20.8 m.p.g. On a second tank of gas, it did much better,
achieving 28 m.p.g.

While Honda's Integrated Motor Assist system emphasizes performance,
Toyota's Hybrid Synergy Drive stresses economy. Yet on the road, the
cars are not as different as those labels might indicate.

12Next Page »
Next Article in Automobiles (1 of 29) > Love cars? Sign up for the free
DriveTimes newsletter from NYTimes.com.

Honda Accord and Toyota Camry: Hybrids for Ozzie and Harriet

E-Mail
Printer-Friendly
Single-Page
Save Article


Published: April 2, 2006
(Page 2 of 2)



The Accord is moderately luxurious inside. A green "Eco" light
indicates economy of 25 m.p.g. or more, usually a sign that three
cylinders have shut down. The Honda's acceleration edge is obvious, and
the extra power will bring out your inner Mario Andretti. The switch
from six to three cylinders and back is nearly imperceptible; the
slightly rougher engine note is, in fact, masked by the Accord's
ingenious noise-canceling technology and "active" engine mounts, which
anticipate and counter vibration.

Skip to next paragraph
The Quest for a Plugged-In Prius The Honda's ride is stiffer, which
should help it handle the extra power. Big bumps can jar its composure.


The Camry handles better than the Accord, with pin-sharp, well-weighted
steering and a suspension that absorbs rough terrain without allowing
much body lean. It also has slightly more rear leg and shoulder room.

While the Camry feels spacious, it is smaller in some measures of
headroom, legroom and cargo volume than the less expensive Prius.

Both the Camry and Accord are emissions champs, scoring as AT-PZEV's
("advanced technology partial zero emission vehicles") under
California's arcane rating system. The only cars that are cleaner are
those that run on batteries alone.

Toyota also has an edge in styling with the fresher, sleeker look it
shares with all '07 Camrys.

Toyota really wants you to know you're in a hybrid. A huge real-time
fuel consumption gauge sits where you'd expect a tachometer to be. Set
into the speedometer is a graphic display, carried over from the Prius,
in which arrows show whether the car is running on its gas engine, its
electric motor or both.

An "Eco" button uses several subterfuges, like limiting energy used by
the air-conditioner, to enable greater use of the "auto stop" feature
that shuts off the gas engine at stoplights.

The Camry that I drove was a preproduction car that came with a note
stating that it might not meet factory standards. So my 9-year-old took
it in stride when an inside door handle came off in her hands.

But even with parts falling off, the Camry won handily over the Accord,
in my view. Still, both are good cars. Are they also good values when
compared with conventional vehicles?

Consumer Reports dropped a bomb in its April auto issue by predicting
that none of the six hybrids it tested would recover their price
premiums within five years of ownership. The magazine did not test the
Camry Hybrid, but said the Accord Hybrid would cost a whopping $10,250
more to own over five years than a comparable EX model, and the Prius
would cost $5,250 more to own than a Corolla LE.

A few days after the magazine reached subscribers, however, the editors
announced that they had overstated the hybrids' depreciation costs, and
they revised the figures. Now, provided the Prius could qualify for
federal tax credits, the magazine said it would actually save its owner
$406 over five years. The Accord owner would still be in the hole, but
for $4,263 instead of $10,250.

« Previous Page12
Next Article in Automobiles (1 of 29) > Love cars? Sign up for the free
DriveTimes newsletter from NYTimes.com.




Related Articles
TECHNOLOGY; Remaking Diesel' s Image a Lap at a Time (March 27, 2006)
For G.M. In Russia, Parts Dispute Is Only a Start (February 21, 2006)
AUTOS ON MONDAY/Technology; Turbos: 100 Years Young And Still Pushing
Hard (January 23, 2006)
Engines Go Back to the Future (December 4, 2005)
Related Searches

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/au...=1&oref=slogin

Behind the Wheel
Honda Accord and Toyota Camry: Hybrids for Ozzie and Harriet

E-Mail
Printer-Friendly
Single-Page
Save Article


By JIM MOTAVALLI
Published: April 2, 2006
RELIABLE, practical and popular, the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry are
as mainstream as white bread and as exciting as mom's meatloaf. But
hybrid technology has transformed versions of these family cars from
conservative appliances into cutting-edge green machines.

Skip to next paragraph

2006 Honda Accord hybrid

The Quest for a Plugged-In Prius

2007 Toyota Camry hybrid
Having redesigned the Camry for 2007, Toyota joins Honda in offering a
midsize sedan with a hybrid gas-electric powertrain. Honda, meanwhile,
has freshened and mildly restyled its Accords, including the hybrid.

While both cars wear hybrid labels, Toyota's approach is markedly
different.

The Accord was the first hybrid built around a V-6 gasoline engine, and
it has emphasized performance over economy - as have the Toyota
Highlander Hybrid and Lexus RX 400h that came later, also with V-6's.
But in the Camry Hybrid, Toyota uses a four-cylinder engine, which it
paired with an electric motor more powerful than Honda's. The Camry can
be expected to attain significantly higher mileage, especially in city
traffic.

The Accord Hybrid arrived in late 2004. While it carried a fuel economy
rating of 29 m.p.g. in town and 37 on the highway - respectable but
hardly breathtaking - it was also quicker than the conventional
Accord with a V-6. The hybrid's 3-liter engine produced 240 horsepower,
plus 16 from the electric motor. (The horsepower figure has since been
revised to a total of 253 because of a shift in how the number is
calculated.) Half of the cylinders shut down when power demand is low
(below 3,500 rpm), turning the 6 into a 3.

At a price of $29,990, the original Accord Hybrid cost some $3,500 more
than the similarly equipped EX V-6 model. It lacked both a spare tire
- there was an air compressor and a can of sealant instead - and a
sunroof, both sacrificed to save weight. While Honda expected to sell
20,000 a year, cumulative 15-month sales through February totaled just
19,021.

For 2006, the improved Accord Hybrid added the moonroof and a temporary
spare - and gained 85 pounds. That pushed the car into a higher
weight class for E.P.A. testing and reduced the mileage rating to
25/34. In the real world, an owner is unlikely to notice the drop,
since new underbody panels make the car more aerodynamic.

Other additions include a standard electronic stability control, L.E.D.
taillights, a rear spoiler, new alloy wheels and heated outside mirrors
with built-in turn signals. The price is now $31,540 including shipping
- or $33,540 with a navigation system.

The Accord Hybrid uses its small electric motor mostly for added boost,
but the Camry actually runs on batteries alone at low speeds. Toyota's
approach is different in other ways, too. Instead of a sizable V-6, it
has a 2.4-liter 4-cylinder engine rated at 147 horsepower. But the
Camry's electric motor contributes more than the Accord's.

The Camry reaches 60 m.p.h. in 8.9 seconds, a decent showing that
nonetheless pales before the zippy Accord's 6.9 seconds.

Last week, Toyota announced that Camry Hybrid prices would start at
$26,480, giving the car a $5,000 edge over the Accord.

The Accord comes loaded - a navigation system is one of the few
options - and the Camry Hybrid is nearly as well equipped as the
similarly priced top-of-the-line XLE, from its Bluetooth-compatible
audio system (which includes a six-CD changer and can also play your
MP3 files and dock your iPod) to its dual-zone climate control. The
Accord throws in the sunroof and leather upholstery. The Camry counters
with a split folding rear seat - a neat trick, considering how much
of the trunk was sacrificed to accommodate the battery pack (30
percent, versus 18 percent in the Accord).

The Camry's economy edge is significant, with an E.P.A. rating of 40
m.p.g. in the city and 38 on the highway. According to the trip
computer, my performance varied: I drove the Camry 269 mostly highway
miles, achieving a "personal best" of 39.3 m.p.g. and an average of
31.7. By happenstance, I was the first journalist in the Northeast to
drive both the Camry Hybrid and the freshened Accord Hybrid. The Accord
test car came with only 125 miles on the odometer, and that may account
for my poor indicated mileage: in 192 miles of mixed driving, I
averaged 20.8 m.p.g. On a second tank of gas, it did much better,
achieving 28 m.p.g.

While Honda's Integrated Motor Assist system emphasizes performance,
Toyota's Hybrid Synergy Drive stresses economy. Yet on the road, the
cars are not as different as those labels might indicate.

12Next Page »
Next Article in Automobiles (1 of 29) > Love cars? Sign up for the free
DriveTimes newsletter from NYTimes.com.

Honda Accord and Toyota Camry: Hybrids for Ozzie and Harriet

E-Mail
Printer-Friendly
Single-Page
Save Article


Published: April 2, 2006
(Page 2 of 2)



The Accord is moderately luxurious inside. A green "Eco" light
indicates economy of 25 m.p.g. or more, usually a sign that three
cylinders have shut down. The Honda's acceleration edge is obvious, and
the extra power will bring out your inner Mario Andretti. The switch
from six to three cylinders and back is nearly imperceptible; the
slightly rougher engine note is, in fact, masked by the Accord's
ingenious noise-canceling technology and "active" engine mounts, which
anticipate and counter vibration.

Skip to next paragraph
The Quest for a Plugged-In Prius The Honda's ride is stiffer, which
should help it handle the extra power. Big bumps can jar its composure.


The Camry handles better than the Accord, with pin-sharp, well-weighted
steering and a suspension that absorbs rough terrain without allowing
much body lean. It also has slightly more rear leg and shoulder room.

While the Camry feels spacious, it is smaller in some measures of
headroom, legroom and cargo volume than the less expensive Prius.

Both the Camry and Accord are emissions champs, scoring as AT-PZEV's
("advanced technology partial zero emission vehicles") under
California's arcane rating system. The only cars that are cleaner are
those that run on batteries alone.

Toyota also has an edge in styling with the fresher, sleeker look it
shares with all '07 Camrys.

Toyota really wants you to know you're in a hybrid. A huge real-time
fuel consumption gauge sits where you'd expect a tachometer to be. Set
into the speedometer is a graphic display, carried over from the Prius,
in which arrows show whether the car is running on its gas engine, its
electric motor or both.

An "Eco" button uses several subterfuges, like limiting energy used by
the air-conditioner, to enable greater use of the "auto stop" feature
that shuts off the gas engine at stoplights.

The Camry that I drove was a preproduction car that came with a note
stating that it might not meet factory standards. So my 9-year-old took
it in stride when an inside door handle came off in her hands.

But even with parts falling off, the Camry won handily over the Accord,
in my view. Still, both are good cars. Are they also good values when
compared with conventional vehicles?

Consumer Reports dropped a bomb in its April auto issue by predicting
that none of the six hybrids it tested would recover their price
premiums within five years of ownership. The magazine did not test the
Camry Hybrid, but said the Accord Hybrid would cost a whopping $10,250
more to own over five years than a comparable EX model, and the Prius
would cost $5,250 more to own than a Corolla LE.

A few days after the magazine reached subscribers, however, the editors
announced that they had overstated the hybrids' depreciation costs, and
they revised the figures. Now, provided the Prius could qualify for
federal tax credits, the magazine said it would actually save its owner
$406 over five years. The Accord owner would still be in the hole, but
for $4,263 instead of $10,250.

« Previous Page12
Next Article in Automobiles (1 of 29) > Love cars? Sign up for the free
DriveTimes newsletter from NYTimes.com.




Related Articles
TECHNOLOGY; Remaking Diesel' s Image a Lap at a Time (March 27, 2006)
For G.M. In Russia, Parts Dispute Is Only a Start (February 21, 2006)
AUTOS ON MONDAY/Technology; Turbos: 100 Years Young And Still Pushing
Hard (January 23, 2006)
Engines Go Back to the Future (December 4, 2005)
Related Searches

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/au...=1&oref=slogin

Behind the Wheel
Honda Accord and Toyota Camry: Hybrids for Ozzie and Harriet

E-Mail
Printer-Friendly
Single-Page
Save Article


By JIM MOTAVALLI
Published: April 2, 2006
RELIABLE, practical and popular, the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry are
as mainstream as white bread and as exciting as mom's meatloaf. But
hybrid technology has transformed versions of these family cars from
conservative appliances into cutting-edge green machines.

Skip to next paragraph

2006 Honda Accord hybrid

The Quest for a Plugged-In Prius

2007 Toyota Camry hybrid
Having redesigned the Camry for 2007, Toyota joins Honda in offering a
midsize sedan with a hybrid gas-electric powertrain. Honda, meanwhile,
has freshened and mildly restyled its Accords, including the hybrid.

While both cars wear hybrid labels, Toyota's approach is markedly
different.

The Accord was the first hybrid built around a V-6 gasoline engine, and
it has emphasized performance over economy - as have the Toyota
Highlander Hybrid and Lexus RX 400h that came later, also with V-6's.
But in the Camry Hybrid, Toyota uses a four-cylinder engine, which it
paired with an electric motor more powerful than Honda's. The Camry can
be expected to attain significantly higher mileage, especially in city
traffic.

The Accord Hybrid arrived in late 2004. While it carried a fuel economy
rating of 29 m.p.g. in town and 37 on the highway - respectable but
hardly breathtaking - it was also quicker than the conventional
Accord with a V-6. The hybrid's 3-liter engine produced 240 horsepower,
plus 16 from the electric motor. (The horsepower figure has since been
revised to a total of 253 because of a shift in how the number is
calculated.) Half of the cylinders shut down when power demand is low
(below 3,500 rpm), turning the 6 into a 3.

At a price of $29,990, the original Accord Hybrid cost some $3,500 more
than the similarly equipped EX V-6 model. It lacked both a spare tire
- there was an air compressor and a can of sealant instead - and a
sunroof, both sacrificed to save weight. While Honda expected to sell
20,000 a year, cumulative 15-month sales through February totaled just
19,021.

For 2006, the improved Accord Hybrid added the moonroof and a temporary
spare - and gained 85 pounds. That pushed the car into a higher
weight class for E.P.A. testing and reduced the mileage rating to
25/34. In the real world, an owner is unlikely to notice the drop,
since new underbody panels make the car more aerodynamic.

Other additions include a standard electronic stability control, L.E.D.
taillights, a rear spoiler, new alloy wheels and heated outside mirrors
with built-in turn signals. The price is now $31,540 including shipping
- or $33,540 with a navigation system.

The Accord Hybrid uses its small electric motor mostly for added boost,
but the Camry actually runs on batteries alone at low speeds. Toyota's
approach is different in other ways, too. Instead of a sizable V-6, it
has a 2.4-liter 4-cylinder engine rated at 147 horsepower. But the
Camry's electric motor contributes more than the Accord's.

The Camry reaches 60 m.p.h. in 8.9 seconds, a decent showing that
nonetheless pales before the zippy Accord's 6.9 seconds.

Last week, Toyota announced that Camry Hybrid prices would start at
$26,480, giving the car a $5,000 edge over the Accord.

The Accord comes loaded - a navigation system is one of the few
options - and the Camry Hybrid is nearly as well equipped as the
similarly priced top-of-the-line XLE, from its Bluetooth-compatible
audio system (which includes a six-CD changer and can also play your
MP3 files and dock your iPod) to its dual-zone climate control. The
Accord throws in the sunroof and leather upholstery. The Camry counters
with a split folding rear seat - a neat trick, considering how much
of the trunk was sacrificed to accommodate the battery pack (30
percent, versus 18 percent in the Accord).

The Camry's economy edge is significant, with an E.P.A. rating of 40
m.p.g. in the city and 38 on the highway. According to the trip
computer, my performance varied: I drove the Camry 269 mostly highway
miles, achieving a "personal best" of 39.3 m.p.g. and an average of
31.7. By happenstance, I was the first journalist in the Northeast to
drive both the Camry Hybrid and the freshened Accord Hybrid. The Accord
test car came with only 125 miles on the odometer, and that may account
for my poor indicated mileage: in 192 miles of mixed driving, I
averaged 20.8 m.p.g. On a second tank of gas, it did much better,
achieving 28 m.p.g.

While Honda's Integrated Motor Assist system emphasizes performance,
Toyota's Hybrid Synergy Drive stresses economy. Yet on the road, the
cars are not as different as those labels might indicate.

12Next Page »
Next Article in Automobiles (1 of 29) > Love cars? Sign up for the free
DriveTimes newsletter from NYTimes.com.

Honda Accord and Toyota Camry: Hybrids for Ozzie and Harriet

E-Mail
Printer-Friendly
Single-Page
Save Article


Published: April 2, 2006
(Page 2 of 2)



The Accord is moderately luxurious inside. A green "Eco" light
indicates economy of 25 m.p.g. or more, usually a sign that three
cylinders have shut down. The Honda's acceleration edge is obvious, and
the extra power will bring out your inner Mario Andretti. The switch
from six to three cylinders and back is nearly imperceptible; the
slightly rougher engine note is, in fact, masked by the Accord's
ingenious noise-canceling technology and "active" engine mounts, which
anticipate and counter vibration.

Skip to next paragraph
The Quest for a Plugged-In Prius The Honda's ride is stiffer, which
should help it handle the extra power. Big bumps can jar its composure.


The Camry handles better than the Accord, with pin-sharp, well-weighted
steering and a suspension that absorbs rough terrain without allowing
much body lean. It also has slightly more rear leg and shoulder room.

While the Camry feels spacious, it is smaller in some measures of
headroom, legroom and cargo volume than the less expensive Prius.

Both the Camry and Accord are emissions champs, scoring as AT-PZEV's
("advanced technology partial zero emission vehicles") under
California's arcane rating system. The only cars that are cleaner are
those that run on batteries alone.

Toyota also has an edge in styling with the fresher, sleeker look it
shares with all '07 Camrys.

Toyota really wants you to know you're in a hybrid. A huge real-time
fuel consumption gauge sits where you'd expect a tachometer to be. Set
into the speedometer is a graphic display, carried over from the Prius,
in which arrows show whether the car is running on its gas engine, its
electric motor or both.

An "Eco" button uses several subterfuges, like limiting energy used by
the air-conditioner, to enable greater use of the "auto stop" feature
that shuts off the gas engine at stoplights.

The Camry that I drove was a preproduction car that came with a note
stating that it might not meet factory standards. So my 9-year-old took
it in stride when an inside door handle came off in her hands.

But even with parts falling off, the Camry won handily over the Accord,
in my view. Still, both are good cars. Are they also good values when
compared with conventional vehicles?

Consumer Reports dropped a bomb in its April auto issue by predicting
that none of the six hybrids it tested would recover their price
premiums within five years of ownership. The magazine did not test the
Camry Hybrid, but said the Accord Hybrid would cost a whopping $10,250
more to own over five years than a comparable EX model, and the Prius
would cost $5,250 more to own than a Corolla LE.

A few days after the magazine reached subscribers, however, the editors
announced that they had overstated the hybrids' depreciation costs, and
they revised the figures. Now, provided the Prius could qualify for
federal tax credits, the magazine said it would actually save its owner
$406 over five years. The Accord owner would still be in the hole, but
for $4,263 instead of $10,250.

« Previous Page12
Next Article in Automobiles (1 of 29) > Love cars? Sign up for the free
DriveTimes newsletter from NYTimes.com.




Related Articles
TECHNOLOGY; Remaking Diesel' s Image a Lap at a Time (March 27, 2006)
For G.M. In Russia, Parts Dispute Is Only a Start (February 21, 2006)
AUTOS ON MONDAY/Technology; Turbos: 100 Years Young And Still Pushing
Hard (January 23, 2006)
Engines Go Back to the Future (December 4, 2005)
Related Searches

 

"Robert Cohen" <robtcohen@msn.com> wrote in news:1143908876.004069.326200
@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

> But if Hyundai could bring-one out for $10,000 less or whatever, there
> would seemingly be a significant lessening of oil demand for awhile
> (several years).

Not by as much as you think though.

Increasing the MPG reduces the cost of driving per mile driven.

Therefore, if more people drove hybrids, they would drive more miles as
well.

The net effect on quantity of gas demanded is not clear.

Sinan
--
A. Sinan Unur <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid>
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)

 

"Robert Cohen" <robtcohen@msn.com> wrote in news:1143908876.004069.326200
@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

> But if Hyundai could bring-one out for $10,000 less or whatever, there
> would seemingly be a significant lessening of oil demand for awhile
> (several years).

Not by as much as you think though.

Increasing the MPG reduces the cost of driving per mile driven.

Therefore, if more people drove hybrids, they would drive more miles as
well.

The net effect on quantity of gas demanded is not clear.

Sinan
--
A. Sinan Unur <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid>
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)

 

"Robert Cohen" <robtcohen@msn.com> wrote in news:1143908876.004069.326200
@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

> But if Hyundai could bring-one out for $10,000 less or whatever, there
> would seemingly be a significant lessening of oil demand for awhile
> (several years).

Not by as much as you think though.

Increasing the MPG reduces the cost of driving per mile driven.

Therefore, if more people drove hybrids, they would drive more miles as
well.

The net effect on quantity of gas demanded is not clear.

Sinan
--
A. Sinan Unur <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid>
(remove .invalid and reverse each component for email address)

 

On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 17:48:29 GMT, "A. Sinan Unur" <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid>
wrote:

>"Robert Cohen" <robtcohen@msn.com> wrote in news:1143908876.004069.326200
>@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
>> But if Hyundai could bring-one out for $10,000 less or whatever, there
>> would seemingly be a significant lessening of oil demand for awhile
>> (several years).
>
>Not by as much as you think though.
>
>Increasing the MPG reduces the cost of driving per mile driven.
>
>Therefore, if more people drove hybrids, they would drive more miles as
>well.
>
>The net effect on quantity of gas demanded is not clear.

Not to mention that it probably takes many extra barrels of oil to produce
the extra batteries, electronics, and motors on a hybrid.

I heard somewhere that hybrids will never pay the average driver back. If
you keep it long enough to pay off the hybrid features, the battery goes
bad. Needless to say, that is no cheap battery to replace!

I guess hybrids are "feel good" cars right now, but when gas goes up to $10
a gallon, they will help a lot.
--
Bob

 

On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 17:48:29 GMT, "A. Sinan Unur" <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid>
wrote:

>"Robert Cohen" <robtcohen@msn.com> wrote in news:1143908876.004069.326200
>@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
>> But if Hyundai could bring-one out for $10,000 less or whatever, there
>> would seemingly be a significant lessening of oil demand for awhile
>> (several years).
>
>Not by as much as you think though.
>
>Increasing the MPG reduces the cost of driving per mile driven.
>
>Therefore, if more people drove hybrids, they would drive more miles as
>well.
>
>The net effect on quantity of gas demanded is not clear.

Not to mention that it probably takes many extra barrels of oil to produce
the extra batteries, electronics, and motors on a hybrid.

I heard somewhere that hybrids will never pay the average driver back. If
you keep it long enough to pay off the hybrid features, the battery goes
bad. Needless to say, that is no cheap battery to replace!

I guess hybrids are "feel good" cars right now, but when gas goes up to $10
a gallon, they will help a lot.
--
Bob

 

On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 17:48:29 GMT, "A. Sinan Unur" <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid>
wrote:

>"Robert Cohen" <robtcohen@msn.com> wrote in news:1143908876.004069.326200
>@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
>> But if Hyundai could bring-one out for $10,000 less or whatever, there
>> would seemingly be a significant lessening of oil demand for awhile
>> (several years).
>
>Not by as much as you think though.
>
>Increasing the MPG reduces the cost of driving per mile driven.
>
>Therefore, if more people drove hybrids, they would drive more miles as
>well.
>
>The net effect on quantity of gas demanded is not clear.

Not to mention that it probably takes many extra barrels of oil to produce
the extra batteries, electronics, and motors on a hybrid.

I heard somewhere that hybrids will never pay the average driver back. If
you keep it long enough to pay off the hybrid features, the battery goes
bad. Needless to say, that is no cheap battery to replace!

I guess hybrids are "feel good" cars right now, but when gas goes up to $10
a gallon, they will help a lot.
--
Bob

 

Robert Cohen wrote:
> This doesn't belong here, because it's not relevant and so
> neverminddddd, though I gotta a feeling that a certain adaptive Korean
> car manufacturer is duly interested.
>
> My information & perception currently
> is that Toyota has control of hybrid patents, and Hyundai therefore
> couldn't bring-out a relatively inexpensive hybrid, because Toyota
> wouldn't cut its own throat.

Considering that both manufacturers claim to be losing money on every
hybrid them build, it would actually be more profitable for them to
license the technology to someone else.

> But if Hyundai could bring-one out for $10,000 less or whatever, there
> would seemingly be a significant lessening of oil demand for awhile
> (several years).
>
> And when China does ditto, then...nirvana.

Not really, for several reasons:

- Hybrids aren't that much more effient, especially on the highway.

- They will probably always be more expensive than comparable gas or
diesel cars, which limits their sales and makes the savings largely
illusory.

- Battery life is still a major question.

- Disposal costs will be high, which means you may actually have to pay
someone to take your car when it's worn out.

> And so, if I were the presiding politico, I'd use my
> influence/talent/finesse to encourage Toyota to consider the public
> interest, perhaps by lubricating Toyota with
> contracts/concessions/advantages so its stockholders would eagerly
> cooperate.

Why. Hybrids are really nothing but a stop-gap, not a long-term
solution. What we need is cars that don't run on fossil fuels or other
pollution producing fuels. Ideally, that fuel source would be cheaper
than gasoline, so it will appeal to the huge emerging markets in India
and China and help prevent the looming environmental disaster in those
countries (and worldwide) as they burn more and more fossil fuels.

If you're going to make a long-term investment, it makes more sense to
put your money into alternative technologies.

> A la Toyota makes U.S. mailsters & other government trucks & heaps so
> long as Toyota licenses its patents reasonably/cheaply/cost-effectively
> to its world competitors.
>
> Any constructive ideas are welcome, because massive distribution of
> hybrid technology is not unimportant in war 'n peace.

That's a nice idea, but the reality is that hybrids are a technological
dead-end.

 

Robert Cohen wrote:
> This doesn't belong here, because it's not relevant and so
> neverminddddd, though I gotta a feeling that a certain adaptive Korean
> car manufacturer is duly interested.
>
> My information & perception currently
> is that Toyota has control of hybrid patents, and Hyundai therefore
> couldn't bring-out a relatively inexpensive hybrid, because Toyota
> wouldn't cut its own throat.

Considering that both manufacturers claim to be losing money on every
hybrid them build, it would actually be more profitable for them to
license the technology to someone else.

> But if Hyundai could bring-one out for $10,000 less or whatever, there
> would seemingly be a significant lessening of oil demand for awhile
> (several years).
>
> And when China does ditto, then...nirvana.

Not really, for several reasons:

- Hybrids aren't that much more effient, especially on the highway.

- They will probably always be more expensive than comparable gas or
diesel cars, which limits their sales and makes the savings largely
illusory.

- Battery life is still a major question.

- Disposal costs will be high, which means you may actually have to pay
someone to take your car when it's worn out.

> And so, if I were the presiding politico, I'd use my
> influence/talent/finesse to encourage Toyota to consider the public
> interest, perhaps by lubricating Toyota with
> contracts/concessions/advantages so its stockholders would eagerly
> cooperate.

Why. Hybrids are really nothing but a stop-gap, not a long-term
solution. What we need is cars that don't run on fossil fuels or other
pollution producing fuels. Ideally, that fuel source would be cheaper
than gasoline, so it will appeal to the huge emerging markets in India
and China and help prevent the looming environmental disaster in those
countries (and worldwide) as they burn more and more fossil fuels.

If you're going to make a long-term investment, it makes more sense to
put your money into alternative technologies.

> A la Toyota makes U.S. mailsters & other government trucks & heaps so
> long as Toyota licenses its patents reasonably/cheaply/cost-effectively
> to its world competitors.
>
> Any constructive ideas are welcome, because massive distribution of
> hybrid technology is not unimportant in war 'n peace.

That's a nice idea, but the reality is that hybrids are a technological
dead-end.

 

Robert Cohen wrote:
> This doesn't belong here, because it's not relevant and so
> neverminddddd, though I gotta a feeling that a certain adaptive Korean
> car manufacturer is duly interested.
>
> My information & perception currently
> is that Toyota has control of hybrid patents, and Hyundai therefore
> couldn't bring-out a relatively inexpensive hybrid, because Toyota
> wouldn't cut its own throat.

Considering that both manufacturers claim to be losing money on every
hybrid them build, it would actually be more profitable for them to
license the technology to someone else.

> But if Hyundai could bring-one out for $10,000 less or whatever, there
> would seemingly be a significant lessening of oil demand for awhile
> (several years).
>
> And when China does ditto, then...nirvana.

Not really, for several reasons:

- Hybrids aren't that much more effient, especially on the highway.

- They will probably always be more expensive than comparable gas or
diesel cars, which limits their sales and makes the savings largely
illusory.

- Battery life is still a major question.

- Disposal costs will be high, which means you may actually have to pay
someone to take your car when it's worn out.

> And so, if I were the presiding politico, I'd use my
> influence/talent/finesse to encourage Toyota to consider the public
> interest, perhaps by lubricating Toyota with
> contracts/concessions/advantages so its stockholders would eagerly
> cooperate.

Why. Hybrids are really nothing but a stop-gap, not a long-term
solution. What we need is cars that don't run on fossil fuels or other
pollution producing fuels. Ideally, that fuel source would be cheaper
than gasoline, so it will appeal to the huge emerging markets in India
and China and help prevent the looming environmental disaster in those
countries (and worldwide) as they burn more and more fossil fuels.

If you're going to make a long-term investment, it makes more sense to
put your money into alternative technologies.

> A la Toyota makes U.S. mailsters & other government trucks & heaps so
> long as Toyota licenses its patents reasonably/cheaply/cost-effectively
> to its world competitors.
>
> Any constructive ideas are welcome, because massive distribution of
> hybrid technology is not unimportant in war 'n peace.

That's a nice idea, but the reality is that hybrids are a technological
dead-end.

 

Bob Adkins wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 17:48:29 GMT, "A. Sinan Unur" <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Robert Cohen" <robtcohen@msn.com> wrote in news:1143908876.004069.326200
>>@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>>But if Hyundai could bring-one out for $10,000 less or whatever, there
>>>would seemingly be a significant lessening of oil demand for awhile
>>>(several years).
>>
>>Not by as much as you think though.
>>
>>Increasing the MPG reduces the cost of driving per mile driven.
>>
>>Therefore, if more people drove hybrids, they would drive more miles as
>>well.
>>
>>The net effect on quantity of gas demanded is not clear.
>
>
> Not to mention that it probably takes many extra barrels of oil to produce
> the extra batteries, electronics, and motors on a hybrid.
>
> I heard somewhere that hybrids will never pay the average driver back. If
> you keep it long enough to pay off the hybrid features, the battery goes
> bad. Needless to say, that is no cheap battery to replace!

Consumer Reports just recently made such an analysis of several
different vehicles that have both a conventional and hybrid version.
You are right in that from an purely economic perspective, hybrids are a
fools play.


Matt

 

Bob Adkins wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 17:48:29 GMT, "A. Sinan Unur" <1usa@llenroc.ude.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>
>>"Robert Cohen" <robtcohen@msn.com> wrote in news:1143908876.004069.326200
>>@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>>But if Hyundai could bring-one out for $10,000 less or whatever, there
>>>would seemingly be a significant lessening of oil demand for awhile
>>>(several years).
>>
>>Not by as much as you think though.
>>
>>Increasing the MPG reduces the cost of driving per mile driven.
>>
>>Therefore, if more people drove hybrids, they would drive more miles as
>>well.
>>
>>The net effect on quantity of gas demanded is not clear.
>
>
> Not to mention that it probably takes many extra barrels of oil to produce
> the extra batteries, electronics, and motors on a hybrid.
>
> I heard somewhere that hybrids will never pay the average driver back. If
> you keep it long enough to pay off the hybrid features, the battery goes
> bad. Needless to say, that is no cheap battery to replace!

Consumer Reports just recently made such an analysis of several
different vehicles that have both a conventional and hybrid version.
You are right in that from an purely economic perspective, hybrids are a
fools play.


Matt