"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...
Do the math, Bubbles. You'll never break even with that Prius over,
say, a
Corolla or especially a Yaris or the small Scion hatchback. There is
no
hybrid currently built that will save money overall in the long


Max....
1) What about emissions?

What about 'em? Like the percentage of hybrid cars is gonna make a
significant difference? Why not pure electric commuter cars, if you really
want to lower emissions? Toyota produced a RAV 4 pure electric car, but it
didn't sell, so they dropped it. Apparently no one is really THAT
interested in reducing auto-produced emissions.

2) What about investing in real world fuel saving technology for the
future?

Hybrids aren't the answer. Question: when all those monstrous hybrid
batteries are defunct, what do you propose to do with all the plastic shells
and the sulfated lead? Turbocharging small engines makes more sense in the
long run for fuel conservation--it's cheaper to produce, easily as
economical, and emission would be roughly the same. So does buring ethanol,
which produces water and carbon dioxide, as opposed to the complex
hydrocarbon emissions gasoline-burning autos produce.

3) What about the fact that the new Prius and Camry hybrids are also
far more comfortable cars than the typical econobox?

Do you really want to reduce emission and burn less fuel, or do you simply
want a comfortable car. Might I suggest a Lincoln Navigator for *real*
comfort. Incidentally, the Camry hybrid is not intended to help conserve
fuel--it's primary purpose is to provide *more power* for the same amount of
fuel burned by smaller, more anemic engines. Same with the Toyota
Highlander hybrid and others. Only the Honda Civic hybrid, the ugly Honda
2-place Insight, and the Prius are really meant as "green" cars.

4) What about NOT giving MORE money to big oil and the middle men?

Big Oil is gonna get your hard-earned cash one way or another, at least
until some real alternatives become reality. Of course as soon as one
mentions ethanol, JLRogers and Old Thom get their hackles up, contending
that only petroleum can power our vehicles. Well guess what--some day the
planet's petroleum will be in such short supply that people either won't
drive vehicles powered with the stuff, or only the extremely rich will be
able to drive cars. Hydrogen fuel cells are a viable alternative, but of
course the big oil mavens can give you dozens of "sound" reasons why that
will never happen, either.

There's plenty of crude in the Earth to power our vehicles for the rest of
our lives. However if you give a **** about your ancestors, you might
consider developing alternatives before they become absolute necessities.

Max

There's plenty of crude in the Earth to power our vehicles for the rest
of
our lives.


It's easy to dismiss the current Hybrids, Max, just like almost all
forms of recycling (except for cans) is not really helping. But the
only way these technologies eventually become benificial is when we
invest in them.
My comment about a comfortable car refers to the suggestion of a
Corolla, a car I can't even drive as I'm too tall. Most of those midget
econoboxes won't work for someone over 6'1 tall.
Your comment about the Camry hybrid is dead wrong. Read the specs and
European tests that were done.
Oil may get my money, but they'll get less of it.
Oh, and the Lincoln Navigator is not even in the same high-class of
comfort as my Tribeca. I strongly suggest you drive the awful
Navigator. It's a clear lesson as to why US car companies can't compete
at all.

RB
35s5
NY

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...
There's plenty of crude in the Earth to power our vehicles for the rest
of
our lives.


It's easy to dismiss the current Hybrids, Max, just like almost all
forms of recycling (except for cans) is not really helping. But the
only way these technologies eventually become benificial is when we
invest in them.

Hybrids rely on petroleum for all their energy. Are you saying we shouldn't
bother with alternative fuels?

My comment about a comfortable car refers to the suggestion of a
Corolla, a car I can't even drive as I'm too tall. Most of those midget
econoboxes won't work for someone over 6'1 tall.

Ergo my suggestion of a Lincoln Navigator for you. 12mpg, Bubbles.

Your comment about the Camry hybrid is dead wrong. Read the specs and
European tests that were done.

It's not wrong. The Camry hybrid's goal was to allow a more powerful engine
with no more fuel expenditure than a smaller V6. If the project had been
intended as an ultra fuel-efficient. green car, they would have used the
same engine/motor combination as the Prius.

Oil may get my money, but they'll get less of it.

Right, but Toyota will get a lot more of it--more than it needs to. Buy a
Yaris and the bottom line will be less money out of your pocket over the
long run than with a Prius or especially with the Camry or a Honda Accord
hybrid.

Oh, and the Lincoln Navigator is not even in the same high-class of
comfort as my Tribeca. I strongly suggest you drive the awful
Navigator. It's a clear lesson as to why US car companies can't compete
at all.

I wouldn't drive either, thanks.

Max

Right, but Toyota will get a lot more of it--more than it needs to.
Buy a
Yaris and the bottom line will be less money out of your pocket over
the
long run than with a Prius or especially with the Camry or a Honda
Accord
hybrid.

You keep chanting this and avoiding facts. Taller people can't drive
those econoboxes. I like Toyota...great cars and they earn their money
by making them better every few months.


The Camry hybrid's goal was to allow a more powerful engine
with no more fuel expenditure than a smaller V6.

And if you read read the results they got high 30's making it a great
car for MPG. And it's large enough for tall people, luggage and crash
safety. End of story.

Hybrids rely on petroleum for all their energy. Are you saying we
shouldn't
bother with alternative fuels?

Alternative fuel powered cars are not practical or really available for
most people, Max. Are you saying that this is good reason to drive a
Lincoln, burn more fuel and polute more than is required. That's some
argument.


RB
35s5
NY

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...
Right, but Toyota will get a lot more of it--more than it needs to.
Buy a
Yaris and the bottom line will be less money out of your pocket over
the
long run than with a Prius or especially with the Camry or a Honda
Accord
hybrid.

You keep chanting this and avoiding facts. Taller people can't drive
those econoboxes.

How tall are you? I'm 6' and can sit in a Yaris with at least two or three
inches to spare overhead.

The Camry hybrid's goal was to allow a more powerful engine
with no more fuel expenditure than a smaller V6.

And if you read read the results they got high 30's making it a great
car for MPG. And it's large enough for tall people, luggage and crash
safety. End of story.

Was that 30mpg an all-around average, or just highway. Actually, IIRC,
hybrids get slightly better mileage in city driving, mostly because their
engines shut down at stoplights and restart automatically when the
accelerator is pressed. AND they use more electric motor power for starts,
etc. But my BMW 323Ci gets around 32 on the highway, but averages about 26
overall. A four-cylinder Camry will do even better than that. My
contention is that Toyota wanted to make a car with the power of a big V6
but with the fuel economy of a 4. And they did. If they'd really wanted to
make the Camry hybrid a green ultra-econocar they'd have put a 4cyl with the
electric motor. That wasn't their purpose, however. Same is true with the
Highland hybrid.

Hybrids rely on petroleum for all their energy. Are you saying we
shouldn't
bother with alternative fuels?

Alternative fuel powered cars are not practical or really available for
most people, Max. Are you saying that this is good reason to drive a
Lincoln, burn more fuel and polute more than is required. That's some
argument.

How in Hell did you draw that conclusion?? To the contrary, I think the US
vehicle fleet should be comprised of at least 50% E85-compatible vehicles by
2012. And I think hydrogen fuel cells can be practical for commuter
vehicles. In the meantime, turbocharging can give decent power curves to
smaller engines with acceptable fuel economy without all the complexity and
expense of hybrid systems, to say nothing of avoiding the disposal problem
of megatons of sulfated lead from all those giant batteries the hybrids use.
THAT is a real ecological disaster waiting to happen, if hybrids catch on
more than the few percentage points they now occupy.

Max

How tall are you? I'm 6' and can sit in a Yaris with at least two or
three
inches to spare overhead.

I'm 6'3 and I'm too tall for most compacts. But if you knew something
about driving, you'd also know that even shorter people can have
trouble if their legs are long.


Was that 30mpg an all-around average, or just highway. Actually, IIRC,
hybrids get slightly better mileage in city driving, mostly because
their
engines

Actually, you have no clue. I drove the Prius for several days and we
got MUCH better MPG locally off highway. Owners know it's more than
slightly better.

My
contention is that Toyota wanted to make a car with the power of a big
V6


Your contention is hardly a factor. The FACTS are that the Camry does
great MPG, have lower emmisions and is part of a improving curve of
higher MPG cars that don't sacrifice drivability and comfort.


To the contrary, I think the US
vehicle fleet should be comprised of at least 50% E85-compatible
vehicles by
2012.

And I think warp drive should also be installed. But here on planet
Earth we won't have any such thing. Meanwhile, at least some of us can
opt to spend less on fuel today.


RB
35s5
NY

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...
How tall are you? I'm 6' and can sit in a Yaris with at least two or
three
inches to spare overhead.

I'm 6'3 and I'm too tall for most compacts. But if you knew something
about driving, you'd also know that even shorter people can have
trouble if their legs are long.

I raced D and E production in SCCA track events for over 20 years. Does
that qualify me to know "something about driving?" But to respond to your
comment, the Yaris has more leg room than you'd probably need. With the
seat all the way back, I'm quite comfortable with my 32" inseam. But I'll
grant that you are probably too, um, sizeable for a Yaris.


Was that 30mpg an all-around average, or just highway. Actually, IIRC,
hybrids get slightly better mileage in city driving, mostly because
their
engines

Actually, you have no clue. I drove the Prius for several days and we
got MUCH better MPG locally off highway. Owners know it's more than
slightly better.

You have far more stops in NYC than most folks do. But on the average, the
Prius and the Honda Civic hybrid do only a little better in city vs. highway
driving. That is according to Toyota and Honda literature, as well as
findings by the automotive press.

My
contention is that Toyota wanted to make a car with the power of a big
V6


Your contention is hardly a factor. The FACTS are that the Camry does
great MPG, have lower emmisions and is part of a improving curve of
higher MPG cars that don't sacrifice drivability and comfort.


To the contrary, I think the US
vehicle fleet should be comprised of at least 50% E85-compatible
vehicles by
2012.

And I think warp drive should also be installed. But here on planet
Earth we won't have any such thing. Meanwhile, at least some of us can
opt to spend less on fuel today.

Brazil is almost completely E-85 now, and has ceased importing foreign oil.
You should read the paper or watch TV a little more before opening mouth and
inserting foot. Oh wait, that wasn't your foot, was it. g

Say, Bubbles--are you going to run that Bendy Toy on biodiesel? If not, you
should be ashamed.

Max

But my BMW 323Ci

Gawd, talk about a silly car.


RB
35s5
NY

"Capt. Rob" wrote in message
oups.com...
But my BMW 323Ci

Gawd, talk about a silly car.

Do I detect just a note of jealousy, Bubbles? Huh? g

Max

Heavy lead acid battery technology is obsolete.

Fast charging lithium batteries will take over. Recycling of tires is
now standard, as will become recycling of old batteries, once the plant
gets rolling that can do it economically. Old tires are used to make
rubber products like cow beds, truck liners and even ashphalt.

Oil can now be cooked up from agri waste, but there is plenty for quite
a while. It is expensive only thanks to rapacious monopolistic
marketing and lobbying and outright spoofy lies to protect the big oil
guys.

A car with electric wheelmotors and batteries can easily outperform
pure i.c. engined cars, especially if short trips and high
accelleration is the aim, because the i.c. engine carries all the
weight of sustainable output with much inefficient complexity, whilst
electric motors can provide more torque at lower weight and regenerate
charge with the braking action. Batteries will become cheaper than
gasoline before gasoline prices will decline.

Long range is a little different, but range enough can be achieved for
town use, especially if local smog is considered, and pure energy
efficiency is costed in. Refining oil to gas is only 50% efficient, and
i.c. engines are only 25% efficient at the user end. 12% overall
efficiency is deplorable, especially considering the smog. The oil
would better be used for lightweight, recycleable structural uses.

Legally, do those in huge cars have some inherent right to scare off
lightweight personal vehicles, by intimating that it's better to run
over little guys on the road with huge tanks? If I choose to drive a
raintight one seater, does a tank driver have the right to ignore me on
the road, especially if his brakes are just not up to stopping him more
quickly than he can accellerate?

Is there a law that says petro fuel is the only one allowed on publicly
paid roads?

If the gov legislated some efficiency requirement in the interest of
our environment should that carry more authority than some peniphilic
rich ******* in a personal hummer? Do you really think that driving a
semi around town should be acceptable social behavoir, for personal
safety or prestige reasons? Perhaps for a hated politician or oil
magnate?

Pure alcohol is a very good fuel, invisible fire flames or no. I wonder
if reverse osmosis or some other process will turn out to be more
efficient than distillation in the production of high grade alcohol.
Solar power could increase the efficiency of the distillation process,
since alky brew needs be heated only to 85 celcius to accomplish
distillation, and the water can be re-used for fermentation. Cellulosic
alcohol can now be made very cheaply.

All oil came from life forms. All fuel depends on solar power
transformed one way or another. Technology is showing us the way to
localise and accellerate the natural process. Considering the
efficiencies of making oil and making alcohol, we can do better than
nature.

We can certainly do better than the profit wringing oil monopolists
would have us believe. The competition of alky and electric or hybrid
plus home charge vehicles using the combination of alcohol and fine
tuned i.c. battery chargers, lightweight lithium batteries and small
powerful lightweight wheel motors is our best weapon against the oil
monster, and it for that reason alone, not any actual or contrived
temporary or long term oil or gasoline shortage, that I feel it must be
supported. Government will never protect us against the oil guys,
since it is they who own the government, and it is they who will oppose
nuclear generation for the same reason, by whatever emotive arguements
are convenient, including promoting fear of "The Bomb", or terrorist
states, or waste recycling, or burying fusion advances.

Only innovative enterpreneures can save us from the oil monopolists,
who will naturally oppose any market share penetration by any means
contrivable, wether commercial propoganda, undermining subterfuge,
political means, or even environmental arguements, as twisted as that
logic may become. Lip service aside, oil producers have no interest
whatever in promoting fuel efficiency, or petro derived packaging
efficiency, for that matter. For them, only our increase in
consumption is paramount. Their arguements can all be discounted except
those that do not need promotion by advocates, as the truth will out
itself in the end. Probably, some farmer will cook sileage and turkey
guts and run his tractor on it and patent the process and get rich in
his own way. I think it's actually been done, except for the getting
"RICH!!" part.

Can we not do better than requiring everyone to commute long distance,
or go faster, or for both parental partners to work all day and hire
sitters, an impossible economic requirement?

Our societal model needs revamping. People are surely more important
than their automobiles, and our society is failing at providing mass
transit and local work opportunities.

Terry K