Hummer versus Prius

[BaliBabyDoc]

Hmm . . . 2WD Escape Hybrid looking pretty good there. Nah . . . still a Ford.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Hmm . . . 2WD Escape Hybrid looking pretty good there. Nah . . . still a Ford.

Let's be fair here, you're not talking about vehicles that get good mileage, you're talking about vehicles that are part of the problem

 

[Ktulu]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Except when 'further study' is an excuse to do nothing.

Automakers (including Toyota and Honda) CHOSE to produce larger, more powerful vehicles over the past two decades because they were NOT compelled to make smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles.

But a curious thing happened. The EU and Japan imposed regulatory and tax policies that favored more fuel efficient vehicles. Average fuel economy in the EU zone and Japan is twice that in the US. GLOBAL automakers produced competitive products worldwide. US automakers . . . not so much . . . for the largest market.

US automakers had predicted doom and gloom:
1) Americans won't buy smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles. They've told us they want big, bigger, and What Would Jesus Drive if he was a arsehole.
2) It's too expensive to make efficient vehicles. Even if it wasn't the case, we make more money in the land yacht segment.
3) Why bother? Just drill more oil!

I'm tired of the BS agendas where the entire world must pay through the nose b/c a particular industry (or company) might have reduced profit. Granted, that's not much of a problem at Ford these days and HUMMER hasn't seen MSRP in years. Toyota claims a profit on the Prius. Even if that isn't true, you know they are making bank on Corollas and four cylinder Camrys. Honda is THE engine/engineering company among global automakers. Accordingly, they manage to make sub20k boxes that scoot (Honda Fit) and then a whole line from mild to wild using a single platform (Civic).

What does the Domestic 2.5 have to offer? The Chevy Aveo?

Riiiiight.........................

The following GM vehicles easily get 30 mpg or better:
Aveo
Cobalt
G5
ION (being replaced with the Astra)
Malibu and Hybrid version
G6
Aura and Hybrid version
HHR
Vue Hybrid
Solstice/Sky

Not too mention GM's trucks/Suv's easily out class Toyota's in regards to mileage. And I'm just talking about GM, which we've still yet to see their 2-mode Hybrid system at work.

 

[OS]

http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/

while BSing back and forth over this same report on another car forum, I started reading the 458 page document and I am now convinced the methodology is flawed. In fact it is so utterly flawed, it was probably intentional;


In the very beginning, the study estimates vehicle life as follows;

psuv H1 $3.505/mile 379,000 miles
hy Prius $3.249/mile 109,000 miles

sorry, but they made up some completely unreasonably short lifespan for the prius and an unrealistically long one for the hummer.

Prius are not scrapped after 110K miles, nor will H1s on average live to 380K.

Of course, when you take the total dollar/energy cost of the vehicle and average it over a made up, artificially short time period, the cost per mile will shoot up. The reverse is also true, make the life artificially long and the cost per mile will be low.

The article is complete BS.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: OS
The article is complete BS.

An article the resident radical righties wholly endorse. Sad indeed

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Ktulu

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Except when 'further study' is an excuse to do nothing.

Automakers (including Toyota and Honda) CHOSE to produce larger, more powerful vehicles over the past two decades because they were NOT compelled to make smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles.

But a curious thing happened. The EU and Japan imposed regulatory and tax policies that favored more fuel efficient vehicles. Average fuel economy in the EU zone and Japan is twice that in the US. GLOBAL automakers produced competitive products worldwide. US automakers . . . not so much . . . for the largest market.

US automakers had predicted doom and gloom:
1) Americans won't buy smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles. They've told us they want big, bigger, and What Would Jesus Drive if he was a arsehole.
2) It's too expensive to make efficient vehicles. Even if it wasn't the case, we make more money in the land yacht segment.
3) Why bother? Just drill more oil!

I'm tired of the BS agendas where the entire world must pay through the nose b/c a particular industry (or company) might have reduced profit. Granted, that's not much of a problem at Ford these days and HUMMER hasn't seen MSRP in years. Toyota claims a profit on the Prius. Even if that isn't true, you know they are making bank on Corollas and four cylinder Camrys. Honda is THE engine/engineering company among global automakers. Accordingly, they manage to make sub20k boxes that scoot (Honda Fit) and then a whole line from mild to wild using a single platform (Civic).

What does the Domestic 2.5 have to offer? The Chevy Aveo?

Riiiiight.........................

The following GM vehicles easily get 30 mpg or better:
Aveo *puke*
Cobalt *puke*
G5 *I owned one of these back when they called them 'Grand AM' .. puke x2!*
ION (being replaced with the Astra) *Hideous*
Malibu and Hybrid version *More half-baked trash*
G6 *meh .. decent but I'd take an Acura/Honda/Toyota over it in a flash*
Aura and Hybrid version *Chalk up another cringe-worthy design for Saturn*
HHR *LOL*
Vue Hybrid *Actually pretty good*
Solstice/Sky *The Saturn actually looks much better than the pontiac version, but still cheesy*

Not too mention GM's trucks/Suv's easily out class Toyota's in regards to mileage. And I'm just talking about GM, which we've still yet to see their 2-mode Hybrid system at work.

Easily out class Toyota in mileage? Hmm, browsing around Edmunds.com with comparisons, they seem pretty much equal. I would take the Chevy/GM product primarily because the price is much better, and taken care of, they will usually last to 200k miles. That being said, I don't think that either manufacturer has a claim to overall superior fuel economy for trucks/Suvs. By their very nature, they are thirsty. Best compromise seems to be a manual transmission/good driver/6 cylinder engine, unless you need to pull heavy cargo around.

Edit : on Edmunds, the Chevy Silverado apparently scores VERY well on the smog test! Cool

 

[Ktulu]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Ktulu

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Except when 'further study' is an excuse to do nothing.

Automakers (including Toyota and Honda) CHOSE to produce larger, more powerful vehicles over the past two decades because they were NOT compelled to make smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles.

But a curious thing happened. The EU and Japan imposed regulatory and tax policies that favored more fuel efficient vehicles. Average fuel economy in the EU zone and Japan is twice that in the US. GLOBAL automakers produced competitive products worldwide. US automakers . . . not so much . . . for the largest market.

US automakers had predicted doom and gloom:
1) Americans won't buy smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles. They've told us they want big, bigger, and What Would Jesus Drive if he was a arsehole.
2) It's too expensive to make efficient vehicles. Even if it wasn't the case, we make more money in the land yacht segment.
3) Why bother? Just drill more oil!

I'm tired of the BS agendas where the entire world must pay through the nose b/c a particular industry (or company) might have reduced profit. Granted, that's not much of a problem at Ford these days and HUMMER hasn't seen MSRP in years. Toyota claims a profit on the Prius. Even if that isn't true, you know they are making bank on Corollas and four cylinder Camrys. Honda is THE engine/engineering company among global automakers. Accordingly, they manage to make sub20k boxes that scoot (Honda Fit) and then a whole line from mild to wild using a single platform (Civic).

What does the Domestic 2.5 have to offer? The Chevy Aveo?

Riiiiight.........................

The following GM vehicles easily get 30 mpg or better:
Aveo *puke* Agreed
Cobalt *puke* Although quality is low, performance is very good
G5 *I owned one of these back when they called them 'Grand AM' .. puke x2!* shows how much you know, this is a Sunfire replacement
ION (being replaced with the Astra) *Hideous* Ion yes, but most seem to love the Astra
Malibu and Hybrid version *More half-baked trash* please go take a look at the 2008 model
G6 *meh .. decent but I'd take an Acura/Honda/Toyota over it in a flash* Subjective
Aura and Hybrid version *Chalk up another cringe-worthy design for Saturn* North American Car of the Year
HHR *LOL* Subjective
Vue Hybrid *Actually pretty good*
Solstice/Sky *The Saturn actually looks much better than the pontiac version, but still cheesy* Subjective

Not too mention GM's trucks/Suv's easily out class Toyota's in regards to mileage. And I'm just talking about GM, which we've still yet to see their 2-mode Hybrid system at work.

Easily out class Toyota in mileage? Hmm, browsing around Edmunds.com with comparisons, they seem pretty much equal. I would take the Chevy/GM product primarily because the price is much better, and taken care of, they will usually last to 200k miles. That being said, I don't think that either manufacturer has a claim to overall superior fuel economy for trucks/Suvs. By their very nature, they are thirsty. Best compromise seems to be a manual transmission/good driver/6 cylinder engine, unless you need to pull heavy cargo around.

Your highlights are pointless since you're going by styling, which is subjective. Especially since my post was regarding Fuel Economy. And although thirsty, GM Fullsize trucks and SUV's do have much better economy, it might be by a 1 or 2 MPG.

 

[Strk]

The G5 wasn't a Grand Am replacement. The G5 is a rebadged Cobalt/Ion. The G6 is the replacement for the Grand Am.

GM is slowly refreshing its entire line, but that won't be finished for a couple more years (I.e. the Malibu will be completely new in 2009, rather than just refreshed, the Impala will be RWD, Pontiac G8 etc)

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: Ktulu
The following GM vehicles easily get 30 mpg or better:
Aveo *puke*
Cobalt *puke*
G5 *I owned one of these back when they called them 'Grand AM' .. puke x2!*
ION (being replaced with the Astra) *Hideous*
Malibu and Hybrid version *More half-baked trash*
G6 *meh .. decent but I'd take an Acura/Honda/Toyota over it in a flash*
Aura and Hybrid version *Chalk up another cringe-worthy design for Saturn*
HHR *LOL*
Vue Hybrid *Actually pretty good*
Solstice/Sky *The Saturn actually looks much better than the pontiac version, but still cheesy*

Not too mention GM's trucks/Suv's easily out class Toyota's in regards to mileage. And I'm just talking about GM, which we've still yet to see their 2-mode Hybrid system at work.

Easily out class Toyota in mileage? Hmm, browsing around Edmunds.com with comparisons, they seem pretty much equal. I would take the Chevy/GM product primarily because the price is much better, and taken care of, they will usually last to 200k miles. That being said, I don't think that either manufacturer has a claim to overall superior fuel economy for trucks/Suvs. By their very nature, they are thirsty. Best compromise seems to be a manual transmission/good driver/6 cylinder engine, unless you need to pull heavy cargo around.

Edit : on Edmunds, the Chevy Silverado apparently scores VERY well on the smog test! Cool

MK... the G6 is the new grand am, not the G5, and other than mediocre fuel economy, I'm not sure what there was to complain about with the grand am. I've yet to drive a better bad-weather car that could be had for average money.

The malibu, besides being boring, is a very capable car. As far as styling, no one has a lock on boring like honda does But that doesn't make the cars bad.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Aveo

Not much power, manual transmission's gearing is too wide, unimpressive real-world fuel economy.

oops

Cobalt

Cheap interior plastics, cramped backseat, lack of interior storage, dull handling, mediocre fit and finish.

Hmm, good gas mileage . . . crappy car.

HHR

Mediocre handling and braking, engines lack refinement, some low-grade plastic trim and quirky ergonomics.

New EPA says HHR never actually got 30 city. Even if it did, it's still POS.

Malibu

Bland interior design and materials, mediocre steering and brakes, four-cylinder engine weak for this class, stability control and manual gearbox are not available.

Another crappy car . . . although getting better.

Aura is actually a decent car. Arguably, a competent competitor in the modern market.

Ion

Limited rear legroom, center-mounted instrumentation takes some getting used to, poor side-impact crash test results, below-average interior materials.

Crappy car that might kill you in a T-bone.

Sky

Not much trunk space, no side airbags, poor interior ergonomics and plastics quality, complicated top operation.

Decent first try at a sports cabrio. Miata is still a superior vehicle, but the Sky is awesome when its sitting still.

Overall, it's a fantasy that these vehicles 'easily' get over 30mpg. Most have new EPA hwy numbers 27-32 and average mpg below 30mpg due to the large gap between hwy and city.

There's nothing magical about what Toyota and Honda have done. They build decent looking cars (often dull though), reliable, and good gas mileage. The problem for Ford/GM is they either don't know how to build a small/midsize car (not really true) or refuse to bring their best Euro/Asian cars stateside (Mondeo). The primary engineering problem is poor performing engines under 3.2L of displacement. Ford and GM would have INSTANT gas mileage cred' if they brought their best Euro diesels to the US.

 

[Strk]

GM is bringing over a lot of its European designs. You have the Aura (Opel/Vauxhaul Vectra) and now you have the Astra coming over. They're also finally upgrading the interiors of their vehicles, which have been desperately lacking in quality over the years. They still have a lot of cars they haven't refreshed, but they're getting there. It's only a handful so far though. At this point, it's still probably less than half with the updated interiors (by updated I mean that you wouldn't get into them and laugh at how pathetic the materials used are).

Ford is in much of the same boat with the interiors. You mentioned the Escape earlier. It's finally getting an updated interior with the 2008 model. They don't seem to be bringing over much in the way of their European line though. Even to the point where the stubbornness of continuing to use the old Focus platform supposedly will cost more than using the one used in the European Focus.

As for the diesels, well, that's not really their fault for not bringing them over. For starters, until recently, they could only be sold in 45 states. Add to that Americans aren't exactly thrilled by diesels, even though they are worlds different from the diesels of yesteryear. Perhaps by 2008/09 we will see some in numerous company's lines. I believe VW will be the first with a 50-state diesel passenger car, with Honda not far behind them. The other two confirmed companies would be BMW and DCX.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

But that's the problem, Strk. Why can't Detroit lead on something other than complaining, 'woe is me?'

VW and DCX have been selling diesels for years. Americans aren't thrilled . . . yet . . . but $3 regular needs a year or two to work its magic. And God forbid the corn pirates get their wish of pushing up ethanol content. Oil burners will start to look like a Prius on steroids. But you state it explicitly that VW will be first with Honda hot on their heels. Toyota is plotting and BMW's sole worry is cutting into their cache (if their oil burner isn't as smooth as status seekers require). If Mercedes gets Blutec to work well then I wouldn't be surprised if other lux makers try to by in. Regardless, Detroit will not LEAD. Per norm, they will follow . . . slowly and probably with poor execution. I don't care what people say. E85 is retarded . . . unless you own a 1k acres of corn or an ethanol processing plant. I will never buy an E85 vehicle for the honor of getting worse fuel economy.

It's not surprising that Detroit doesn't make a decent small diesel or even a V6. But seems like they would have a clue about how to make some 4, 5, or 6L beasts. But who's the champ? Friggin' Audi . . . their V8 in a two-ton + Q7 hits 60 in 6.4 while getting 21mpg hwy. The mileage isn't really impressive . . . unless of course you compare it to a Grand Cherokee SRT8. From a more practical perspective, Audi is going to use MB's Bluetec 3L in their lineup. What does Detroit have to offer? E85 and a hydrogen dream . . .

The latest Mondeo is a damn fine looking car and has clear potential from a performance perspective. But Americans won't see it for years . . . if ever.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
But that's the problem, Strk. Why can't Detroit lead on something other than complaining, 'woe is me?'

VW and DCX have been selling diesels for years. Americans aren't thrilled . . . yet . . . but $3 regular needs a year or two to work its magic. And God forbid the corn pirates get their wish of pushing up ethanol content. Oil burners will start to look like a Prius on steroids. But you state it explicitly that VW will be first with Honda hot on their heels. Toyota is plotting and BMW's sole worry is cutting into their cache (if their oil burner isn't as smooth as status seekers require). If Mercedes gets Blutec to work well then I wouldn't be surprised if other lux makers try to by in. Regardless, Detroit will not LEAD. Per norm, they will follow . . . slowly and probably with poor execution. I don't care what people say. E85 is retarded . . . unless you own a 1k acres of corn or an ethanol processing plant. I will never buy an E85 vehicle for the honor of getting worse fuel economy.

It's not surprising that Detroit doesn't make a decent small diesel or even a V6. But seems like they would have a clue about how to make some 4, 5, or 6L beasts. But who's the champ? Friggin' Audi . . . their V8 in a two-ton + Q7 hits 60 in 6.4 while getting 21mpg hwy. The mileage isn't really impressive . . . unless of course you compare it to a Grand Cherokee SRT8. From a more practical perspective, Audi is going to use MB's Bluetec 3L in their lineup. What does Detroit have to offer? E85 and a hydrogen dream . . .

The latest Mondeo is a damn fine looking car and has clear potential from a performance perspective. But Americans won't see it for years . . . if ever.

Ford tried to sell the Mondeo in the US. It was the Ford Contour. Actually a great car (I had three of them), but most Americans did not agree with me.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Ford tried to sell the Mondeo in the US. It was the Ford Contour. Actually a great car (I had three of them), but most Americans did not agree with me.

[/quote]
I never quite figured out why the contique did so poorly.

 

[glutenberg]

Do people actually believe Domestic car styling to be appealing? If so, link some of these cars.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: glutenberg
Do people actually believe Domestic car styling to be appealing? If so, link some of these cars.

Spare us the drivel

Styling is a matter of taste. I mean there are fugly cars out there, but not many.

Most things are so generic now that a 'radical idea' is a new pattern in the tail-light covers.

I think the mustang and vette are great looking cars, and the focus (esp. the departed zx3) was much better looking than anything in its class. The neon / sx 2.0 managed to maintain some individuality compared with civic and corolla. charger and magnum have an aggressive look that you can't get in an import (except a mercedes). The sky/solstice is a great looking vehicle, though its performance is apparently quite pedestrian in the base model.

Compare this with 20 years of boring civics and accords, and downright fugly camrys and corollas, and you're left realizing that styling might sell a few cars, but it doesn't build a brand. Ergo styling is not the problem.