BaliBabyDoc
Lifer
So what exactly would one 'learn' from a nonfactual study?
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Hummer versus Prius
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
So what exactly would one 'learn' from a nonfactual study?
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
Didn't you read the study? We learned that Hummers are cheaper and more environmentally friendly than Priuses.
I love this study it is factual, skewed to be sure but the realities of what is involved with High tech solutions complexities and recycling ring true.
My example of the Passat was one of attitude, if you want a Passat just say so don't try to justify it by 'saving money' cause its BS. Same with the Prius , you want to save the planet? don't buy a CAR! If you do buy a stripped down version mass produced econobox, you will be doing a lot more for the planet than the hybrid ever could.
My example of the Passat was one of attitude, if you want a Passat just say so don't try to justify it by 'saving money' cause its BS. Same with the Prius , you want to save the planet? don't buy a CAR! If you do buy a stripped down version mass produced econobox, you will be doing a lot more for the planet than the hybrid ever could.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
It's factual because you say so?
dmcowen674
No Lifer
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
dmcowen674
No Lifer
Oh come on, you can do better than that.
Pick a real SUV like an Expedition or an Accolade. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
The only part that is substantially impactful is the battery, and the degree of impact all depends on waste management/reycling. There is no reason that the batteries would not be recyclable:
From Toyota's website:
link
Now, would you like to show that these batteries are not recyclable?
An aveo doesn't have the sort of efficiency considerations that go into real 'high-mileage' vehicles. For example, I believe the much larger matrix/vibe still gets better fuel economy than the aveo/wave.
An aveo is also not an equivalent product to a prius. A prius is a way to pay more moeny for something bigger and nicer, but not more harmful than the most efficient, tiny econobox.
BlancoNino
Diamond Member
That anyone can pick and choose whatever studies they want to believe whether they are true or not. Science prooves nothing. I'm not saying this is exactly the study but in the next 10 years I wouldn't be surprised if all the GW research concludes that our thinking concerning this issue was competely backwards. Who knows? That's simply why I think being an alarmist is stupid.
Except we're comparing it a Hummer here. Personally I think that "study" is bullshit, as whatever "special" materials a Prius uses, a Hummer uses far more of EVERYTHING. The materials used to make a Prius would have to be 2-3 times as damaging to the environment as the materials in a Hummer, and since the bulk of the weight in both vehicles is standard issue auto stuff (structural steel, engine blocks, etc), the "exotic" materials would have to be FAR more damaging, on the order of orders of magnitude worse. You'll forgive me if I find that hard to believe.
Still, obviously a tiny econobox is going to be among the best choices. But the point of a hybrid is that you don't have to get something that's tiny or dirt slow to be more efficient.
No offense, but that's idiotic. Just because someone calls their paper a "study" and what they are doing "science" does not make it so. Any reasonable, intelligent person should be informed enough to be able to tell the real science from the bullshit, what my high school match teacher used to call having a properly functioning bullshit detector. Now it's true that what we "know" isn't constant and could change tomorrow, but if we take your advice and dismiss everything because we can't be absolutely 100% sure that we won't find out some new information tomorrow, we'd all still be living in caves. The best we can do is make reasonable, educated guesses based on what we know today and change what we're doing if we find out something new tomorrow. Anything else is just stupid.
BlancoNino
Diamond Member
I never said we should dismiss. I only said we becoming an alarmist based on a theory or a new study (no matter how much evidence) like GW isn't a good idea.
Fair enough. You're right, alarmism is almost never a useful response (something I wish more people would remember when talking about terrorism) to ANY issue, much less one with a fairly complex set of facts and relatively new science. Still, while it might not be your intention, I can't help but feel that a lot of people are taking that scientific uncertainty to totally dismiss any potential global warming issue for all time to come. In other words, it's not like the theory of gravity yet, so therefore we should keep driving ridiculous vehicles like the Hummer and others that measure fuel economy in gallons per mile.
BlancoNino
Diamond Member
Yup. I don't dismiss GW. We wouldn't be studying it if there wasn't something going on. It's just a huge project and I doubt scientists even have half the variables needed to be anywhere close to conclusive. For now, it's a very large inconclusive study that shouldn't be politicized or used for any kind of agenda. We should keep studying it.
BaliBabyDoc
Lifer
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?
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?
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
The best you can get from a domestic is the vibe, and that's really a toyota.
dmcowen674
No Lifer
:laugh: :thumbsup:
Arkaign
Lifer
I don't think you can really call them 'anti-domestic' posts, I think the outlook should be 'anti-crappy lineup' posts. Ford, GM, and Dodge/Chrysler make decidedly less-appealing vehicles overall when looked upon in most regards in comparison to the best of the competition. Of course, there are extraordinary exceptions, and there are also many horrible foreign products. It's no so simplistic as 'American car bad - foreign car good'. OTOH, it must be admitted that for the current era, and for the past 20 years or so, it has been easily the case where you are much better off buying a well-chosen import over any domestic car.
Trucks are a whole different ballgame, and I think a lot of this is due to the market segment that buys these vehicles. A truck buyer is probably 2-3x more likely to be mechanically savvy for various reasons, and if one of the big 3 is producing a crap product, they will rapidly lose marketshare as the word gets out. Because of this competition in this market segment, overall drivetrain quality in domestic pickups has been very good overall, with few exceptions. And virtually all of the time, they are a better value vs. the import trucks, which are equal/higher quality, but at an often much higher price (look at Tacoma for example!).
When it comes back to cars and Suvs, I don't think they respect their customers nearly as much. They do several things : make disposable vehicles (Taurus, Neon, etc), or slap a rear enclosure and some more interior fabric on a light truck or car, double the price, and call it an SUV. Sadly, people have been eating this crap up for over a decade. The import companies are just as guilty, but it's still sort of retarded to see people choosing overpriced SUV's that
(a)- Cost more than the equivalent large car or minivan
(b)- Have a lower fuel economy than reasonable alternatives
(c)- Have higher rollover/lower passenger safety ratings than reasonable alternatives
(d)- Are very often not even 4wd/Awd, and if you want that feature ... $$$$!!!!!
(e)- Have horrible resale value
(f)- Have extreme maintenance costs (brakes particularly!)
(g)- Frequently have less interior space, particularly in the passenger area, than alternatives
of course : There are a few caveats to this outlook, particularly : (1)- Economic aspect, many people make so much money that the higher costs don't matter to them, and they get a new vehicle every year or two anyway, which also throws out maintenance concerns, etc. (2)- There *are* some great Suvs out there, that get decent fuel economy, have a dependable drivetrain, and have respectable safety performance. (3)- People should of course be able to purchase whatever product they want so long as it passes emissions/safety/sundry regulations that apply.
I do think that it is appropriate (just as in the 'luxury tax') to apply a special sliding tax scale to vehicles that is relative to their fuel economy. Exemptions of course for individuals and families that meet standards that require the vehicle. But the tax would be a good way to provide incentive to reduce our vast oil consumption, and also to migrate towards higher tech/safer alternatives.
It's a sore spot in my view that we have many in this country that gleefully roam around in 10-15mpg Suvs (most often the only person in the truck!), sending an unimaginably huge amount of $$ to both the oil execs and the middle east sheiks.
Unfortunately, there is no realistic way for things to improve much until a disaster does strike us. And it's not really a question of 'if', but 'when'.
A plausible example : The Iraq civil war escalates higher, embroiling Iran and possibly Syria into the conflict, making everyone tertiary to the situation even more nervous, such as Pakistan, India, China, Israel, Russia, Turkey, etc. Depending on the scale of hostilities, political discord, and interruption of normal production & delivery routines, the price of oil could break $500/barrel in a very short time. The global economy would shudder and implode, as even basic necessities would cost prohibitive amounts of capital just to deliver to hospitals and stores. Rationing, usage of emergency reserves, increased domestic production would just be bandages on a mortal wound, as the rampup to full domestic production would be basically impossible in the face of the disaster. Shale oil and other domestic fuel sources are too costly and too slow to extract to meet even a decent fraction of our current consumption.
The only responsible course of action is to rise to our potential as a hyperpower, and fully domesticate all energy resources, by a combination of reduced consumption, increased production, and of course, alternative and renewable sources. Of course, this is utterly impossible, due to our very weak, selfish, and short-sighted nature. We shall perish in the 21st century not due primarily to enemies abroad, but from implosion of hope, ambition, realism, and intelligence. Better to drown out the sound of our civilization's collapse with 'reality' TV and fast food.
Again the point of the article is hybrids are not environmentally friendly, the reason Europe gets such good gas mileage is they use diesels and turbochargers not exotic BS hybrids, the reason Japan does get better gas mileage is cause they drive ECONOBOXES not large vehciles and NOT hybrids.
They also point the fancier the vehicle the more environmentally unfriendly it is as well.
The article is, cut the BS quit pretending hybrids are good for the planet as a justification for the vehicle purchase, when if you really wanted to be good for the planet you would take public transport, ride a bike or buy a mechanically much simpler vehicle lets call it a freaking YARIS or FIT since nobody like the Aveo and its not about comparisons in same class its about leaving the smallest environmental footprint possible which they make the point many ful sized 4 cylinder sedans also compare way ahead of the prius if you bothered to read through.LInk for Dust to Dust for every single car built today
They also point the fancier the vehicle the more environmentally unfriendly it is as well.
The article is, cut the BS quit pretending hybrids are good for the planet as a justification for the vehicle purchase, when if you really wanted to be good for the planet you would take public transport, ride a bike or buy a mechanically much simpler vehicle lets call it a freaking YARIS or FIT since nobody like the Aveo and its not about comparisons in same class its about leaving the smallest environmental footprint possible which they make the point many ful sized 4 cylinder sedans also compare way ahead of the prius if you bothered to read through.LInk for Dust to Dust for every single car built today
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
That, is the same study. And it's crap from top to bottom.
Should we have European diesel technology in North America? Yes. Are hybrids the answer to everything? No.
Is this study a complete fabrication? Yes.
The 'point' of the study is irrelevant, it's worthless!
The dirty part of a hybrid is the battery. You claimed these are not recycled, which directly contradicts what Toyota says. Now. you've offered absolutely no evidence that the batteries end up thrown in a river somewhere, so how about you put up?
They study isn't the fabrication , the articles written by authors who didn't commision the study are interpretations and spin
The raw data I just posted was built upon by yrs of research and I would think they take into consideration all of the little nitpickins P&N seem qualified to comment on.
The dirty part is also the alloys the two drivetrains the use of plastic everywhere to reduce wieght not just batteries. Seems you don't know much about the wrecking industry. google how much mercury actually bothered to gets recycled out of wrcking yards. Just cause they slap a phone number on the battery and say OK $200 if shipped to us doesn't seem to hold much water, how many cans and bottles make it to the dump even thought they pay to have that recycled?
The raw data I just posted was built upon by yrs of research and I would think they take into consideration all of the little nitpickins P&N seem qualified to comment on.
The dirty part is also the alloys the two drivetrains the use of plastic everywhere to reduce wieght not just batteries. Seems you don't know much about the wrecking industry. google how much mercury actually bothered to gets recycled out of wrcking yards. Just cause they slap a phone number on the battery and say OK $200 if shipped to us doesn't seem to hold much water, how many cans and bottles make it to the dump even thought they pay to have that recycled?
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
The raw data is crap, go look at it. It apparently costs $236,000 to get 100k miles out of a grand am.
Things end up not recycled when no one accepts responsibility for them. That doesn't appear to be the case here.
How much mercury leaks out of wrecking yards is kind of irrelevant to the Prius, there probably aren't more than a few dozen of them in wrecking yards yet😉
BaliBabyDoc
Lifer
I don't get it. So does that mean GM and Ford should quit complaining since they made money hand over fist by selling those ridiculous SUVs which are just body-on-frame truck platforms with some bells and whistles? The Prius, Insight, Civic, Accord, Camry, 400h (which isn't moving that well at 50k), and Highlander ALL make money b/c Toyota and Honda invested in the platforms for well over a decade with multiple generations of continuously improved engineering and manufacturing.
My wife's last two cars were an Oldsmobile Aurora and a Lincoln LS. Yeah, I'm PISSED! My last three cars were an Acura Integra GSR, a Subaru WRX, and an Acura TL-S. I had to drown the Integra (cold air intake meets larger than anticipated water puddle) to get it to stop. At the time it was getting HIGHER than sticker EPA both city and highway. And my mechanic bought the chassis off me b/c he said the transmission fluid on this 110k car looked beautiful. The WRX was modified to increase hp by 80% (400hp) on STOCK internals and transmission. I sold it b/c doubling the hp from my previous car wasn't worth the 35% decrease in fuel economy. My modified TL-S does just short of 300hp at the crank (not SAE corrected) and averages 27mpg in mixed driving and up to 30 on the highway.
The problem with the domestics is they are building cars today that are competitive with what Toyota and Honda were producing 5 years ago. Even when they get it right, they get it wrong. The Ford Edge uses largely the same platform as the Mazda CX-7/CX-9. Yet the Mazda versions appear to be better engineered and better vehicles (according to reviews). The Edge should have been a home run but Ford can't even get a decent set of brakes on it. It's a good vehicle and if Toyota (Highlander), Honda (Pilot), Nissan (Murano), and even friggin' Mitubishi (Endeavor) had rested on their laurels . . . the Ford Edge might be one of the best selling vehicles in America.
The Ford Escape Hybrid is smaller, less powerful, slower, an older platform, and gets lower fuel mileage than a Highlander Hybrid . . . despite the fact the Toyota product packs a V6 and 400+ pounds heavier. Is there really any wonder why people will fork over an extra 5k to get the Toyota? But what to do if you are on a budget? Guess what . . . the Escape Hybrid then loses out to 4 cylinder champs the Toyota RAV4 and Honda CR-V. And often the RAV4 and CRV are cross-shopped with the Edge (which is significantly more expensive). That's a d@mn shame considering the CR-V looks like it escaped from my toddler's toy collection.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
