Lutz: GM building Hybrids for good press

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski
It's shocking he still has a Job. His comments are exactly why GM is on life support and could join the mighty extinct dinosaurs he's so fond of using as fuel.

After all you've been told here, you STILL believe that hybrids don't run solely on fossil fuels??

The truth is that what he said is completely true. Your sad response just goes to show that some uninformed people still can't break their brainwashing and continue to insist that consumption is conservation.

What? Sure, they use Fossil Fuels as a primary fuel source, but also gain energy from simple momentum. I'll agree that Hybrids are not the future, but merely a step towards the next solution, but they do save energy and are the best alternative currently available. Lutz's problem is that he doesn't want to develope Technology, he wants a replacement Energy Source that uses the old IC engine. Getting that will save GM $billions, unfortunetly others, such as Honda, will continue selling Hybrids in increasing numbers and GM will continue losing Market Share.

How long of a track record do you need before realising that GM is on the wrong track?

They do not gain energy from momentum, they recapture what might otherwise have been lost. The process is known as regenerative braking.
Hybrids do not save energy. The extra energy required for manufacturing them costs more than what they save at the pump. Consumption is not conservation. If you want to save energy, buy a used Geo Metro. It gets better real world gas mileage than a Prius and does not require the energy expenditure of new manufacture.
Hybrids are not an alternative energy source or a "replacement." All of the energy they use is derived by burning fossil fuels in the IC engine. They are an IC engine vehicle with an electric motor/generator transmission. Comparable to a diesel-electric locomotive. No more. The very word "hybrid" is marketing, pure and simple.
GM has developed or is involved in the development of multiple new technologies, leaps and bounds ahead of Honda. Unlike those other companies, GM seems to spend more of its money on actual development than in marketing, something I think might be their true mistake given the opinions you demonstrate here.

 

[potato28]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
walking>>> gas:|

Fixed

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski
It's shocking he still has a Job. His comments are exactly why GM is on life support and could join the mighty extinct dinosaurs he's so fond of using as fuel.

After all you've been told here, you STILL believe that hybrids don't run solely on fossil fuels??

The truth is that what he said is completely true. Your sad response just goes to show that some uninformed people still can't break their brainwashing and continue to insist that consumption is conservation.

What? Sure, they use Fossil Fuels as a primary fuel source, but also gain energy from simple momentum. I'll agree that Hybrids are not the future, but merely a step towards the next solution, but they do save energy and are the best alternative currently available. Lutz's problem is that he doesn't want to develope Technology, he wants a replacement Energy Source that uses the old IC engine. Getting that will save GM $billions, unfortunetly others, such as Honda, will continue selling Hybrids in increasing numbers and GM will continue losing Market Share.

How long of a track record do you need before realising that GM is on the wrong track?

They do not gain energy from momentum, they capture that might otherwise have been lost.
Hybrids do not save energy. The extra energy required for manufacturing them costs more than what they save at the pump. Consumption is not conservation. If you want to save energy, buy a used Geo Metro. It gets better reak world gas mileage than a Prius and does not require the energy expenditure of new manufacture.
Hybrids are not an alternative energy source or a "replacement." All of the energy they are is derived by burning fossil fuels in the IC engine.
GM has developed or is involved in the development of multiple new technologies, leaps and bounds ahead of Honda. Unlike those other companies, GM seems to spend more of its money on actual development than in marketing, something I think might be their true mistake given the opinions you demonstrate here.

Capturing what would have been "lost" is "gaining, is it not?

Even you admit they gain energy, Hybrids increase efficiency and thus are more efficient over non-Hybrids.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski
It's shocking he still has a Job. His comments are exactly why GM is on life support and could join the mighty extinct dinosaurs he's so fond of using as fuel.

After all you've been told here, you STILL believe that hybrids don't run solely on fossil fuels??

The truth is that what he said is completely true. Your sad response just goes to show that some uninformed people still can't break their brainwashing and continue to insist that consumption is conservation.

What? Sure, they use Fossil Fuels as a primary fuel source, but also gain energy from simple momentum. I'll agree that Hybrids are not the future, but merely a step towards the next solution, but they do save energy and are the best alternative currently available. Lutz's problem is that he doesn't want to develope Technology, he wants a replacement Energy Source that uses the old IC engine. Getting that will save GM $billions, unfortunetly others, such as Honda, will continue selling Hybrids in increasing numbers and GM will continue losing Market Share.

How long of a track record do you need before realising that GM is on the wrong track?

They do not gain energy from momentum, they capture that might otherwise have been lost.
Hybrids do not save energy. The extra energy required for manufacturing them costs more than what they save at the pump. Consumption is not conservation. If you want to save energy, buy a used Geo Metro. It gets better reak world gas mileage than a Prius and does not require the energy expenditure of new manufacture.
Hybrids are not an alternative energy source or a "replacement." All of the energy they are is derived by burning fossil fuels in the IC engine.
GM has developed or is involved in the development of multiple new technologies, leaps and bounds ahead of Honda. Unlike those other companies, GM seems to spend more of its money on actual development than in marketing, something I think might be their true mistake given the opinions you demonstrate here.

Capturing what would have been "lost" is "gaining, is it not?

Even you admit they gain energy, Hybrids increase efficiency and thus are more efficient over non-Hybrids.

No, it is simply increased efficiency. All the energy for propelling the vehicle is still derived solely from burning fossil fuels in an IC engine. No energy is "gained," simply recaptured.

Only under certain circumstances, mostly frequent stop-and-go city driving. They have no efficiency advantage in highway driving. And as I already mentioned, the savings is undone by the increased energy cost of manufacture. Just because you don't see at the gas pump doesn't mean it isn't hidden somewhere else (and in this case, the MSRP). Just because it doesn't come out a tailpipe doesn't mean it didn't come out a smokestack somewhere else.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski
It's shocking he still has a Job. His comments are exactly why GM is on life support and could join the mighty extinct dinosaurs he's so fond of using as fuel.

After all you've been told here, you STILL believe that hybrids don't run solely on fossil fuels??

The truth is that what he said is completely true. Your sad response just goes to show that some uninformed people still can't break their brainwashing and continue to insist that consumption is conservation.

What? Sure, they use Fossil Fuels as a primary fuel source, but also gain energy from simple momentum. I'll agree that Hybrids are not the future, but merely a step towards the next solution, but they do save energy and are the best alternative currently available. Lutz's problem is that he doesn't want to develope Technology, he wants a replacement Energy Source that uses the old IC engine. Getting that will save GM $billions, unfortunetly others, such as Honda, will continue selling Hybrids in increasing numbers and GM will continue losing Market Share.

How long of a track record do you need before realising that GM is on the wrong track?

They do not gain energy from momentum, they capture that might otherwise have been lost.
Hybrids do not save energy. The extra energy required for manufacturing them costs more than what they save at the pump. Consumption is not conservation. If you want to save energy, buy a used Geo Metro. It gets better reak world gas mileage than a Prius and does not require the energy expenditure of new manufacture.
Hybrids are not an alternative energy source or a "replacement." All of the energy they are is derived by burning fossil fuels in the IC engine.
GM has developed or is involved in the development of multiple new technologies, leaps and bounds ahead of Honda. Unlike those other companies, GM seems to spend more of its money on actual development than in marketing, something I think might be their true mistake given the opinions you demonstrate here.

Capturing what would have been "lost" is "gaining, is it not?

Even you admit they gain energy, Hybrids increase efficiency and thus are more efficient over non-Hybrids.

No, it is simply increased efficiency. All the energy for propelling the vehicle is still derived solely from burning fossil fuels in an IC engine. No energy is "gained," simply recaptured.

Only under certain circumstances, mostly frequent stop-and-go city driving. They have no efficiency advantage in highway driving. And as I already mentioned, the savings is undone by the increased energy cost of manufacture. Just because you don't see at the gas pump doesn't mean it isn't hidden somewhere else (and in this case, the MSRP). Just because it doesn't come out a tailpipe doesn't mean it didn't come out a smokestack somewhere else.

Thus gained over a Non-Hybrid.

Increased energy of Manufacture, haha, please. :roll:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Thus gained over a Non-Hybrid.

Increased energy of Manufacture, haha, please. :roll:

The small amount of increased efficiency we're talking about could be obtained in many other and far less costly ways. As I already noted, an old Geo Metro or Civic HF got better real world gas mileage than a Prius does today, without the need for toxic batteries, etc.

As to your 2nd sentence, I suggest you look it up before you laugh. You're obviously misinformed. I'm willing to bet you also think electric cars are zero emissions just because there isn't a tailpipe. Ah, just as consumption isn't conservation, NIMBY-ism isn't environmentalism.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski
Thus gained over a Non-Hybrid.

Increased energy of Manufacture, haha, please. :roll:

The small amount of increased efficiency we're talking about could be obtained in many other and far less costly ways. As I already noted, an old Geo Metro or Civic HF got better real world gas mileage than a Prius does today, without the need for toxic batteries, etc.

As to your 2nd sentence, I suggest you look it up before you laugh. You're obviously misinformed. I'm willing to bet you also think electric cars are zero emissions just because there isn't a tailpipe. Ah, just as consumption isn't conservation, NIMBY-ism isn't environmentalism.

I don't doubt a Geo Metro or other tiny car gets better mileage, it's not about Best mileage possible. It's about Best mileage possible within a Class of vehicles. If a Hybrid Geo Metro was produced, it would be even better than the non-Hybrid.

I'm sure "studies" were conducted. I'm also sure they suddenly came up with the idea of comparing Energy used to produce various parts of an Automobile just for this issue. It's common sense that producing a vehicle with more parts will increase the Energy used in the overall production of the vehicle. Voila, an angle to criticize Hybrids with!

Think about it real hard. The consumer wants not to save "energy", but to save $$ used and pollutants released from petroleum products(gaseline). Who cares if GM spends more on Electrical bills?

Speaking of this, it takes much more energy to build a large vehicle compared to a small vehicle. Why isn't everyone(you) on the bandwagon to stop producing large vehicles?

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski
Thus gained over a Non-Hybrid.

Increased energy of Manufacture, haha, please. :roll:

The small amount of increased efficiency we're talking about could be obtained in many other and far less costly ways. As I already noted, an old Geo Metro or Civic HF got better real world gas mileage than a Prius does today, without the need for toxic batteries, etc.

As to your 2nd sentence, I suggest you look it up before you laugh. You're obviously misinformed. I'm willing to bet you also think electric cars are zero emissions just because there isn't a tailpipe. Ah, just as consumption isn't conservation, NIMBY-ism isn't environmentalism.

I don't doubt a Geo Metro or other tiny car gets better mileage, it's not about Best mileage possible. It's about Best mileage possible within a Class of vehicles. If a Hybrid Geo Metro was produced, it would be even better than the non-Hybrid.

I'm sure "studies" were conducted. I'm also sure they suddenly came up with the idea of comparing Energy used to produce various parts of an Automobile just for this issue. It's common sense that producing a vehicle with more parts will increase the Energy used in the overall production of the vehicle. Voila, an angle to criticize Hybrids with!

Think about it real hard. The consumer wants not to save "energy", but to save $$ used and pollutants released from petroleum products(gaseline). Who cares if GM spends more on Electrical bills?

Speaking of this, it takes much more energy to build a large vehicle compared to a small vehicle. Why isn't everyone(you) on the bandwagon to stop producing large vehicles?

there are a TON of ppl who want SUV's abolished...

have you never been on the internet?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski
Thus gained over a Non-Hybrid.

Increased energy of Manufacture, haha, please. :roll:

The small amount of increased efficiency we're talking about could be obtained in many other and far less costly ways. As I already noted, an old Geo Metro or Civic HF got better real world gas mileage than a Prius does today, without the need for toxic batteries, etc.

As to your 2nd sentence, I suggest you look it up before you laugh. You're obviously misinformed. I'm willing to bet you also think electric cars are zero emissions just because there isn't a tailpipe. Ah, just as consumption isn't conservation, NIMBY-ism isn't environmentalism.

I don't doubt a Geo Metro or other tiny car gets better mileage, it's not about Best mileage possible. It's about Best mileage possible within a Class of vehicles. If a Hybrid Geo Metro was produced, it would be even better than the non-Hybrid.

I'm sure "studies" were conducted. I'm also sure they suddenly came up with the idea of comparing Energy used to produce various parts of an Automobile just for this issue. It's common sense that producing a vehicle with more parts will increase the Energy used in the overall production of the vehicle. Voila, an angle to criticize Hybrids with!

Think about it real hard. The consumer wants not to save "energy", but to save $$ used and pollutants released from petroleum products(gaseline). Who cares if GM spends more on Electrical bills?

Speaking of this, it takes much more energy to build a large vehicle compared to a small vehicle. Why isn't everyone(you) on the bandwagon to stop producing large vehicles?

there are a TON of ppl who want SUV's abolished...

have you never been on the internet?

I'm one of them.

 

[MikeMike]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski
Thus gained over a Non-Hybrid.

Increased energy of Manufacture, haha, please. :roll:

The small amount of increased efficiency we're talking about could be obtained in many other and far less costly ways. As I already noted, an old Geo Metro or Civic HF got better real world gas mileage than a Prius does today, without the need for toxic batteries, etc.

As to your 2nd sentence, I suggest you look it up before you laugh. You're obviously misinformed. I'm willing to bet you also think electric cars are zero emissions just because there isn't a tailpipe. Ah, just as consumption isn't conservation, NIMBY-ism isn't environmentalism.

I don't doubt a Geo Metro or other tiny car gets better mileage, it's not about Best mileage possible. It's about Best mileage possible within a Class of vehicles. If a Hybrid Geo Metro was produced, it would be even better than the non-Hybrid.

I'm sure "studies" were conducted. I'm also sure they suddenly came up with the idea of comparing Energy used to produce various parts of an Automobile just for this issue. It's common sense that producing a vehicle with more parts will increase the Energy used in the overall production of the vehicle. Voila, an angle to criticize Hybrids with!

Think about it real hard. The consumer wants not to save "energy", but to save $$ used and pollutants released from petroleum products(gaseline). Who cares if GM spends more on Electrical bills?

Speaking of this, it takes much more energy to build a large vehicle compared to a small vehicle. Why isn't everyone(you) on the bandwagon to stop producing large vehicles?

there are a TON of ppl who want SUV's abolished...

have you never been on the internet?

I'm one of them.

quick question.

do you own a ski-boat, or other sort of boat?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: MIKEMIKE

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski
Thus gained over a Non-Hybrid.

Increased energy of Manufacture, haha, please. :roll:

The small amount of increased efficiency we're talking about could be obtained in many other and far less costly ways. As I already noted, an old Geo Metro or Civic HF got better real world gas mileage than a Prius does today, without the need for toxic batteries, etc.

As to your 2nd sentence, I suggest you look it up before you laugh. You're obviously misinformed. I'm willing to bet you also think electric cars are zero emissions just because there isn't a tailpipe. Ah, just as consumption isn't conservation, NIMBY-ism isn't environmentalism.

I don't doubt a Geo Metro or other tiny car gets better mileage, it's not about Best mileage possible. It's about Best mileage possible within a Class of vehicles. If a Hybrid Geo Metro was produced, it would be even better than the non-Hybrid.

I'm sure "studies" were conducted. I'm also sure they suddenly came up with the idea of comparing Energy used to produce various parts of an Automobile just for this issue. It's common sense that producing a vehicle with more parts will increase the Energy used in the overall production of the vehicle. Voila, an angle to criticize Hybrids with!

Think about it real hard. The consumer wants not to save "energy", but to save $$ used and pollutants released from petroleum products(gaseline). Who cares if GM spends more on Electrical bills?

Speaking of this, it takes much more energy to build a large vehicle compared to a small vehicle. Why isn't everyone(you) on the bandwagon to stop producing large vehicles?

there are a TON of ppl who want SUV's abolished...

have you never been on the internet?

I'm one of them.

quick question.

do you own a ski-boat, or other sort of boat?

I own no vehicles.

 

[OS]

yes hybrids don't make sense and do suck for now, but i think many of you bashers fail to see that this technology can also be used in a diesel/hydrogen/ethanol/whatever else ICE powered application.

The batteries are mildly sucky, but recycleable and they are likely to be phased out by ultra capacitors.

Also, eventually someone may figure out how to build an elegant hybrid design that can delete things like the starter, alternator and the associated 12V car battery. That will cut a couple hundred off each car and reduce the hybrid premium.

 

[EyeMWing]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain
E85 isn't even remotely viable as a fuel for our nation's needs, as has been shown again and again. it's like biodiesel: it's great for the 2 dozen cars in the nation that run it, but you could never make enough of it (nor create it effeciently enough) to use it for more cars than that.

biodiesel really blows my mind. imagine how much energy is expended and polution is made by the time that McDonald's oil is put in the garbage containers... and this is supposed to be the future of transportation?

You realize that "all that energy" is going to be expended and all that pollution made anyway - It's not like we're going to have fast food restaurants cooking 24/7 to increase output of used cooking oil - that would be obscene.

The spent oil is a 100% waste product in the current state, but it has a very high amount of stored energy still remaining. Biodiesel is essentially the taking of that waste product and extracting the remaining energy. The actual biodiesel "refinement" process requires very little energy and produces between "very little" and "no" pollution depending upon the methods used - the filter material can last a VERY long time (we aren't talkin' about doing this at home with a coffee filter) and the chunks can be used readily as compost material.

At the present time, Biodiesel is very much a regional solution - York, PA's entire municipal fleet has moved over (at least, everything that has a diesel engine and everything they buy new that can have a diesel engine), and being that the area is a hotbed of snack food companies, there's a lot of interest in bringing online a full size filtration plant and putting the pumps in gas stations - because what snack food company wants to pay to get rid of their waste products when they can be paid for it?

But I suspect that the capacity simply isn't there to go nationwide... Especially considering that not only do you have to get the finished product to the pumps, you have to get the raw material to the filtration site, as well... Oil is easy, it comes out of the ground and gets pumped to the ocean, loaded onto really big boats, and taken to the refinery. This stuff, not so much. In order to meet nationwide capacity, you'd need to bring every possible source of the stuff online - down to the franchise and chain restaurants. Unless some sort of deal with the suppliers of those places could be struck (i.e. "When we bring by a truck of Big Mac parts, we'll also take your used oil") to congregate the stuff in a single spot to prevent having to build a RIDICULOUS logistics fleet. But then you still have a bajillion McDonalds, Burger King, etc. distribution centers and hundreds of processed food plants to collect from - virtually all of which are inland, and pipelines aren't even worth a thought for the low volume some of those places would be pushing. So you have to do it all by rail, or by road.

So, it's a regional solution. Probably not even good to cover most of Pennsylvania.

 

[OS]

Also, according to toyota, although the energy cost to build hybrids is higher than a conventional car, the additional energy cost is recovered through the operation of the vehicle.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski
Thus gained over a Non-Hybrid.

Increased energy of Manufacture, haha, please. :roll:

The small amount of increased efficiency we're talking about could be obtained in many other and far less costly ways. As I already noted, an old Geo Metro or Civic HF got better real world gas mileage than a Prius does today, without the need for toxic batteries, etc.

As to your 2nd sentence, I suggest you look it up before you laugh. You're obviously misinformed. I'm willing to bet you also think electric cars are zero emissions just because there isn't a tailpipe. Ah, just as consumption isn't conservation, NIMBY-ism isn't environmentalism.

I don't doubt a Geo Metro or other tiny car gets better mileage, it's not about Best mileage possible. It's about Best mileage possible within a Class of vehicles. If a Hybrid Geo Metro was produced, it would be even better than the non-Hybrid.

I'm sure "studies" were conducted. I'm also sure they suddenly came up with the idea of comparing Energy used to produce various parts of an Automobile just for this issue. It's common sense that producing a vehicle with more parts will increase the Energy used in the overall production of the vehicle. Voila, an angle to criticize Hybrids with!

Think about it real hard. The consumer wants not to save "energy", but to save $$ used and pollutants released from petroleum products(gaseline). Who cares if GM spends more on Electrical bills?

Speaking of this, it takes much more energy to build a large vehicle compared to a small vehicle. Why isn't everyone(you) on the bandwagon to stop producing large vehicles?

If this consumer ACTUALLY wanted what you claim they want, they'd stop consuming. That's my point, moron. Consumption ain't conservation. Speaking of this, it takes much more energy to build any new vehicle compared to not. So why are you on the bandwagon to encourage the production and consumption of new vehicles?

Think about that real hard. :roll:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: OS
yes hybrids don't make sense and do suck for now, but i think many of you bashers fail to see that this technology can also be used in a diesel/hydrogen/ethanol/whatever else ICE powered application.

The batteries are mildly sucky, but recycleable and they are likely to be phased out by ultra capacitors.

Also, eventually someone may figure out how to build an elegant hybrid design that can delete things like the starter, alternator and the associated 12V car battery. That will cut a couple hundred off each car and reduce the hybrid premium.

The elegance of the hybrid design is the electric motor transmission, not fuel efficiency. Consider the "16 wheel drive" of diesel-electric locomotives and you see what I'm talking about.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: OS
Also, according to toyota, although the energy cost to build hybrids is higher than a conventional car, the additional energy cost is recovered through the operation of the vehicle.

it takes a long time, not including cost of repairs, to recover the difference in fuel savings

 

[DougK62]

Originally posted by: Analog
Lutz is the same idiot who claimed that $2 gas was just around the corner back last october.... :roll:

Uhhh...and he was right. By the end of last year I was paying $2/gallon. Gas prices have gone up again. Should he be responsible for predicting the entire future of gas prices? :roll:

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
diesel >>> gas:|

Yah I love a good Carcinogen, and the soot on buildings is also super sexy.

you obviously forget that diesel now burns extremely clean and is far more efficient than gasoline when used in engines.

You obviously have no clue what a carcinogen is, I don't want to be getting lung cancer because I'm driving behind a bunch of kids who think Europe is on to something because they are not us.

If these new Diesel fuels address that factor then great I'm all for it, but does it?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski
Thus gained over a Non-Hybrid.

Increased energy of Manufacture, haha, please. :roll:

The small amount of increased efficiency we're talking about could be obtained in many other and far less costly ways. As I already noted, an old Geo Metro or Civic HF got better real world gas mileage than a Prius does today, without the need for toxic batteries, etc.

As to your 2nd sentence, I suggest you look it up before you laugh. You're obviously misinformed. I'm willing to bet you also think electric cars are zero emissions just because there isn't a tailpipe. Ah, just as consumption isn't conservation, NIMBY-ism isn't environmentalism.

I don't doubt a Geo Metro or other tiny car gets better mileage, it's not about Best mileage possible. It's about Best mileage possible within a Class of vehicles. If a Hybrid Geo Metro was produced, it would be even better than the non-Hybrid.

I'm sure "studies" were conducted. I'm also sure they suddenly came up with the idea of comparing Energy used to produce various parts of an Automobile just for this issue. It's common sense that producing a vehicle with more parts will increase the Energy used in the overall production of the vehicle. Voila, an angle to criticize Hybrids with!

Think about it real hard. The consumer wants not to save "energy", but to save $$ used and pollutants released from petroleum products(gaseline). Who cares if GM spends more on Electrical bills?

Speaking of this, it takes much more energy to build a large vehicle compared to a small vehicle. Why isn't everyone(you) on the bandwagon to stop producing large vehicles?

If this consumer ACTUALLY wanted what you claim they want, they'd stop consuming. That's my point, moron. Consumption ain't conservation. Speaking of this, it takes much more energy to build any new vehicle compared to not. So why are you on the bandwagon to encourage the production and consumption of new vehicles?

Think about that real hard. :roll:

Cause I'm a realist who knows that self-powered vehicles are here to stay. The Horse and buggy is not an option.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski
Thus gained over a Non-Hybrid.

Increased energy of Manufacture, haha, please. :roll:

The small amount of increased efficiency we're talking about could be obtained in many other and far less costly ways. As I already noted, an old Geo Metro or Civic HF got better real world gas mileage than a Prius does today, without the need for toxic batteries, etc.

As to your 2nd sentence, I suggest you look it up before you laugh. You're obviously misinformed. I'm willing to bet you also think electric cars are zero emissions just because there isn't a tailpipe. Ah, just as consumption isn't conservation, NIMBY-ism isn't environmentalism.

I don't doubt a Geo Metro or other tiny car gets better mileage, it's not about Best mileage possible. It's about Best mileage possible within a Class of vehicles. If a Hybrid Geo Metro was produced, it would be even better than the non-Hybrid.

I'm sure "studies" were conducted. I'm also sure they suddenly came up with the idea of comparing Energy used to produce various parts of an Automobile just for this issue. It's common sense that producing a vehicle with more parts will increase the Energy used in the overall production of the vehicle. Voila, an angle to criticize Hybrids with!

Think about it real hard. The consumer wants not to save "energy", but to save $$ used and pollutants released from petroleum products(gaseline). Who cares if GM spends more on Electrical bills?

Speaking of this, it takes much more energy to build a large vehicle compared to a small vehicle. Why isn't everyone(you) on the bandwagon to stop producing large vehicles?

If this consumer ACTUALLY wanted what you claim they want, they'd stop consuming. That's my point, moron. Consumption ain't conservation. Speaking of this, it takes much more energy to build any new vehicle compared to not. So why are you on the bandwagon to encourage the production and consumption of new vehicles?

Think about that real hard. :roll:

Cause I'm a realist who knows that self-powered vehicles are here to stay. The Horse and buggy is not an option.

And used vehicles aren't an option? Or are you just being intentionally obtuse now?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski
Thus gained over a Non-Hybrid.

Increased energy of Manufacture, haha, please. :roll:

The small amount of increased efficiency we're talking about could be obtained in many other and far less costly ways. As I already noted, an old Geo Metro or Civic HF got better real world gas mileage than a Prius does today, without the need for toxic batteries, etc.

As to your 2nd sentence, I suggest you look it up before you laugh. You're obviously misinformed. I'm willing to bet you also think electric cars are zero emissions just because there isn't a tailpipe. Ah, just as consumption isn't conservation, NIMBY-ism isn't environmentalism.

I don't doubt a Geo Metro or other tiny car gets better mileage, it's not about Best mileage possible. It's about Best mileage possible within a Class of vehicles. If a Hybrid Geo Metro was produced, it would be even better than the non-Hybrid.

I'm sure "studies" were conducted. I'm also sure they suddenly came up with the idea of comparing Energy used to produce various parts of an Automobile just for this issue. It's common sense that producing a vehicle with more parts will increase the Energy used in the overall production of the vehicle. Voila, an angle to criticize Hybrids with!

Think about it real hard. The consumer wants not to save "energy", but to save $$ used and pollutants released from petroleum products(gaseline). Who cares if GM spends more on Electrical bills?

Speaking of this, it takes much more energy to build a large vehicle compared to a small vehicle. Why isn't everyone(you) on the bandwagon to stop producing large vehicles?

If this consumer ACTUALLY wanted what you claim they want, they'd stop consuming. That's my point, moron. Consumption ain't conservation. Speaking of this, it takes much more energy to build any new vehicle compared to not. So why are you on the bandwagon to encourage the production and consumption of new vehicles?

Think about that real hard. :roll:

Cause I'm a realist who knows that self-powered vehicles are here to stay. The Horse and buggy is not an option.

And used vehicles aren't an option? Or are you just being intentionally obtuse now?

There's only one being obtuse here and it ain't me.

No, Used vehicles are not an option, especially when they are as inefficient as new ones.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski
There's only one being obtuse here and it ain't me.

No, Used vehicles are not an option, especially when they are as inefficient as new ones.

It's amazing that you think you know so much when you don't read a single word of my posts while you argue them.

As I already noted, an old Geo Metro or Civic HF got better real world gas mileage than a Prius does today, without the need for toxic batteries, etc.

Irony is people driving new cars cross-town through traffic to sit in an air-conditioned movie theater and watch a movie about global warming.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski
There's only one being obtuse here and it ain't me.

No, Used vehicles are not an option, especially when they are as inefficient as new ones.

It's amazing that you think you know so much when you don't read a single word of my posts while you argue them.

As I already noted, an old Geo Metro or Civic HF got better real world gas mileage than a Prius does today, without the need for toxic batteries, etc.

Irony is people driving new cars cross-town through traffic to sit in an air-conditioned movie theater and watch a movie about global warming.

Is it?

 

[Random Variable]

blah blah blah & blah