The Truth About Toyota

[SparkyJJO]

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha
In case you missed it the first time around, I specifically stated "commuter car". When you're crawling along in rush-hour traffic or driving at city speeds, 130 HP gets the job done. You can drive a 400 HP sports car or a 300 HP SUV in rush hour traffic if you choose, but it won't get you to your destination any faster - there is no disputing that. The extra horsepower is purely an extraneous want.

This is true. However, you aren't always crawling in rush hour traffic, thus the higher horsepower can be used at other times

I'm not saying that high performance sports cars need to be banned, just that high horsepower only belongs on the track. It should stay out of passenger cars. Sports cars are a hobby, a privilege, a luxury. I have no problems if you want to indulge in them.

I don't know about you but I don't like having to downshift a few times and loose a bunch of speed every time I hit a hill. Or taking much longer than normal to get up to speed when I put more than just a couple people in the car.

Large SUVs are superfluous. If you need to haul a bunch of stuff, get a truck. Even then, you don't need to drive it all the time.

SUVs can be used to haul stuff, and some stuff you haul you don't want bouncing around in an open truck bed. Also, SUVs have more room inside than a little car (duh) which can be much more comfortable for the passengers, and they can fit more people too than small cars. And some people can't afford more than one vehicle you know, so if it is the only car they have then well guess what they are going to drive it all the time.

See my other post. Tax gas according to its true cost and the market will adjust. People will have the choices they want, but they will rightly pay the true costs.

But you are attempting to forcefully limit what they want by doing so. Someone will have the choice to buy the vehicle he really wants, but thanks to stupid high gas taxes he can't afford to drive it. Gas is taxed plenty enough as it is already.

Let me ask this - do YOU really want to pay more at the pump? My guess is no. But taxing gas more will make you do that, as well as everybody else, and taxing gas more will also then cause everyone to have a thinner wallet. And higher gas taxes could make the poorer in this country even more poor because they can't afford the newer more efficient cars to begin with, now you just jacked up their cost to even getting to work. Good job.....

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: exdeath
I'm so sick of these arguments about what people think other people neeeeeed or dont neeeeed.

And yet you are drawn to these discussions like a moth to a flame. Are you a masochist or something?

The only reason people think they want the high-hp cars is because that's what's on the market. Same with computers...do you really think Grandma wants a Core 2 Duo with 2 GB of RAM to send her Christmas e-mails? Do you think she can even tell the difference? Nope, but since no one sells an extremely cheap Athlon computer with full support anymore, that's what she buys. If your average consumer were to be given a ~120 hp commuter that didn't have the "unsafe" perception, they'd probably like the increased mileage over the extra power of the 160.

Again, these regulations do NOT force ANYONE to buy a car they don't want. They just shift the average. Anyone who feels strongly about their cars is going to buy exactly the same thing, and those other, indifferent consumers are going to save money on gas. This way we don't have to tax gasoline euro-style, so the sports car drivers can still enjoy cheap fuel, even as the average MPG rating across the fleet is rising.

What alternative would you prefer? Raising the tax on gas and letting efficiency take care of itself? Now THAT penalizes the enthusiasts. Fight wars in the middle east to ensure a larger future oil supply? Yeah, that's going well. This is a sensible method that does the least amount of damage and costs the least compared to the other alternatives.

it's good for the consumer, it's good for the driver, it's good for reducing our demand for foreign oil, and it's good for the environment. The only thing it isn't good for is the car companies, which make more money when they push people into buying the more expensive, more powerful cars.

Thanks Big Brother!!

Why not let the consumer decide?

Are you illiterate, or do you just read one snippet of each post and comment based on that?

Oh, and in "1984", they chose the "war with a foreign power" option.

OK, no more P & N for me, I've said my piece and no one has bothered to read it.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: exdeath
I'm so sick of these arguments about what people think other people neeeeeed or dont neeeeed.

And yet you are drawn to these discussions like a moth to a flame. Are you a masochist or something?

The only reason people think they want the high-hp cars is because that's what's on the market. Same with computers...do you really think Grandma wants a Core 2 Duo with 2 GB of RAM to send her Christmas e-mails? Do you think she can even tell the difference? Nope, but since no one sells an extremely cheap Athlon computer with full support anymore, that's what she buys. If your average consumer were to be given a ~120 hp commuter that didn't have the "unsafe" perception, they'd probably like the increased mileage over the extra power of the 160.

Again, these regulations do NOT force ANYONE to buy a car they don't want. They just shift the average. Anyone who feels strongly about their cars is going to buy exactly the same thing, and those other, indifferent consumers are going to save money on gas. This way we don't have to tax gasoline euro-style, so the sports car drivers can still enjoy cheap fuel, even as the average MPG rating across the fleet is rising.

What alternative would you prefer? Raising the tax on gas and letting efficiency take care of itself? Now THAT penalizes the enthusiasts. Fight wars in the middle east to ensure a larger future oil supply? Yeah, that's going well. This is a sensible method that does the least amount of damage and costs the least compared to the other alternatives.

it's good for the consumer, it's good for the driver, it's good for reducing our demand for foreign oil, and it's good for the environment. The only thing it isn't good for is the car companies, which make more money when they push people into buying the more expensive, more powerful cars.

Thanks Big Brother!!

Why not let the consumer decide?

Are you illiterate, or do you just read one snippet of each post and comment based on that?

Oh, and in "1984", they chose the "war with a foreign power" option.

OK, no more P & N for me, I've said my piece and no one has bothered to read it.

There might be a reason for people not reading your garbage.

Your geeky analogy leaves something to be desired.

 

[JC86]

Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist or anything but isn't it funny how GM, Ford and Daimler Chrysler all opposed that same legislation but these groups are singling out Toyota? You know what those other car companies have in common? That's right, they're domestic.

The most profitable market segment right now is the Trucks SUVs. Like it or not, selling hybrids, while profitable, pale in comparison to trucks and SUVs. If that legislation passed, all Toyota would be able to sell are econocars like the corolla, yaris, camry and prius. even their luxury hybrids would not qualify.

 

[Ktulu]

Originally posted by: JC86
Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist or anything but isn't it funny how GM, Ford and Daimler Chrysler all opposed that same legislation but these groups are singling out Toyota? You know what those other car companies have in common? That's right, they're domestic.

The most profitable market segment right now is the Trucks SUVs. Like it or not, selling hybrids, while profitable, pale in comparison to trucks and SUVs. If that legislation passed, all Toyota would be able to sell are econocars like the corolla, yaris, camry and prius. even their luxury hybrids would not qualify.

1. When you become the worlds largest automaker you now become the media's target and the target for any other whack job group out there.

2. Like I said before Toyota portrayed themselves as the most eco-friendly, Earth loving, environment saving car company. GM didn't, Ford or Dodge didn't either. Toyota wrapped itself in green and the hippies loved them. This move goes against what they've claimed to be all about.

Why don't the domestics get scrutinized for this? Because everyone expected them to be against it. DUH! Big deal.

3. THERE'S NO CONSPIRACY!!!!!.

 

[JC86]

Originally posted by: Ktulu

Originally posted by: JC86
Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist or anything but isn't it funny how GM, Ford and Daimler Chrysler all opposed that same legislation but these groups are singling out Toyota? You know what those other car companies have in common? That's right, they're domestic.

The most profitable market segment right now is the Trucks SUVs. Like it or not, selling hybrids, while profitable, pale in comparison to trucks and SUVs. If that legislation passed, all Toyota would be able to sell are econocars like the corolla, yaris, camry and prius. even their luxury hybrids would not qualify.

1. When you become the worlds largest automaker you now become the media's target and the target for any other whack job group out there.

2. Like I said before Toyota portrayed themselves as the most eco-friendly, Earth loving, environment saving car company. GM didn't, Ford or Dodge didn't either. Toyota wrapped itself in green and the hippies loved them. This move goes against what they've claimed to be all about.

Why don't the domestics get scrutinized for this? Because everyone expected them to be against it. DUH! Big deal.

3. THERE'S NO CONSPIRACY!!!!!.

Have you not seen the Chevy commercials where the guy is talking about how their Tahoe Hybrids, which in itself is an oxymoron imo, and how their chevy is going from gas friendly to gas free. Or the Mercury Mariner hybrids and Ford Focus commercials claiming their mpg statistics and how their not just more mph but more fun per gallon. It's not as if Toyota is the only one advertising their supposed eco-friendliness, everyone's jumping on the green bandwagon.

I for one do not believe that setting a hard limit on all vehicles to meet a certain mpg limit solves the problem. There are different cars for different purposes and setting a limit does nothing but force car manufacturers to either completely overhaul their lineups or throw billions into R&D that may or may not work. The end result is those costs will be passed on to us as consumers.

I do believe we are on the right track as of right now. Passing legislature that promotes hybrids and other alternative fuel vehicles to make it more mainstream. Carpoool lane access, tax rebates, free public parking are/were all perks that drove hybrid sales. Our countries gas addiction is problem that takes an evolutionary approach and not a radical revolutionary one.

In regards to the conspiracy issue, i'm simply putting two and two together. The Big Three in Detroit would like nothing more than to see Toyota knocked off its perch as the green manufacturer. This website's information, from my quick glance, is aimed SOLELY at Toyota and did not even mention the fact that the Big Three were also against it.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: woodie1
Europe accomplished the same thing by taxing the hell out of gas. Instead of mandated MPG the USA should increase the current tax and let the consumer buy whatever he wants.

Bullshit. By trying to punish those you are jealous of and taxing them because you don't like the vehicles they like, you are trying to force them into buying what YOU want them to buy, not whatever he WANTS to buy.

Die communist.

the tax isn't punishment. the tax serves to keep the rest of society from subsidizing the user by bearing the responsibility for the various negative externalities that gas causes. it actually makes the market work better.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: exdeath

Originally posted by: woodie1
Europe accomplished the same thing by taxing the hell out of gas. Instead of mandated MPG the USA should increase the current tax and let the consumer buy whatever he wants.

Bullshit. By trying to punish those you are jealous of and taxing them because you don't like the vehicles they like, you are trying to force them into buying what YOU want them to buy, not whatever he WANTS to buy.

Die communist.

the tax isn't punishment. the tax serves to keep the rest of society from subsidizing the user by bearing the responsibility for the various negative externalities that gas causes. it actually makes the market work better.

You have my attention, please explain.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
I agree though, most of the efficiency gains have come from keeping mileage stagnant and increasing power. Think of what the efficiency would be with a modern engine with only 120-ish horsepower in a car that was as light as those older cars were. But no, instead we use the efficiency to make more HP.

ZV

2006 scion xA; 1.5L; 103 hp; 2,300 lbs; 31/38
1991 tercel; 1.5L; 82 hp; 2,000 lbs; 29/35


1990 accord; 2.2L; 130 hp; 2,900 lbs; 24/30
2008 accord; 2.4L; 177 hp; 3,300 lbs; 22/31


no, i can't say from that data that we use the efficiency gains to make power alone.

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: exdeath
I'm so sick of these arguments about what people think other people neeeeeed or dont neeeeed.

And yet you are drawn to these discussions like a moth to a flame. Are you a masochist or something?

The only reason people think they want the high-hp cars is because that's what's on the market. Same with computers...do you really think Grandma wants a Core 2 Duo with 2 GB of RAM to send her Christmas e-mails? Do you think she can even tell the difference? Nope, but since no one sells an extremely cheap Athlon computer with full support anymore, that's what she buys. If your average consumer were to be given a ~120 hp commuter that didn't have the "unsafe" perception, they'd probably like the increased mileage over the extra power of the 160.

Again, these regulations do NOT force ANYONE to buy a car they don't want. They just shift the average. Anyone who feels strongly about their cars is going to buy exactly the same thing, and those other, indifferent consumers are going to save money on gas. This way we don't have to tax gasoline euro-style, so the sports car drivers can still enjoy cheap fuel, even as the average MPG rating across the fleet is rising.

What alternative would you prefer? Raising the tax on gas and letting efficiency take care of itself? Now THAT penalizes the enthusiasts. Fight wars in the middle east to ensure a larger future oil supply? Yeah, that's going well. This is a sensible method that does the least amount of damage and costs the least compared to the other alternatives.

it's good for the consumer, it's good for the driver, it's good for reducing our demand for foreign oil, and it's good for the environment. The only thing it isn't good for is the car companies, which make more money when they push people into buying the more expensive, more powerful cars.

Except for when car makers are unable to produce a car that some people might want because of regulations that forbid that car, or rather so many constraints that even though it's not forbidden it's all but impossible to actually produce and sell to a willing consumer.

Look at the ban on machine guns. Machine guns aren't actually banned or illegal, they are quite legal to own, if you didn't know. Rather there is simply enough regulation in place that it is effectively banned for most people.

These effective bans by way of constant regulation is what I worry about because people are willing to accept regulations as a comprimise, and then the slippery slope comes into play over the long term. And that is the gripe I have with so many people in here. Those who are quick to point out "oh but I don't think we should completely ban" who also say "but we need to regulate" or 'do something'. Keep "doing something" and keep regulating it and it will be effectively banned, and auto makers will no longer be able to produce those cars even though there are still people willing and able to buy them. Just like machine guns. They won't be banned, but they will be all but impossible to produce within regulations, thus ensuring a virtual ban. And some of you, think that is actually a good thing, those of you who like to enforce your views onto others because you are not satisfied with your own lives.

Then people like me become angry that your ignorance in politics has had an impact on my personal life and my free market choices, and you have far bigger problems on your hands than cars that get 5 more horsepower than you personally feel they neeeeeed.

That is why I do not comprimise. Compromise in politics merely means "take what you can for now and come back for the rest later when they've swallowed and forgotten about the last part"

 

[fbrdphreak]

I'm not getting in the middle of this bitch fest, but both GM and Toyota directly responded to the NY Times article calling them out:

http://fyi.gmblogs.com/2007/10...ideas_of_friedman.html

http://blog.toyota.com/2007/10/post.html

 

[InflatableBuddha]

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha
In case you missed it the first time around, I specifically stated "commuter car". When you're crawling along in rush-hour traffic or driving at city speeds, 130 HP gets the job done. You can drive a 400 HP sports car or a 300 HP SUV in rush hour traffic if you choose, but it won't get you to your destination any faster - there is no disputing that. The extra horsepower is purely an extraneous want.

This is true. However, you aren't always crawling in rush hour traffic, thus the higher horsepower can be used at other times

Such as on a drag strip. Look, if you're using all 400HP on a public street, you're accelerating way too fast or driving too fast for the conditions. If you're in the city, you risk hitting other cars or pedestrians. On the highway, you risk hitting deer or moose. Not smart.

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

I'm not saying that high performance sports cars need to be banned, just that high horsepower only belongs on the track. It should stay out of passenger cars. Sports cars are a hobby, a privilege, a luxury. I have no problems if you want to indulge in them.

I don't know about you but I don't like having to downshift a few times and loose a bunch of speed every time I hit a hill. Or taking much longer than normal to get up to speed when I put more than just a couple people in the car.

Sure, things slow down a bit when you have more people or luggage in the car, or on hills. But you don't need a huge amount of horsepower to overcome that. A 180-200HP mid-sized sedan has no problems with hills or added weight, unless you're trying to hold 160 km/h on a steep grade.

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

Large SUVs are superfluous. If you need to haul a bunch of stuff, get a truck. Even then, you don't need to drive it all the time.

SUVs can be used to haul stuff, and some stuff you haul you don't want bouncing around in an open truck bed. Also, SUVs have more room inside than a little car (duh) which can be much more comfortable for the passengers, and they can fit more people too than small cars. And some people can't afford more than one vehicle you know, so if it is the only car they have then well guess what they are going to drive it all the time.

Small SUVs (Rav4/CR-V), crossovers, minivans or small trucks can handle most of these needs. If you really need extra space, rent a cargo van or pickup for a day. On a day-to-day basis, you're just pissing away money on extra gas and insurance. How often do you need to haul 8 passengers plus a crapload of lumber, that would necessitate driving a Suburban? Almost never. And if you do, rent it for the day, like I said.

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO

Originally posted by: InflatableBuddha

See my other post. Tax gas according to its true cost and the market will adjust. People will have the choices they want, but they will rightly pay the true costs.

But you are attempting to forcefully limit what they want by doing so. Someone will have the choice to buy the vehicle he really wants, but thanks to stupid high gas taxes he can't afford to drive it. Gas is taxed plenty enough as it is already.

Let me ask this - do YOU really want to pay more at the pump? My guess is no. But taxing gas more will make you do that, as well as everybody else, and taxing gas more will also then cause everyone to have a thinner wallet. And higher gas taxes could make the poorer in this country even more poor because they can't afford the newer more efficient cars to begin with, now you just jacked up their cost to even getting to work. Good job.....

Gas in North America costs nowhere near what its "true cost" is. Indirectly, we all pay through poorer health, congestion, injuries and deaths, because of the proliferation of cheap gas. Google "Todd Litman" or VTPI for an idea of what I'm talking about.

Gas will only become more expensive as time goes on. We can either adapt to that reality or continue as usual and wonder WTF happened when it costs $300 to fill up. I drive pretty sparingly, but I do enjoy it to a degree. As long as the alternatives are effective...

I expect to be flamed badly for this, but I personally think gas should be less of a necessity; somewhat akin to what it costs in Europe. Over there, transit is more efficient, there are fewer external costs (health, congestion, etc. as I listed above) and yet people can still enjoy driving as a privilege. Look at the country roads in England or the Autobahn in Germany.