Check out how many Toyota trucks are for sale on EBAY and then check out how many trucks from the BIG 3 are for sale. Toyota better re-examine their strategy. Ford tough my A$$. I've already dumped $4500 into my 2007 Explorer including radiator, tranny, rear diff, transfer case. And I try to baby it. I have a 2002 Hyundai with 120,000 on it and nary a problem. Wish Hyundai or KIA would build a truck. I would be waiting at the door with my checkbook.
Dave
> The issue with hybrids is they have a shorter service life and we have to dispose of the spent batteries which are full of toxic materials.
>
>.
Dave,
I'm pretty sure the batteries are not "disposed of". Even my lawn tractor battery gets recycled when I bring the "core" in to buy a new one.
I drive a 2007 Toyota Camry Hybrid. Bought it new.
> Good driving techniques should not keep the batteries charged.
It's obvious from your statement that you don't understand the newer hybrid technologies. The increased efficiency of the system and its ability to trap and contain energy during braking and deceleration allows the use of smaller battery reserves. Constantly alternating between charging and drawing on the batteries increases their life cycle tremendously. The constant charge/discharge cycle of the batteries increases their life expectancy (and warranty) to 100,000 miles.
>Hard acceleration wastes fuel, hard breaking makes heat and the little recovered in amps probably won't gain you much.
Actually, hard acceleration in a hybrid forces the system to draw the extra power from the batteries instead of the gas engine. You gain the advantage of using high-torque electric power. I find that quicker acceleration followed by backing off the accelerator shuts down the gas system quicker, allowing the electrical system to maintain the speed over a longer distance. Fuel mileage actually increases.
You also show no understanding of the hybrid braking system. In my Camry, the brake pads never even engage until the car has slowed to under 8 mph. Braking is accomplished by generating resistance in the electric motor which generates electricity and charges the batteries. The brake pads are warranted for 80,000 miles (basically because they're hardly used).
>Using only a fuel efficient gas engine and not adding the weight of another feel good system and using fuel efficient driving techniques should provide more efficiency than any hybrid could ever do.
That would depend entirely upon the type of driving you do. I do a lot of in-town stop-and-go driving. I find that I can get almost as good as mileage in town (33-34 mpg) as I do on the highway (38-42 mpg). How many "fuel efficient" gas engines are that efficient? Remember, the Camry is a full-size car, not a Prius.
>It is a con game. Use slow acceleration, coast to a stop, instead of making heat with your breaks will do more to save energy than any two system configuration could ever save, especially if you honestly enter into the equation the manufacturing costs in labor and energy.
Again, I find the opposite to be true with my hybrid. Accelerate quickly, pull back on the accelerator forcing the gas system to shut down, then maintain your travel on all electric. Braking doesn't generate heat because the brake pads don't engage when braking until almost stopped. Considering the additional cost to purchase the hybrid instead of a gas-only version ($2500) and the tax rebate that I received when I purchased ($2400), it was a pretty reasonable deal. The 32 mpg minimum that I've received on every tank I've burned has saved me thousands in gas.
>No, the people really want to be fooled so they can feel good, a few are making a killing from all of us because of that. Enough evidence is out there to see the truth if more would only be willing to add it up. Part of the the plan for bankrupting the USA.
>What a load of uneducated crap, Jud. My Camry Hybrid has proven to be the most efficient, comfortable, and trustworthy vehicle I've ever owned. It's also the first non-Ford I've ever owned. I'm quite encouraged to see a Ford & Toyota collaboration. It'll possibly bring Ford a few years ahead of their current technology (which is really Toyota technology from two years behind).
JBS
> >The real answer is we can't keep insisting on driving everywhere by ourselves in a 3,000 lb vehicle; it isn't sustainable over the long run.
>
> "My grandfather rodeva camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel."
>
> -Rashid bin Saeed Al Maktoum (Prime Minister of United Arab Emirates and Emir of Dubai)
These comments are utter nonsense. The future is more technology not less (if it's less we're doomed). For instance we cannot feed and clothe 300 million people by returning to an Amish lifestyle, there just isn't enough land and what does one do in a drought (like they're having in Texas). When they run mpg contests the consistent winner is ethanol. With ethanol you can get internal combustion engine efficiency up to approximately 50% via high compression engine technology. As for electric cars and trucks they are going to have to be hybrids that generate there own electricity as our grid will not support more electrical demands. And as for the comment that they are trying to bankrupt the US by using green energy, it's the other way around. Imported oil is bankrupting this country, we simply cannot afford it anylonger.
I try to drive as if all the passengers* are drinking cups of coffee. Can't do it always, but it's a good goal.
*If it would make Jud feel better, replace passengers with cows. 😉
> Ford tough my A$$. I've already dumped $4500 into my 2007 Explorer including radiator, tranny, rear diff, transfer case. And I try to baby it.
Maybe you should not baby it. Treat it tough to toughen it up.
I have a 2004 Ranger with over 200K miles on it. It has been off road at jobs many times, hauled a Yamaha Rhino around quite a bit and has required no major repairs (knock on wood). I recently dented the front fascia while driving through the woods on a project and using it to push a stump out of the way.
It still has yet to need an alignment. Of course when it is required, I'll have to spring for the kit that allows the front-end to be adjusted.
Maybe I just lucked out and got a good one. However, if that is the case, I am the luckiest car buyer around as I have had similar good fortune with a 1999 Ranger and a 2007 F-150.
I will say that in my opinion the Ranger has been a much "tougher" truck than the F-150. The F-150 has already required an alignment twice and has not been taken similar places as the Ranger.
I hate to be a pessimist but I think the era of cheap fuel (about the last 150 years) is coming to a close. It may last another 20 or 30 years or maybe it won't. We are not drilling in mile deep water because easy crude is abundant.
Technology will not solve everything by itself.
I think in a hundred years they will marvel at all the fuel we wasted moving people around by themselves in large vehicles.
Dave
I don't see how having to mine the materials for twice as many vehicles then recycle them (that takes energy) is green.
I think it is fake feel good green.
The best green thing we could do is burn less overall. Technology is not a magic solution; everything comes with a cost. Those hybrid vehicles are complex systems. You may purchase less fuel but that doesn't mean the cost of ownership is any better in fact it may be worse. The best carbon sequestration is to leave the crude down there to begin with.
Wait a minute-check the stats on Ethanol.
Vehicles get worse MPG burning E-85, not better. In addition it Ethanol is farmed using diesel burning equipment. It takes fuel to make Ethanol.
Technology is great but don't expect it to be a sufficient advantage to keep us in our current transportation model.
> Wait a minute-check the stats on Ethanol.
>
> Vehicles get worse MPG burning E-85, not better. In addition it Ethanol is farmed using diesel burning equipment. It takes fuel to make Ethanol.
>
> Technology is great but don't expect it to be a sufficient advantage to keep us in our current transportation model.
That's because they run ethanol in engines designed for gasoline which isn't available any longer. Virtually all gasoline sold in the US is spiked with ethanol. It's like this, the oil companies mix ethanol with gas that is such low quality that it can't be sold without ethanol in it to meet minimum standards. But the auto industry uses high quality gasoline when they run their mpg tests for the EPA (that's why cars don't get the mpg that's advertised). What the auto industry needs to do is design their engines for ethanol (much higher compression). Ethanol can be produced from virtually anything: steel industry flue gases, algae, corn, Municipal Solid Waste, Carbon Monoxide, etc. We don't because of the disinformation campaign waged by the oil industry.
I have a 2004 Chevy Silverado that I drive off road ALOT. I have had one alignment since I bought it new.
I have a feeling the transmissions in these hybrids will cost more to replace than the vehicle will be worth. JRL
> I have a feeling the transmissions in these hybrids will cost more to replace than the vehicle will be worth.
The transmission in my Camry Hybrid is the same transmission that's in the standard version Camry. No difference. (Not to say that replacing any transmission would not be astronomically expensive).
JBS
True
> > For instance we cannot feed and clothe 300 million people by returning to an Amish lifestyle, there just isn't enough land and what does one do in a drought (like they're having in Texas).
India seems to feed and clothe 1.2 billion people living pretty much like the Amish. I'm not saying I want to live like the Amish, I'm just saying that their lifestyle uses less resources than the average American.
True
> > > For instance we cannot feed and clothe 300 million people by returning to an Amish lifestyle, there just isn't enough land and what does one do in a drought (like they're having in Texas).
>
>
>
> India seems to feed and clothe 1.2 billion people living pretty much like the Amish. I'm not saying I want to live like the Amish, I'm just saying that their lifestyle uses less resources than the average American.
Do they? How much of their food do they import? Do you also know that they squat in full view on the street and defecate? Sounds like a place I'd like to visit...not!
