Hybrid cars
#196
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
dnoyeB wrote:
>
> I disagree that ID is not science, and I disagree with how you have
> characterized it. I think it is. The problem with ID is that its
> backers don't believe in ID, they believe in creationism. And so they
> turned ID into creationism every chance they got, sort of shooting
> themselves in the foot.
>
> Its been really weird to watch the fundamentalists wrestle with ID. If
> ID would have made it in, the fundamentalists would have suddenly
> realized that teachers taking a scientific approach would not have
> involved any notions of God.
>
As a physicist and a believer in ID, I still say it is metaphysics.
That being said, I think philosphy and metaphysics are not valued as
much in twentieth and twenty-first century as they used to be and that
is a shame.
However, this argument on created universe versus uncreated universe has
been a central part of metaphysics for over two millenia. It used to be
considered as a question in cosmogeny rather than biology, and is the
sense that I believe it. However, evolution is a fallout of ID. ID is
NOT in conflict with evolution. Evolution describes how living things
change, according to the laws of biology and physics. ID examines the
question, "how did laws of nature come about?"
>
> I disagree that ID is not science, and I disagree with how you have
> characterized it. I think it is. The problem with ID is that its
> backers don't believe in ID, they believe in creationism. And so they
> turned ID into creationism every chance they got, sort of shooting
> themselves in the foot.
>
> Its been really weird to watch the fundamentalists wrestle with ID. If
> ID would have made it in, the fundamentalists would have suddenly
> realized that teachers taking a scientific approach would not have
> involved any notions of God.
>
As a physicist and a believer in ID, I still say it is metaphysics.
That being said, I think philosphy and metaphysics are not valued as
much in twentieth and twenty-first century as they used to be and that
is a shame.
However, this argument on created universe versus uncreated universe has
been a central part of metaphysics for over two millenia. It used to be
considered as a question in cosmogeny rather than biology, and is the
sense that I believe it. However, evolution is a fallout of ID. ID is
NOT in conflict with evolution. Evolution describes how living things
change, according to the laws of biology and physics. ID examines the
question, "how did laws of nature come about?"
#197
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
dnoyeB wrote:
> Ronnie Dobbs wrote:
>> clifto wrote:
>>
>>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>>
>>>> If by it you mean Intelligent Design, a federal court just held that
>>>> it was unconstitutional to teach it in a public school. Their finding
>>>> was based on a Supreme Court decision that teaching creationism (same
>>>> , different textbook) was unconstitutional.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nope. Creationism teaches the Bible account of creation. ID only posits
>>> that all this tremendously engineered stuff (the universe) didn't just
>>> fall out of nowhere, but was engineered by an intelligent entity.
>>
>>
>> Don't kid yourself. ID is creationism in sheep's clothing.
>>
>>> If I said the entity was Fromage from the planet Beepzap in the seventh
>>> dimension, you'd be all over it. ID doesn't say it wasn't him.
>>
>>
>> ID is being pushed by fundamentalist christians (and ONLY fundamentalist
>> xians) so it's obvious who the "designer" is supposed to be.
>>
>> Anyway, ID is not science. Science is taking data and making sense out
>> of it. ID is throwing your hands in the air and saying "I'm not smart
>> enough to figure it out. Therefore, goddidit." ID is a cop-out, and
>> anti-intellectualism at its most pungent. It is the opposite of
>> science.
>
>
> I disagree that ID is not science, and I disagree with how you have
> characterized it. I think it is. The problem with ID is that its
> backers don't believe in ID, they believe in creationism. And so they
> turned ID into creationism every chance they got, sort of shooting
> themselves in the foot.
How is it science? There is not one shred of evidence for ID. Science is
all about evidence. ID is anti-scientific.
> Its been really weird to watch the fundamentalists wrestle with ID. If
> ID would have made it in, the fundamentalists would have suddenly
> realized that teachers taking a scientific approach would not have
> involved any notions of God.
Yeah, they shoot themselves in the foot every time they open their mouths.
--
> Ronnie Dobbs wrote:
>> clifto wrote:
>>
>>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>>
>>>> If by it you mean Intelligent Design, a federal court just held that
>>>> it was unconstitutional to teach it in a public school. Their finding
>>>> was based on a Supreme Court decision that teaching creationism (same
>>>> , different textbook) was unconstitutional.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nope. Creationism teaches the Bible account of creation. ID only posits
>>> that all this tremendously engineered stuff (the universe) didn't just
>>> fall out of nowhere, but was engineered by an intelligent entity.
>>
>>
>> Don't kid yourself. ID is creationism in sheep's clothing.
>>
>>> If I said the entity was Fromage from the planet Beepzap in the seventh
>>> dimension, you'd be all over it. ID doesn't say it wasn't him.
>>
>>
>> ID is being pushed by fundamentalist christians (and ONLY fundamentalist
>> xians) so it's obvious who the "designer" is supposed to be.
>>
>> Anyway, ID is not science. Science is taking data and making sense out
>> of it. ID is throwing your hands in the air and saying "I'm not smart
>> enough to figure it out. Therefore, goddidit." ID is a cop-out, and
>> anti-intellectualism at its most pungent. It is the opposite of
>> science.
>
>
> I disagree that ID is not science, and I disagree with how you have
> characterized it. I think it is. The problem with ID is that its
> backers don't believe in ID, they believe in creationism. And so they
> turned ID into creationism every chance they got, sort of shooting
> themselves in the foot.
How is it science? There is not one shred of evidence for ID. Science is
all about evidence. ID is anti-scientific.
> Its been really weird to watch the fundamentalists wrestle with ID. If
> ID would have made it in, the fundamentalists would have suddenly
> realized that teachers taking a scientific approach would not have
> involved any notions of God.
Yeah, they shoot themselves in the foot every time they open their mouths.
--
#198
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
Bob Palmer wrote:
> I'd like to know where in the H___ there was anything made for automobiles
> in this country in 1969 that lasted 200,000 miles?
Any Ford or Chrysler, in my experience. 200k is easy, and there are
plenty of documented half-million mile cars from the 60s.
My direct personal experiences:
I sold my '68 Ford at >200,000 miles, I still have my '66 Dodge at
270,000 miles (268k on the original engine), my '73 Plymouth at 430,000
miles, and my '69 Dodge at 160,000 miles- all running great. Dad sold
his '63 Valiant at about 300,000 miles on the original un-opened engine.
My grandmother had a '74 Dart that was sold running great at 180k, Mom
had a '74 Mercury that was sold running fine at 210k. Digging way back,
even Mom's 54 Chrysler was humming along at well over 150k, despite an
episode of going 15 miles without coolant until the cylinder heads were
glowing at ~120k (those old 331 Hemis were *tough*). Going newer, Dad
had an 83 Gran Fury that was sold at 205k, has a 92 Dakota that's still
hauling loads at 215k, and my wife has a 93 Vision TSi with 230,000 miles.
>
>. Maybe what you were talking about was foreign?
ROTFL!!! That would be "no."
> I'd like to know where in the H___ there was anything made for automobiles
> in this country in 1969 that lasted 200,000 miles?
Any Ford or Chrysler, in my experience. 200k is easy, and there are
plenty of documented half-million mile cars from the 60s.
My direct personal experiences:
I sold my '68 Ford at >200,000 miles, I still have my '66 Dodge at
270,000 miles (268k on the original engine), my '73 Plymouth at 430,000
miles, and my '69 Dodge at 160,000 miles- all running great. Dad sold
his '63 Valiant at about 300,000 miles on the original un-opened engine.
My grandmother had a '74 Dart that was sold running great at 180k, Mom
had a '74 Mercury that was sold running fine at 210k. Digging way back,
even Mom's 54 Chrysler was humming along at well over 150k, despite an
episode of going 15 miles without coolant until the cylinder heads were
glowing at ~120k (those old 331 Hemis were *tough*). Going newer, Dad
had an 83 Gran Fury that was sold at 205k, has a 92 Dakota that's still
hauling loads at 215k, and my wife has a 93 Vision TSi with 230,000 miles.
>
>. Maybe what you were talking about was foreign?
ROTFL!!! That would be "no."
#199
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
James Robinson wrote:
> Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>
>
>>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Ray O" <rokigawa@tristarassociatesDOTcomn> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>During acceleration, torque multiplication provides an advantage
>>>>over a solid connection.
>>>
>>>Can someone explain to me what this really means? I have always
>>>heard this expression but I have never heard it explained.
>>
>>The torque convertor has a unique feature in that the torque available
>>at the output shaft can actually be HIGHER than the torque at the
>>input shaft, in addition to the fact that its slippage allows the
>>engine to move up to a higher RPM where it can apply more torque to
>>the input shaft.
>
>
> It's all about power. The torque converter is simply transferring power
> from one side to the other, less the loss in the converter. The fact
> that the output shaft is turning more slowly means that its torque has
> to be higher to keep the torque X RPM product the same.
There is a net power LOSS thru the converter. The torque increase
effect is due to the stator, not just conservation of energy (because
energy ISN'T conserved.)
> Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>
>
>>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Ray O" <rokigawa@tristarassociatesDOTcomn> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>During acceleration, torque multiplication provides an advantage
>>>>over a solid connection.
>>>
>>>Can someone explain to me what this really means? I have always
>>>heard this expression but I have never heard it explained.
>>
>>The torque convertor has a unique feature in that the torque available
>>at the output shaft can actually be HIGHER than the torque at the
>>input shaft, in addition to the fact that its slippage allows the
>>engine to move up to a higher RPM where it can apply more torque to
>>the input shaft.
>
>
> It's all about power. The torque converter is simply transferring power
> from one side to the other, less the loss in the converter. The fact
> that the output shaft is turning more slowly means that its torque has
> to be higher to keep the torque X RPM product the same.
There is a net power LOSS thru the converter. The torque increase
effect is due to the stator, not just conservation of energy (because
energy ISN'T conserved.)
#200
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 12:26:03 -0600, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>James Robinson wrote:
>
>> Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Ray O" <rokigawa@tristarassociatesDOTcomn> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>During acceleration, torque multiplication provides an advantage
>>>>>over a solid connection.
>>>>
>>>>Can someone explain to me what this really means? I have always
>>>>heard this expression but I have never heard it explained.
>>>
>>>The torque convertor has a unique feature in that the torque available
>>>at the output shaft can actually be HIGHER than the torque at the
>>>input shaft, in addition to the fact that its slippage allows the
>>>engine to move up to a higher RPM where it can apply more torque to
>>>the input shaft.
>>
>>
>> It's all about power. The torque converter is simply transferring power
>> from one side to the other, less the loss in the converter. The fact
>> that the output shaft is turning more slowly means that its torque has
>> to be higher to keep the torque X RPM product the same.
>
> There is a net power LOSS thru the converter. The torque increase
>effect is due to the stator, not just conservation of energy (because
>energy ISN'T conserved.)
But if the power output is less (and it must be, of course) and the
output torque is higher, then output rpm must be much lower.
Effectively a very low gear which gets higher as rpm increases - is
that right? A good trick for launching from a dead stop, but no magic
(surprise.) I am thinking of this being kind of a mini-CVT effect.
>James Robinson wrote:
>
>> Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Ray O" <rokigawa@tristarassociatesDOTcomn> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>During acceleration, torque multiplication provides an advantage
>>>>>over a solid connection.
>>>>
>>>>Can someone explain to me what this really means? I have always
>>>>heard this expression but I have never heard it explained.
>>>
>>>The torque convertor has a unique feature in that the torque available
>>>at the output shaft can actually be HIGHER than the torque at the
>>>input shaft, in addition to the fact that its slippage allows the
>>>engine to move up to a higher RPM where it can apply more torque to
>>>the input shaft.
>>
>>
>> It's all about power. The torque converter is simply transferring power
>> from one side to the other, less the loss in the converter. The fact
>> that the output shaft is turning more slowly means that its torque has
>> to be higher to keep the torque X RPM product the same.
>
> There is a net power LOSS thru the converter. The torque increase
>effect is due to the stator, not just conservation of energy (because
>energy ISN'T conserved.)
But if the power output is less (and it must be, of course) and the
output torque is higher, then output rpm must be much lower.
Effectively a very low gear which gets higher as rpm increases - is
that right? A good trick for launching from a dead stop, but no magic
(surprise.) I am thinking of this being kind of a mini-CVT effect.
#201
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
On Thu, 02 Feb 2006 09:15:51 -0600, Don Stauffer
<stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote:
>dnoyeB wrote:
>
>>
>> I disagree that ID is not science, and I disagree with how you have
>> characterized it. I think it is. The problem with ID is that its
>> backers don't believe in ID, they believe in creationism. And so they
>> turned ID into creationism every chance they got, sort of shooting
>> themselves in the foot.
>>
>> Its been really weird to watch the fundamentalists wrestle with ID. If
>> ID would have made it in, the fundamentalists would have suddenly
>> realized that teachers taking a scientific approach would not have
>> involved any notions of God.
>>
>
>As a physicist and a believer in ID, I still say it is metaphysics.
>That being said, I think philosphy and metaphysics are not valued as
>much in twentieth and twenty-first century as they used to be and that
>is a shame.
>
>However, this argument on created universe versus uncreated universe has
>been a central part of metaphysics for over two millenia. It used to be
>considered as a question in cosmogeny rather than biology, and is the
>sense that I believe it. However, evolution is a fallout of ID. ID is
>NOT in conflict with evolution. Evolution describes how living things
>change, according to the laws of biology and physics. ID examines the
>question, "how did laws of nature come about?"
Uh, no.
ID claims that there are biological features which are so complex that
if any part of them is removed or altered, the system wouldn't work.
Therefore, these irreducibly complex structures and systems could not
have evolved from something simpler because nothing simpler would
work. "What good is half an eye?" Since they couldn't have evolved,
they must have been designed by an intelligent designer. Gee, I
wonder who that could be?
ID is in conflict with Darwin's theory, but not with evolution per se.
Given the indisputable evidence that animals did evolve on Earth, the
intellectual leaders of ID claim that evolution was merely the way
that Go.. I mean the Intelligent Designer did His designing. This nod
to reality is not exactly highlighted by the ID elite to the unwashed
masses. If they find out that ID admits that man is related to the
other apes, they may not be so excited about it.
<stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote:
>dnoyeB wrote:
>
>>
>> I disagree that ID is not science, and I disagree with how you have
>> characterized it. I think it is. The problem with ID is that its
>> backers don't believe in ID, they believe in creationism. And so they
>> turned ID into creationism every chance they got, sort of shooting
>> themselves in the foot.
>>
>> Its been really weird to watch the fundamentalists wrestle with ID. If
>> ID would have made it in, the fundamentalists would have suddenly
>> realized that teachers taking a scientific approach would not have
>> involved any notions of God.
>>
>
>As a physicist and a believer in ID, I still say it is metaphysics.
>That being said, I think philosphy and metaphysics are not valued as
>much in twentieth and twenty-first century as they used to be and that
>is a shame.
>
>However, this argument on created universe versus uncreated universe has
>been a central part of metaphysics for over two millenia. It used to be
>considered as a question in cosmogeny rather than biology, and is the
>sense that I believe it. However, evolution is a fallout of ID. ID is
>NOT in conflict with evolution. Evolution describes how living things
>change, according to the laws of biology and physics. ID examines the
>question, "how did laws of nature come about?"
Uh, no.
ID claims that there are biological features which are so complex that
if any part of them is removed or altered, the system wouldn't work.
Therefore, these irreducibly complex structures and systems could not
have evolved from something simpler because nothing simpler would
work. "What good is half an eye?" Since they couldn't have evolved,
they must have been designed by an intelligent designer. Gee, I
wonder who that could be?
ID is in conflict with Darwin's theory, but not with evolution per se.
Given the indisputable evidence that animals did evolve on Earth, the
intellectual leaders of ID claim that evolution was merely the way
that Go.. I mean the Intelligent Designer did His designing. This nod
to reality is not exactly highlighted by the ID elite to the unwashed
masses. If they find out that ID admits that man is related to the
other apes, they may not be so excited about it.
#202
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
Gordon McGrew wrote:
> ID claims that there are biological features which are so complex that
> if any part of them is removed or altered, the system wouldn't work.
> Therefore, these irreducibly complex structures and systems could not
> have evolved from something simpler because nothing simpler would
> work. "What good is half an eye?" Since they couldn't have evolved,
> they must have been designed by an intelligent designer. Gee, I
> wonder who that could be?
>
> ID is in conflict with Darwin's theory, but not with evolution per se.
> Given the indisputable evidence that animals did evolve on Earth, the
> intellectual leaders of ID claim that evolution was merely the way
> that Go.. I mean the Intelligent Designer did His designing. This nod
> to reality is not exactly highlighted by the ID elite to the unwashed
> masses. If they find out that ID admits that man is related to the
> other apes, they may not be so excited about it.
>
>
SOME IDers say this. Certainly not all. One problem with ID theory is
that there is no central authority to say what the theory really is. My
ID ideas come from cosmology. It is based on anthropic principle.
Good point about Darwinian evolution vs evolution in general.
Creationists take great joy when evolutionary scientists argue against
some strictly Darwinian ideas. But that does not disprove evolution in
general.
> ID claims that there are biological features which are so complex that
> if any part of them is removed or altered, the system wouldn't work.
> Therefore, these irreducibly complex structures and systems could not
> have evolved from something simpler because nothing simpler would
> work. "What good is half an eye?" Since they couldn't have evolved,
> they must have been designed by an intelligent designer. Gee, I
> wonder who that could be?
>
> ID is in conflict with Darwin's theory, but not with evolution per se.
> Given the indisputable evidence that animals did evolve on Earth, the
> intellectual leaders of ID claim that evolution was merely the way
> that Go.. I mean the Intelligent Designer did His designing. This nod
> to reality is not exactly highlighted by the ID elite to the unwashed
> masses. If they find out that ID admits that man is related to the
> other apes, they may not be so excited about it.
>
>
SOME IDers say this. Certainly not all. One problem with ID theory is
that there is no central authority to say what the theory really is. My
ID ideas come from cosmology. It is based on anthropic principle.
Good point about Darwinian evolution vs evolution in general.
Creationists take great joy when evolutionary scientists argue against
some strictly Darwinian ideas. But that does not disprove evolution in
general.
#203
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
Gordon McGrew wrote:
> But if the power output is less (and it must be, of course) and the
> output torque is higher, then output rpm must be much lower.
> Effectively a very low gear which gets higher as rpm increases - is
> that right? A good trick for launching from a dead stop, but no magic
> (surprise.) I am thinking of this being kind of a mini-CVT effect.
>
>
That is correct. The stator mechanism enables it. Think about it- if you
have only an input shaft and an output shaft connected to any "black
box" clutch mechanism, then by definition the input torque must be
IDENTICAL to the output torque, regardless of difference in RPM. That
rule applies to a dry-plate clutch (slipping or not) and also applies to
a fluid clutch, but not to a torque convertor because of the presence of
the stator which can act against a (fixed) reaction shaft.
> But if the power output is less (and it must be, of course) and the
> output torque is higher, then output rpm must be much lower.
> Effectively a very low gear which gets higher as rpm increases - is
> that right? A good trick for launching from a dead stop, but no magic
> (surprise.) I am thinking of this being kind of a mini-CVT effect.
>
>
That is correct. The stator mechanism enables it. Think about it- if you
have only an input shaft and an output shaft connected to any "black
box" clutch mechanism, then by definition the input torque must be
IDENTICAL to the output torque, regardless of difference in RPM. That
rule applies to a dry-plate clutch (slipping or not) and also applies to
a fluid clutch, but not to a torque convertor because of the presence of
the stator which can act against a (fixed) reaction shaft.
#204
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
I am ROTFL now. All the American cars I had in the years you mentioned never
made it past 80,000 miles without a major repair that made it not
financially right to keep the thing. It wasn't until I bought a 1983 Nissan
Sentra Wagon that I had a vehicle go over 200,000 miles without a major
repair. Since then I've owned Hondas and Toyotas and repairs just isn't in
the dictionary anymore.
"Steve" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message
news:ytWdnYGWldGT1n_enZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@texas.net...
> Bob Palmer wrote:
>
>> I'd like to know where in the H___ there was anything made for
>> automobiles in this country in 1969 that lasted 200,000 miles?
>
> Any Ford or Chrysler, in my experience. 200k is easy, and there are plenty
> of documented half-million mile cars from the 60s.
>
> My direct personal experiences:
>
> I sold my '68 Ford at >200,000 miles, I still have my '66 Dodge at 270,000
> miles (268k on the original engine), my '73 Plymouth at 430,000 miles, and
> my '69 Dodge at 160,000 miles- all running great. Dad sold his '63 Valiant
> at about 300,000 miles on the original un-opened engine. My grandmother
> had a '74 Dart that was sold running great at 180k, Mom had a '74 Mercury
> that was sold running fine at 210k. Digging way back, even Mom's 54
> Chrysler was humming along at well over 150k, despite an episode of going
> 15 miles without coolant until the cylinder heads were glowing at ~120k
> (those old 331 Hemis were *tough*). Going newer, Dad had an 83 Gran Fury
> that was sold at 205k, has a 92 Dakota that's still hauling loads at 215k,
> and my wife has a 93 Vision TSi with 230,000 miles.
>
> >
> >. Maybe what you were talking about was foreign?
>
> ROTFL!!! That would be "no."
>
>
>
>
>
made it past 80,000 miles without a major repair that made it not
financially right to keep the thing. It wasn't until I bought a 1983 Nissan
Sentra Wagon that I had a vehicle go over 200,000 miles without a major
repair. Since then I've owned Hondas and Toyotas and repairs just isn't in
the dictionary anymore.
"Steve" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message
news:ytWdnYGWldGT1n_enZ2dnUVZ_tCdnZ2d@texas.net...
> Bob Palmer wrote:
>
>> I'd like to know where in the H___ there was anything made for
>> automobiles in this country in 1969 that lasted 200,000 miles?
>
> Any Ford or Chrysler, in my experience. 200k is easy, and there are plenty
> of documented half-million mile cars from the 60s.
>
> My direct personal experiences:
>
> I sold my '68 Ford at >200,000 miles, I still have my '66 Dodge at 270,000
> miles (268k on the original engine), my '73 Plymouth at 430,000 miles, and
> my '69 Dodge at 160,000 miles- all running great. Dad sold his '63 Valiant
> at about 300,000 miles on the original un-opened engine. My grandmother
> had a '74 Dart that was sold running great at 180k, Mom had a '74 Mercury
> that was sold running fine at 210k. Digging way back, even Mom's 54
> Chrysler was humming along at well over 150k, despite an episode of going
> 15 miles without coolant until the cylinder heads were glowing at ~120k
> (those old 331 Hemis were *tough*). Going newer, Dad had an 83 Gran Fury
> that was sold at 205k, has a 92 Dakota that's still hauling loads at 215k,
> and my wife has a 93 Vision TSi with 230,000 miles.
>
> >
> >. Maybe what you were talking about was foreign?
>
> ROTFL!!! That would be "no."
>
>
>
>
>
#205
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
aniramca@yahoo.com wrote in news:1137338838.245342.223410
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> With the rising gas prices, we hear more and more about this type of
> car today. However, I am still not very sure about the reception of
> this type of car. My friend owned a Honda Insight, and he has been
> driving it for over 5 years now. He never complained and he said that
> everything run perfectly so far. However, when I asked whether it is
> worth the money, he thinks that from the economical stands point, his
> car ended up more costly for him. He said that his car insurance
itself
> did not offset what he gained from the fuel economy. He doesn't know
> what other extra costs for extra maintenance, as his car now reached
> the 100K zone.
> Today, I only see almost none of the Honda Insight (except his). I saw
> just a number of Toyota Prius.I have never since a Ford Escape Hybrid,
> although they bragged about it since last fall. Does Escape Hybrid
> actually reach the consumer market? Strangely, I did see a Lexus RX
> 400h in our rather small city the other day. I read in the news that
> Honda Civic and Accord have now a hybrid version. The new Toyota Camry
> hybrid is coming up. GM and Ford promise for hybrid cars (never see on
> the street yet).
> The bottom line, do people really care to get a higher price hybrid
> cars? Does their reception only reflect the "environmentally
> conscience" approach nowadays, or do people really want to buy a
> hybrid?
> Diesel car has never been popular in this part of the world. I wonder
> if hybrid car is just another one of those items, where people buy to
> make an environmental statement, or a "fad" of the 20th century.
> How do hybrid cars really compare with regular cars in terms of: gas
> consumptions, car insurance cost, maintenance costs, easy access for
> repair in car garages, solving the world's environmental problems.
> So far, I still see that hybrid cars receptions are still rather muted
> or muzzled. I notice that people buy them just to show off, or just to
> make statement that they are not gas guzzlers. Is this true? Would
> like to hear some opinion and discussion.
>
>
I don't think it's so much of a fad as it is a resource conservation
concern. The government seems to be pushing these cars and encouraging
their development and sales. Not necessarily to save you money, but
probably to conserve the oil resources and lighten our link to foreign
countries. If everyone drove a hybrid our country would be doing better
economically in that standing, but as you point out they'd have to be a
lot more economical to the user.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> With the rising gas prices, we hear more and more about this type of
> car today. However, I am still not very sure about the reception of
> this type of car. My friend owned a Honda Insight, and he has been
> driving it for over 5 years now. He never complained and he said that
> everything run perfectly so far. However, when I asked whether it is
> worth the money, he thinks that from the economical stands point, his
> car ended up more costly for him. He said that his car insurance
itself
> did not offset what he gained from the fuel economy. He doesn't know
> what other extra costs for extra maintenance, as his car now reached
> the 100K zone.
> Today, I only see almost none of the Honda Insight (except his). I saw
> just a number of Toyota Prius.I have never since a Ford Escape Hybrid,
> although they bragged about it since last fall. Does Escape Hybrid
> actually reach the consumer market? Strangely, I did see a Lexus RX
> 400h in our rather small city the other day. I read in the news that
> Honda Civic and Accord have now a hybrid version. The new Toyota Camry
> hybrid is coming up. GM and Ford promise for hybrid cars (never see on
> the street yet).
> The bottom line, do people really care to get a higher price hybrid
> cars? Does their reception only reflect the "environmentally
> conscience" approach nowadays, or do people really want to buy a
> hybrid?
> Diesel car has never been popular in this part of the world. I wonder
> if hybrid car is just another one of those items, where people buy to
> make an environmental statement, or a "fad" of the 20th century.
> How do hybrid cars really compare with regular cars in terms of: gas
> consumptions, car insurance cost, maintenance costs, easy access for
> repair in car garages, solving the world's environmental problems.
> So far, I still see that hybrid cars receptions are still rather muted
> or muzzled. I notice that people buy them just to show off, or just to
> make statement that they are not gas guzzlers. Is this true? Would
> like to hear some opinion and discussion.
>
>
I don't think it's so much of a fad as it is a resource conservation
concern. The government seems to be pushing these cars and encouraging
their development and sales. Not necessarily to save you money, but
probably to conserve the oil resources and lighten our link to foreign
countries. If everyone drove a hybrid our country would be doing better
economically in that standing, but as you point out they'd have to be a
lot more economical to the user.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
#206
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 23:11:34 -0600, Janus <janus_k2@yahoo.nospam>
wrote:
>aniramca@yahoo.com wrote in news:1137338838.245342.223410
>@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
>> With the rising gas prices, we hear more and more about this type of
>> car today. However, I am still not very sure about the reception of
>> this type of car. My friend owned a Honda Insight, and he has been
>> driving it for over 5 years now. He never complained and he said that
>> everything run perfectly so far. However, when I asked whether it is
>> worth the money, he thinks that from the economical stands point, his
>> car ended up more costly for him. He said that his car insurance
>itself
>> did not offset what he gained from the fuel economy. He doesn't know
>> what other extra costs for extra maintenance, as his car now reached
>> the 100K zone.
>> Today, I only see almost none of the Honda Insight (except his). I saw
>> just a number of Toyota Prius.I have never since a Ford Escape Hybrid,
>> although they bragged about it since last fall. Does Escape Hybrid
>> actually reach the consumer market? Strangely, I did see a Lexus RX
>> 400h in our rather small city the other day. I read in the news that
>> Honda Civic and Accord have now a hybrid version. The new Toyota Camry
>> hybrid is coming up. GM and Ford promise for hybrid cars (never see on
>> the street yet).
>> The bottom line, do people really care to get a higher price hybrid
>> cars? Does their reception only reflect the "environmentally
>> conscience" approach nowadays, or do people really want to buy a
>> hybrid?
>> Diesel car has never been popular in this part of the world. I wonder
>> if hybrid car is just another one of those items, where people buy to
>> make an environmental statement, or a "fad" of the 20th century.
>> How do hybrid cars really compare with regular cars in terms of: gas
>> consumptions, car insurance cost, maintenance costs, easy access for
>> repair in car garages, solving the world's environmental problems.
>> So far, I still see that hybrid cars receptions are still rather muted
>> or muzzled. I notice that people buy them just to show off, or just to
>> make statement that they are not gas guzzlers. Is this true? Would
>> like to hear some opinion and discussion.
>>
>>
>
>I don't think it's so much of a fad as it is a resource conservation
>concern. The government seems to be pushing these cars and encouraging
>their development and sales. Not necessarily to save you money, but
>probably to conserve the oil resources and lighten our link to foreign
>countries. If everyone drove a hybrid our country would be doing better
>economically in that standing, but as you point out they'd have to be a
>lot more economical to the user.
>
>----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
>----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
wrote:
>aniramca@yahoo.com wrote in news:1137338838.245342.223410
>@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
>> With the rising gas prices, we hear more and more about this type of
>> car today. However, I am still not very sure about the reception of
>> this type of car. My friend owned a Honda Insight, and he has been
>> driving it for over 5 years now. He never complained and he said that
>> everything run perfectly so far. However, when I asked whether it is
>> worth the money, he thinks that from the economical stands point, his
>> car ended up more costly for him. He said that his car insurance
>itself
>> did not offset what he gained from the fuel economy. He doesn't know
>> what other extra costs for extra maintenance, as his car now reached
>> the 100K zone.
>> Today, I only see almost none of the Honda Insight (except his). I saw
>> just a number of Toyota Prius.I have never since a Ford Escape Hybrid,
>> although they bragged about it since last fall. Does Escape Hybrid
>> actually reach the consumer market? Strangely, I did see a Lexus RX
>> 400h in our rather small city the other day. I read in the news that
>> Honda Civic and Accord have now a hybrid version. The new Toyota Camry
>> hybrid is coming up. GM and Ford promise for hybrid cars (never see on
>> the street yet).
>> The bottom line, do people really care to get a higher price hybrid
>> cars? Does their reception only reflect the "environmentally
>> conscience" approach nowadays, or do people really want to buy a
>> hybrid?
>> Diesel car has never been popular in this part of the world. I wonder
>> if hybrid car is just another one of those items, where people buy to
>> make an environmental statement, or a "fad" of the 20th century.
>> How do hybrid cars really compare with regular cars in terms of: gas
>> consumptions, car insurance cost, maintenance costs, easy access for
>> repair in car garages, solving the world's environmental problems.
>> So far, I still see that hybrid cars receptions are still rather muted
>> or muzzled. I notice that people buy them just to show off, or just to
>> make statement that they are not gas guzzlers. Is this true? Would
>> like to hear some opinion and discussion.
>>
>>
>
>I don't think it's so much of a fad as it is a resource conservation
>concern. The government seems to be pushing these cars and encouraging
>their development and sales. Not necessarily to save you money, but
>probably to conserve the oil resources and lighten our link to foreign
>countries. If everyone drove a hybrid our country would be doing better
>economically in that standing, but as you point out they'd have to be a
>lot more economical to the user.
>
>----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
>http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
>----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
#207
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 23:11:34 -0600, Janus <janus_k2@yahoo.nospam>
wrote:
>> Diesel car has never been popular in this part of the world. I wonder
>> if hybrid car is just another one of those items, where people buy to
>> make an environmental statement, or a "fad" of the 20th century.
>> How do hybrid cars really compare with regular cars in terms of: gas
>> consumptions, car insurance cost, maintenance costs, easy access for
>> repair in car garages, solving the world's environmental problems.
>> So far, I still see that hybrid cars receptions are still rather muted
>> or muzzled. I notice that people buy them just to show off, or just to
>> make statement that they are not gas guzzlers. Is this true? Would
>> like to hear some opinion and discussion.
>>
>>
>
>I don't think it's so much of a fad as it is a resource conservation
>concern. The government seems to be pushing these cars and encouraging
>their development and sales. Not necessarily to save you money, but
>probably to conserve the oil resources and lighten our link to foreign
>countries. If everyone drove a hybrid our country would be doing better
>economically in that standing, but as you point out they'd have to be a
>lot more economical to the user.
Maybe I'm a cynic, but IMO the current government is pushing hybrids,
hydrogen, ethanol, etc. to distract the public and shut down
discussion of measures which might actually reduce fuel consumption.
The subsidy for hybrids is a tiny fraction of the subsidy for real
estate agents to buy Hummers. Throwing a little money at fuel cell
research is much cheaper and much more over-the-horizon than improving
mass transit. Any measures which might decrease fuel consumption by
monster SUVs are strictly off the table.
wrote:
>> Diesel car has never been popular in this part of the world. I wonder
>> if hybrid car is just another one of those items, where people buy to
>> make an environmental statement, or a "fad" of the 20th century.
>> How do hybrid cars really compare with regular cars in terms of: gas
>> consumptions, car insurance cost, maintenance costs, easy access for
>> repair in car garages, solving the world's environmental problems.
>> So far, I still see that hybrid cars receptions are still rather muted
>> or muzzled. I notice that people buy them just to show off, or just to
>> make statement that they are not gas guzzlers. Is this true? Would
>> like to hear some opinion and discussion.
>>
>>
>
>I don't think it's so much of a fad as it is a resource conservation
>concern. The government seems to be pushing these cars and encouraging
>their development and sales. Not necessarily to save you money, but
>probably to conserve the oil resources and lighten our link to foreign
>countries. If everyone drove a hybrid our country would be doing better
>economically in that standing, but as you point out they'd have to be a
>lot more economical to the user.
Maybe I'm a cynic, but IMO the current government is pushing hybrids,
hydrogen, ethanol, etc. to distract the public and shut down
discussion of measures which might actually reduce fuel consumption.
The subsidy for hybrids is a tiny fraction of the subsidy for real
estate agents to buy Hummers. Throwing a little money at fuel cell
research is much cheaper and much more over-the-horizon than improving
mass transit. Any measures which might decrease fuel consumption by
monster SUVs are strictly off the table.
#208
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
Message from Steve written on 2/2/2006 1:10 PM:
> Bob Palmer wrote:
>
>> I'd like to know where in the H___ there was anything made for
>> automobiles in this country in 1969 that lasted 200,000 miles?
>
> Any Ford or Chrysler, in my experience. 200k is easy, and there are
> plenty of documented half-million mile cars from the 60s.
>
> My direct personal experiences:
>
> I sold my '68 Ford at >200,000 miles, I still have my '66 Dodge at
> 270,000 miles (268k on the original engine), my '73 Plymouth at 430,000
> miles, and my '69 Dodge at 160,000 miles- all running great. Dad sold
> his '63 Valiant at about 300,000 miles on the original un-opened engine.
> My grandmother had a '74 Dart that was sold running great at 180k, Mom
> had a '74 Mercury that was sold running fine at 210k. Digging way back,
> even Mom's 54 Chrysler was humming along at well over 150k, despite an
> episode of going 15 miles without coolant until the cylinder heads were
> glowing at ~120k (those old 331 Hemis were *tough*). Going newer, Dad
> had an 83 Gran Fury that was sold at 205k, has a 92 Dakota that's still
> hauling loads at 215k, and my wife has a 93 Vision TSi with 230,000 miles.
>
> >
> >. Maybe what you were talking about was foreign?
>
> ROTFL!!! That would be "no."
>
>
>
>
>
I worked for a company a few years back that had a fleet of Plymouth
Dusters (and a couple of Plymouth Fury's). I believe they were 1972
through 1974 models with the "slant-six" engine. Nearly all of them ran
200K to 300K miles with amazingly few problems. A couple exceeded 300K
miles. Extremely reliable vehicles.
The funny thing is that when the time came to replace the Dusters, the
procurement officer replaced them with Datsun B-210's, hearing that they
were a "better" car. Well, they dumped the B-210's within 1-2 years,
long before hitting 100K miles. Got tired of having to rent cars to
cover those in the shop and paying the tow bills. So, they went to GM
next after the "Datsun Fiasco", buying mostly early '80's Cavaliers and
a few late 70's Malibu's. The Chevy's didn't do as well as the
Plymouth's, but they did work out much better than the Datsun's did!
Of course these were heavily used vehicles. Most were used by the
inter-departmental couriers. So they were on the road close to 8-hours
every day of their life. Lots of stop and go, ignition cycles, etc.
> Bob Palmer wrote:
>
>> I'd like to know where in the H___ there was anything made for
>> automobiles in this country in 1969 that lasted 200,000 miles?
>
> Any Ford or Chrysler, in my experience. 200k is easy, and there are
> plenty of documented half-million mile cars from the 60s.
>
> My direct personal experiences:
>
> I sold my '68 Ford at >200,000 miles, I still have my '66 Dodge at
> 270,000 miles (268k on the original engine), my '73 Plymouth at 430,000
> miles, and my '69 Dodge at 160,000 miles- all running great. Dad sold
> his '63 Valiant at about 300,000 miles on the original un-opened engine.
> My grandmother had a '74 Dart that was sold running great at 180k, Mom
> had a '74 Mercury that was sold running fine at 210k. Digging way back,
> even Mom's 54 Chrysler was humming along at well over 150k, despite an
> episode of going 15 miles without coolant until the cylinder heads were
> glowing at ~120k (those old 331 Hemis were *tough*). Going newer, Dad
> had an 83 Gran Fury that was sold at 205k, has a 92 Dakota that's still
> hauling loads at 215k, and my wife has a 93 Vision TSi with 230,000 miles.
>
> >
> >. Maybe what you were talking about was foreign?
>
> ROTFL!!! That would be "no."
>
>
>
>
>
I worked for a company a few years back that had a fleet of Plymouth
Dusters (and a couple of Plymouth Fury's). I believe they were 1972
through 1974 models with the "slant-six" engine. Nearly all of them ran
200K to 300K miles with amazingly few problems. A couple exceeded 300K
miles. Extremely reliable vehicles.
The funny thing is that when the time came to replace the Dusters, the
procurement officer replaced them with Datsun B-210's, hearing that they
were a "better" car. Well, they dumped the B-210's within 1-2 years,
long before hitting 100K miles. Got tired of having to rent cars to
cover those in the shop and paying the tow bills. So, they went to GM
next after the "Datsun Fiasco", buying mostly early '80's Cavaliers and
a few late 70's Malibu's. The Chevy's didn't do as well as the
Plymouth's, but they did work out much better than the Datsun's did!
Of course these were heavily used vehicles. Most were used by the
inter-departmental couriers. So they were on the road close to 8-hours
every day of their life. Lots of stop and go, ignition cycles, etc.
#209
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
Steve wrote:
> My direct personal experiences:
>
> I sold my '68 Ford at >200,000 miles, I still have my '66 Dodge at
> 270,000 miles (268k on the original engine), my '73 Plymouth at 430,000
> miles, and my '69 Dodge at 160,000 miles- all running great. Dad sold
> his '63 Valiant at about 300,000 miles on the original un-opened engine.
> My grandmother had a '74 Dart that was sold running great at 180k, Mom
> had a '74 Mercury that was sold running fine at 210k. Digging way back,
> even Mom's 54 Chrysler was humming along at well over 150k, despite an
> episode of going 15 miles without coolant until the cylinder heads were
> glowing at ~120k (those old 331 Hemis were *tough*). Going newer, Dad
> had an 83 Gran Fury that was sold at 205k, has a 92 Dakota that's still
> hauling loads at 215k, and my wife has a 93 Vision TSi with 230,000 miles.
How did you manage to keep any car from the '70s (foreign or domestic)
from turning into a huge pile of rust?
John Mara
> My direct personal experiences:
>
> I sold my '68 Ford at >200,000 miles, I still have my '66 Dodge at
> 270,000 miles (268k on the original engine), my '73 Plymouth at 430,000
> miles, and my '69 Dodge at 160,000 miles- all running great. Dad sold
> his '63 Valiant at about 300,000 miles on the original un-opened engine.
> My grandmother had a '74 Dart that was sold running great at 180k, Mom
> had a '74 Mercury that was sold running fine at 210k. Digging way back,
> even Mom's 54 Chrysler was humming along at well over 150k, despite an
> episode of going 15 miles without coolant until the cylinder heads were
> glowing at ~120k (those old 331 Hemis were *tough*). Going newer, Dad
> had an 83 Gran Fury that was sold at 205k, has a 92 Dakota that's still
> hauling loads at 215k, and my wife has a 93 Vision TSi with 230,000 miles.
How did you manage to keep any car from the '70s (foreign or domestic)
from turning into a huge pile of rust?
John Mara
#210
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Hybrid cars
Message from John Mara written on 2/4/2006 3:01 PM:
> Steve wrote:
>
>> My direct personal experiences:
>>
>> I sold my '68 Ford at >200,000 miles, I still have my '66 Dodge at
>> 270,000 miles (268k on the original engine), my '73 Plymouth at
>> 430,000 miles, and my '69 Dodge at 160,000 miles- all running great.
>> Dad sold his '63 Valiant at about 300,000 miles on the original
>> un-opened engine. My grandmother had a '74 Dart that was sold running
>> great at 180k, Mom had a '74 Mercury that was sold running fine at
>> 210k. Digging way back, even Mom's 54 Chrysler was humming along at
>> well over 150k, despite an episode of going 15 miles without coolant
>> until the cylinder heads were glowing at ~120k (those old 331 Hemis
>> were *tough*). Going newer, Dad had an 83 Gran Fury that was sold at
>> 205k, has a 92 Dakota that's still hauling loads at 215k, and my wife
>> has a 93 Vision TSi with 230,000 miles.
>
> How did you manage to keep any car from the '70s (foreign or domestic)
> from turning into a huge pile of rust?
>
> John Mara
The rust problem was mostly a "snow belt" problem.
> Steve wrote:
>
>> My direct personal experiences:
>>
>> I sold my '68 Ford at >200,000 miles, I still have my '66 Dodge at
>> 270,000 miles (268k on the original engine), my '73 Plymouth at
>> 430,000 miles, and my '69 Dodge at 160,000 miles- all running great.
>> Dad sold his '63 Valiant at about 300,000 miles on the original
>> un-opened engine. My grandmother had a '74 Dart that was sold running
>> great at 180k, Mom had a '74 Mercury that was sold running fine at
>> 210k. Digging way back, even Mom's 54 Chrysler was humming along at
>> well over 150k, despite an episode of going 15 miles without coolant
>> until the cylinder heads were glowing at ~120k (those old 331 Hemis
>> were *tough*). Going newer, Dad had an 83 Gran Fury that was sold at
>> 205k, has a 92 Dakota that's still hauling loads at 215k, and my wife
>> has a 93 Vision TSi with 230,000 miles.
>
> How did you manage to keep any car from the '70s (foreign or domestic)
> from turning into a huge pile of rust?
>
> John Mara
The rust problem was mostly a "snow belt" problem.