Re: Hybrid cars
 

Message from Gordon McGrew written on 2/4/2006 11:57 AM:
> 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.
>
>

Doesn't GM have a hybrid Silverado truck now? And doesn't both Ford and
Toyota have hybrid versions of some of their SUV's. I would think that
would make them more fuel efficient (if one can afford to buy them!)

Re: Hybrid cars
 

I sold my '68 VW at >200,000 miles, I still have my '66 Peugeot at
270,000 miles (268k on the original engine), my '73 Volvo at
430,000 miles, and my '69 Renault at 160,000 miles- all running great.
Dad sold his '63 Checker at about 300,000 miles on the original
un-opened engine. My grandmother had a '74 Datsun that was sold running
great at 180k, Mom had a '74 Toyota that was sold running fine at
210k. Digging way back, even Mom's 54 Mercedes was humming along at
well over 150k, despite an episode of going 15 miles without coolant
until the cylinder heads were glowing at ~120k. Going newer, Dad had an 83
Honda that was sold at
205k, has a 92 Nissan that's still hauling loads at 215k, and my wife
has a 93 Mitsubishi with 230,000 miles.

Re: Hybrid cars
 

On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 16:02:28 -0500, jcr <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
>Doesn't GM have a hybrid Silverado truck now?

Go to the Chevy web site and see how much information you can find on
this "hybrid." Then see how much information is available on the
"THUNDERING 345-HP VORTEC MAX 6000 V8"

http://www.chevrolet.com/silverado/

> And doesn't both Ford and
>Toyota have hybrid versions of some of their SUV's. I would think that
>would make them more fuel efficient (if one can afford to buy them!)

The Ford and Toyota might theoretically save some fuel if they replace
a vehicle of equivalent size, but I don't wee many out there compared
to the number of Avalanches and Tahoes driving around. In any event,
my criticism isn't of hybrids, it's of the government policies that
throw a few crumbs at a huge problem while refusing to take the most
simple steps toward reforming defective regulations. For example,
what is the EPA fuel economy of a Hummer H2? Give up? It's a trick
question. It doesn't have one because it is not a light truck. It
doesn't count against the GM CAFE.

Re: Hybrid cars
 

Message from Gordon McGrew written on 2/4/2006 6:39 PM:
> On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 16:02:28 -0500, jcr <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> And doesn't both Ford and
>> Toyota have hybrid versions of some of their SUV's. I would think that
>> would make them more fuel efficient (if one can afford to buy them!)
>
> The Ford and Toyota might theoretically save some fuel if they replace
> a vehicle of equivalent size, but I don't wee many out there compared
> to the number of Avalanches and Tahoes driving around. In any event,
> my criticism isn't of hybrids, it's of the government policies that
> throw a few crumbs at a huge problem while refusing to take the most
> simple steps toward reforming defective regulations. For example,
> what is the EPA fuel economy of a Hummer H2? Give up? It's a trick
> question. It doesn't have one because it is not a light truck. It
> doesn't count against the GM CAFE.
>
>

If the government got back into this they would just mess it up worse
than it already is at best and create even worse "unintended
consequences". CAFE is a big contributor to what pushed people to buy
these monstrosities. And all because a family sedan or wagon that could
tow 5000 pounds and haul 7 people around couldn't be built any longer
and still meet CAFE. The American family still had the requirement for
vehicles with those capabilities. Enter the scene first was the minivan
(as a people mover, not so much a tow vehicle), followed by the SUV that
covers both requirements

Before you say anything, I drive a mid-sized sedan and never owned an
SUV. But when the kids were still around, we simply didn't all fit in a
"sedan" and needed at least a minivan. So that is what we had.

Re: Hybrid cars
 

Gordon McGrew wrote:

>
> 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.
>
>

I agree. The amount of increased spending the administration is talking
about is minimal, and it is going to be directed in some wrong ways. We
don't NEED fuel cells to run our cars on hydrogen. The gasoline or
diesel engine can be easily adapted to run on hydrogen. We need the
research on how to economically OBTAIN hydrogen.

Re: Hybrid cars
 

Gordon McGrew wrote:

>
> The Ford and Toyota might theoretically save some fuel if they replace
> a vehicle of equivalent size, but I don't wee many out there compared
> to the number of Avalanches and Tahoes driving around. In any event,
> my criticism isn't of hybrids, it's of the government policies that
> throw a few crumbs at a huge problem while refusing to take the most
> simple steps toward reforming defective regulations. For example,
> what is the EPA fuel economy of a Hummer H2? Give up? It's a trick
> question. It doesn't have one because it is not a light truck. It
> doesn't count against the GM CAFE.
>
>
Just making it a hybrid does not save gas. It is how it is done- the
numbers are important.

A properly designed hybrid sizes the IC engine to equal the AVERAGE
power requirement, the electric motor to fit the difference between
desired PEAK and the AVERAGE.

Many of these so-called hybrids have very large IC engines with a small
electric motor to provide a slight performance boost. Yeah, they are
technically hybrids, but not worth much. A 300 hp IC engine and a 25
horse electric is not going to save you much gas.

Re: Hybrid cars
 

Bob Palmer wrote:

> I am ROTFL now.

Laugh all you want, but facts are facts.

> 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.

I've never been able to nurse an Asian car past about 150k miles without
massive organ failure. They're like little toasters up until then, but
when things start to go EVERYTHING goes at once. They have a very
planned maximum life and are meant to be crushed into little cubes and
recycled when that finite time is up. Not my cup of tea.

I currently own 3 '60s and 70s vintage American cars, and the lowest
mileage one has 160k. The highest has 430k. The 430k car and the 270k
car are driven daily, the "low mileage" 160k car is a collectable
vehicle. They may need a little more maintenance along the way to 150k,
but the basic structure of the car and engine will last FOREVER if cared
for.



> "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."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Re: Hybrid cars
 

John Mara wrote:

>
> How did you manage to keep any car from the '70s (foreign or domestic)
> from turning into a huge pile of rust?
>
> John Mara

What's rust? Seriously, I don't live in the Salt Belt. Rust isn't a
problem except on a very few poorly rust-proofed American vehicles from
the 50s, and many 70s Japanese vehicles (mostly Nissans, and mostly
Z-cars for some reason- its very hard to find any rust-free 240 or 260Zs.)

Re: Hybrid cars
 

jcr wrote:

> 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!

Now THAT is a believable anecdote. When I started working at the
university research lab I've been at for 20 years now, there were still
some old mid-70s Fury station wagons in the vehicle fleet. Strangely for
fleet vehicles, they had 440 engines and were frighteningly fast
especially given the poor maintenance attention provided to things like
suspension and tires on older fleet cars. I have no doubt a few of them
are still out there somewhere, since they were sold (running) at auction
rather than scrapped. Every once in a while, the occasional VERY old
vehicle will pop out of the university system somewhere and wind up at
the auctions and they've typically been used up until shortly before the
auction in some remote research station. Not long ago there was a 60s
International pickup and a 62 GMC Suburban predecessor at an auction.

Re: Hybrid cars
 

In article <GbudnbHIeNcQ8HreRVn-sQ@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:
>Now THAT is a believable anecdote. When I started working at the
>university research lab I've been at for 20 years now, there were still
>some old mid-70s Fury station wagons in the vehicle fleet. Strangely for
>fleet vehicles, they had 440 engines and were frighteningly fast
>especially given the poor maintenance attention provided to things like
>suspension and tires on older fleet cars. I have no doubt a few of them
>are still out there somewhere, since they were sold (running) at auction
>rather than scrapped. Every once in a while, the occasional VERY old
>vehicle will pop out of the university system somewhere and wind up at
>the auctions and they've typically been used up until shortly before the
>auction in some remote research station. Not long ago there was a 60s
>International pickup and a 62 GMC Suburban predecessor at an auction.

I work for a small government agency, and the vehicle assigned to our
branch just got upgraded from a K-car to a new Chevy. The K-car didn't
always want to start in the morning, but it just kept going and going
for years after anybody still wanted it to go.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Re: Hybrid cars
 

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> In article <GbudnbHIeNcQ8HreRVn-sQ@texas.net>, Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote:

>
> I work for a small government agency, and the vehicle assigned to our
> branch just got upgraded from a K-car to a new Chevy. The K-car didn't
> always want to start in the morning, but it just kept going and going
> for years after anybody still wanted it to go.
> --scott

Our current motorpool includes a few circa-1990 Celebrity wagons that
fall into the "wish they'd go ahead and die" category.