Prius?
I believe it would be Toyota who told him to pound sand. (At least he's still alive.) lol
Lonnie
One of our neighbors bought a Prius for his daughter to drive at college. She only used it once or twice a month to come home from Madison. The rest of the time she walked and the car was parked. They had problems with the batteries not holding a charge. Two different dealers, one in Madison and one up here, told her she needed to run the car at least fifty to seventy-five miles a week to keep the batteries charged. She was also told to never drive it for less than 30 minutes before shutting it off.
They decided it defeated the purpose they bought it and traded it in with less than 3,000 miles on it. They are great cars for some people. I know a guy who swears he averages over 70 mpg with his. They just aren't practical for everyone.
gnm109 - 6/18/2010 9:48 AM
Addiitonally, the people who buy these hybrid cars are getting sold a bill of goods. They are more expensive that a standard automobile because of the extra hardware and the fact that there are not as many of them being built. Add to that, the issue of having to replace the batteries after a period of time and the savings in fuel are simply not worthwhile.
That is the truth for sure !!
The Yaris has the same gas engine as the Prius, I believe, but without the batteries and is about $10,000 less retail. I consistently get 42mpg and can get as much as 47 if I am really careful.
Another thing with a Prius is the electric engine is good at low speeds but if you drive mostly 45-65 like we do out in the country the gas saving electric hardly ever kicks in.
Add to environmental impact of the Prius the manufacturing of batteries and all the extra components that are requires to save a little extra fuel and I suspect it ends up in the negative column when compared to a Yaris.
scrinch - 6/19/2010 3:41 AM
gnm109 - 6/18/2010 9:48 AM
Addiitonally, the people who buy these hybrid cars are getting sold a bill of goods. They are more expensive that a standard automobile because of the extra hardware and the fact that there are not as many of them being built. Add to that, the issue of having to replace the batteries after a period of time and the savings in fuel are simply not worthwhile.That is the truth for sure !!
The Yaris has the same gas engine as the Prius, I believe, but without the batteries and is about $10,000 less retail. I consistently get 42mpg and can get as much as 47 if I am really careful.
Another thing with a Prius is the electric engine is good at low speeds but if you drive mostly 45-65 like we do out in the country the gas saving electric hardly ever kicks in.
Add to environmental impact of the Prius the manufacturing of batteries and all the extra components that are requires to save a little extra fuel and I suspect it ends up in the negative column when compared to a Yaris.
Modern smaller gasoline-powered cars can get good mileage. My 2000 Ford Escort consistently gets 28-30 mpg around town and has done 32-34 on the road. It's staying around until I can find something better. It even encouraged me to lose 70 pounds in the past year so that I could fit behind the steering wheel and yes, I own it! No payments. LOL
If you want to go 55 MPH and not worry over anyone wrongfully breaking the maximum speed limit, then just force people to only purchase and drive Urals. We foilists take the back roads instead of superslabs for a reason. 🙂
Your initial premise is wrong, in that you assume that all oil is tied to motor vehicles. It is not and that would not bring OPEC to their knees in the least, but would likely bring us to ours. I don't thnk the 55 MPH limit did all that much in a positive manner back when it was in vogue and mandated. Me, I remember the 70's and I also remember the Carter years in them with his ineptness to accomplish much. Why would anyone ever want to relive that period of time with the current administration leading the charge for anything permenant being considered as a fix of any sort? Not many obeyed any speed limit laws back then, any more than they do at present. Getting more fines or improving methods to issue speeding tickets are issued hardly seems like a good balance point or good trade off in reducing much of anything related to fossil fuel consumption. Thinking the government can fix it with such plans and make it better is sort of questionable logic. They can't even fix the current oil spill crisis, so why think they can fix any reduction plan for oil consumption?
Me, I'd oppose such measures with my single vote to oust the congressmen who supported such. I drive a Ural and probably do so at about 55 MPH most of the time, but most of that time is actually because I want to and not because I have to by some illogical mandate. 🙂
HelloFriends,
funny. my shop's name is Technology for environment and development....
for 20 years I fight in every factory that smart decisions will be made by those who have the power.
Strangely nearly NONE of those highly responsible managers is willing to even listen to my sugestions.
I have recieved energy savings up to 80% and stabalized the proceses with good results.
What do you think?
How many of those managers came back to me for to review the rest of their plants?
Very few.
And why?
I had put into evidence their technical incompetence.
Their excuse is my equipment is too expensive.....
It is much more important that they drive their Mercedez to work then invest a dime and time into continuous improvements.
Other theme:
All the 28 solarcookers I build are rusting somewhere. Not even mine is used regulary. Shame on me myself.
So what can we do?
Each one of us has to start with himself and therefore become conscient of his own acts.
Start in the own jard: for example with the garbage and house heating or AC. Isolation does the best job here.
Reduce water and electricity waste going through the walls, windows and doors...into the ground
OK that sounds little, but now start with economical thinking. Where can you save real bucks? Check your costs. as bigger a budget is for something as more easily you can save.
Myself I have neither heating nor AC... But that has to do with the land where I live. Further down hill in stead of using AC it is much more usefull to change the house design (old fashioned high roofed, palm covered houses have much nicer climate then the tinn covered backing ovens and equip it with AC)
I come from Europe and in the 70tees we were able to ride the bike on the Autobahn on Sunday...
Home we got smaller cars with 40HP that lasted 15 years or longer. Since the 80tees cars even there became bigger and bigger Someone who arrives now at work with a 10 year old 40hp car or bike is stamped as "Alternative" or Hippie.
Why change a vehicle every 2 years or why must it have 200+hp?
My sugestion is start where you can and for what you have the media.
My personell way is small diesel cars for the shop, selling know how and equipment for saving energy.
(philosophy is: not on / off but measure the parameter, calculate the right dosis of the ingredient (energy, or what ever needs the process) dose that purely necesary amount ... not more, include alternative energies as possible, reuse wastes, RECHECK the results and improve)
Intelligent proportional control is the key to energy savings.
As biker what can I do? Camp instead of AC cooled motels.
Eat my own caught fish on the riverside in stead of a t bone steak in 4 star restaurant....
I should change the 2 stroker allthough it is extremely efficient against a water cooled 4 stroker that needs less repairs. (and in the coolder areas it would be usefull to heat the sidecar)
I have not the tecnology for alternative motors, but I start where I can.
At work:
Solar wood drying, automatic green house control, Eficient steam production and use, Climate control adapting to outside temperatures.
Home: separate garbage, solar system for hot water and electricity, plant trees, grow fish and frogs
Private: sane life and humble life style preferable in the green.
Best regards
Sven
Try European turbo charged diesels.
VW Golf Variant, station wagon, 170hp => 4.5l/100km = 52mi/gal
VW Lupo, 70hp, tinny 4 seater=> 3.5l/10km = 67mi/gal
Hi,
55 last time it was tried, people died, negligible oil was saved.
One of the symptoms of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. LOL
Go here:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1205
and read for yourself.
What you are looking for starts on page 6 Titled "The failed Legacy of the Double Nickle"
At the bottom of the page you will see that the actual results of lowering the speed limit influenced oil usage by less than 1%'
The rest of the article deals with how many deaths were a direct result of lowering the speed limit.
Want a good reason to not try it again with new and better technology?
Go here: http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/People/PeopleAllVictims.aspx
and you can see that 37,261 people of which over 5000 were motorcyclists were killed on the highway in 2008. (latest yr shown)
If they re-institute the double nickle, those numbers will certainly increase just like last time.
We have proved that oil savings will be negligible. As a nation we could all skip an oil change and accomplish as much.
Granted lowering the speed limits feels like a good thing,
but when you take into account the people who would die as a direct result of a artificially low speed limits, it looses it's appeal.
We have hard science that proves that speed limits must be set for the actual road. If not people die.
These are proven consequences. The government has spent tens of millions on many good studies.
Traffic engineering is a science not a political tool nor a way to raise revenue. (Please pass that on to your local government)
This site has some good info. I finally joined their organization a few years ago.
http://www.motorists.org/speedlimits/
Here is a quote from their site concerning fuel economy :
Q. Don't lower speed limits save gas?
A. No, research has shown that the 55-mph National Maximum Speed Limit, which was enacted specifically to save gas, had practically no impact on fuel consumption. This is partly because people do not obey artificially lower speed limits. It is also because the differences in travel speeds that result from unreasonable limits waste gas. Most fuel is used to accelerate to a given speed. Speed limits based on actual travel speeds promote better traffic flow, which reduces the amount of braking and accelerating on our roads. This has a positive effect on fuel consumption.
What I haven't seen mentioned in this discussion is the increase in transportation costs. Time is money. These will be passed on to the consumer as a general increase in daily consumable goods. This happened last time as you probably remember.
That would be less spendable money, more funerals, and America still dependent on foreign oil.
Last time this was instituted we believed it would be much different than it was. Once the ideal was a reality, it sucked.
Been there done that, rather not do it again.
But great discussion, Thanks dunesie !
Joe
fastjoe<
But if more people die under the 55mph speed limit then there would be less people using gas.
Sorry had to say it...
What you provided here made perfect sense.
There's no point to a 55 mph speed limit. It's only another "feel good" measure done by legislators with no technical knowledge or understanding who feel the need to do things, even if they are wrong.
One issue not mentioned by the proponents of lowering speed limits is the fact that modern vehicles are getting better fuel mileage on the average. Even my 10 year old Ford Excort can do 30+ mpg most of the time.
Cars have been leaned out more and more. Better manufacturing processes and metallurgy permit this. All of them now have fuel injection systems that are technical wonders at conserving fuel. Overall gear ratios are getting higher and higher. In the 1940's, with the typical low-powered, carbureted automobile, rear end ratios were numbers like 4:11, 4.53 and so on. Nowadays, with higher power, fuel injection and computer-controlled engine control modules monitoring heat, throttle position, load and temperature, rear end ratios are sometimes in the low 2's.
With conbinations like that, engine speeds at 70-75 mph are no higher than they formerly were at 50 mph. Emissions are lower and nothing is gained by keeping speeds below 60 mph. In fact, I can't remember the last time I saw an automobile with oil and black smoke pouring out of the tailpipe.
If they lower speeds to 55 again, it only shows that there is no technical knowledge in legislatures. In fact, it almost seems that they don't want knowledgable expert opinions most of the time. The present oil spill is a good example....but I digress.
🙂
If the "Greenies" would let us drill for our own vast domestic oil reserves and our oil wasn't exported on the world market there would be no need for foreign oil purchases.
But, that's never going to happen. The goofies have too much control on our society and it's resources.
Lonnie
Hack'n - 7/2/2010 11:48 AM
If the "Greenies" would let us drill for our own vast domestic oil reserves and our oil wasn't exported on the world market there would be no need for foreign oil purchases.
But, that's never going to happen. The goofies have too much control on our society and it's resources.Lonnie
Not just our oil, but increasingly, they have control over other critical aspects of our lives......
I said and continue to say greenies may only be permited in local goverments. in the federal they are poisson for commerce. That was about 20 years ago when they came into the Bundestag. during Gerhard's goverment they just made non-sence!!
But dear USciticen and companies should in deed look in Europe HOW things schould be done and your material and energy bills will drop incredibly.
Hopefully with the result You spend the savings in whole world benefits and not weapons.
Last word: I am not a greenie at all. but I fullfil a owe I made easter 88 by deeds.
So here we go.
Sven
