A good summary of the 12 best and worst green vehicles.
http://www.greenercars.com/bestof.html

In the best list it's all Asian makes. Most know who they are!
In the worst Mercedes has 4 places and Chrysler has 2, giving DC 50% of
the worst vehicles.

Spam away wrote:
Hmmm - Prius is rated as the no. 2 green vehicle for 2007. Might want
to read this:
http://clubs.ccsu.edu/Recorder/edito...asp?NewsID=188

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

Bill Putney wrote:

That's a nice analysis of the situation. I used to really enjoy driving
my 51 Studebaker, and I always felt pretty good about not adding to the
environmental disaster caused by all the crap that goes into modern
cars. Not only that, but my Studebaker got about 27 mpg on the highway,
which is a lot better than cars of a similar size and comfort level today.

In article <f0bgk0$hea$1 (AT) news (DOT) isdn.net>, Bill Putney <bptn (AT) kinez (DOT) net>
wrote:

In article <132imr968cf6u1f (AT) corp (DOT) supernews.com>,
Robert Reynolds <robbie (AT) kcnet (DOT) com> wrote:

My '95 Concord, which is a far better car, does even better in spite of
it's 12 years and 85k miles, plus it's air pollution is far lower.

However you are right about many more recent vehicles; in the last few
years they have been gaining HP and bulk, but losing economy.

Spam away wrote:

I'll make a prediction for the next ten years. I am a used car buyer,
and I don't think I'll ever be a new car buyer. I think that today's
hybrid cars will end up on the junk heap in a few years with virtually
zero demand from the secondary market. Once the batteries start needing
to be replaced, people will run from these overcomplicated vehicles as
fast as possible.

opposition, regardless what junk he's selling.
Actually he's a hybrid himself, of Bush, Moore and Gore.
Posted at a University site is very surprising, but they should practice
open speech.

What he says is out of date, half truths and a political cost comparison.
I'll just note a few things he said; first the pollution at Sudbury,
Canada. Yes it was very bad, but many years ago. Now the area is an
example of what can be done to clean things up, not bury the problem as
was done at the Love Canal in the USA.

Secondly if he doesn't like nickel he'd better stop buying stainless
steel items, including the exhaust on his Hummer if it's of modern
construction. Oh yes most batteries as well, particularly the
rechargeables.

As for his cost comparison, something politicians would try on those who
don't think.

Robert Reynolds wrote:

Oh Robert Robert Robert! You should know by now that it's all about
feeling good. The realities have nothing to do with it.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

From the article:

"When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and
build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes
almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer - the Prius’s arch nemesis.

"One last fun fact for you: it takes five years to offset the premium
price of a Prius. Meaning, you have to wait 60 months to save any money
over a non-hybrid car because of lower gas expenses."

Please show me the math on that last sentence being wrong (don't forget
to factor in the cost of money over time, and factor in replacing the
batteries and their full replacement cost).

Time to get out the tap shoes.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

Bill Putney wrote:

Ironically, just this morning my wife told me that her mother was
thinking of buying something "more efficient", specifically a hybrid.
She's a feel-good type who likes to jump on whatever bandwagon is
fashionable at the moment. When my wife told her that you have to
change expensive batteries in a few years she said maybe not....

I wonder how dependable the regenerative braking systems will prove to be.