This is pathetic... no showings from the "big 3" ... terrible

http://www.dailyfueleconomytip.com/?p=296


Here’s a quick breakdown of the list of the top 12 greenest cars for 2007:

1. Honda Civic GX (actually runs on natural gas)
2. Toyota Prius
3. Honda Civic Hybrid
4. Nissan Altima Hybrid
5. Toyota Yaris
6. Toyota Corolla
7. Toyota Camry Hybrid
8. Honda Fit
9. Kia Rio5
10. Hyundai Accent
11. Hyundai Elantra
12. Honda Civic

I guess until the Ford F-150, the Chevy Silverado or the Dodge Ram
magically become environmentally friendly, it doesn’t appear that we’re
going to see an American car on this list any time soon.

On Mar 31, 10:00 pm, Picasso <Pica... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Yes, yes, yes, sure - this is why the big three are in the financial
toilet.

The vast majority of car purchasers could not give a flying rat's ass
(or a rat's flying ass) how "green" their vehicle is. Fuel economy is
surely part of a purchase decision, but most people could not care
less how much pollution they generate, they are merely concerned with
the annual fuel cost of the vehicle.

The writer of this article is trying to promote green hysteria, as
usual.

"Picasso" <Picasso (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

The only car on the list I would consider is #12, the regular Civic.

I guess until the Ford F-150, the Chevy Silverado or the Dodge Ram
Until Hinda Civic can haul 1500 lbs, I don't guess we will see it on the
list of work trucks.

Ed

"Picasso" <Picasso (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

You're some kinda jap car whore, aren't you?

"Scott" <homealone.com> wrote

You don't have to be a "jap car whore" to be unhappy with Detroit...

Whenever the price of gas spikes, lots of people suddenly want to switch to
fuel-efficient cars. Toyota and Honda make nice ones and Detroit doesn't,
so Detroit's sales go down and Toyota and Honda's go up. People that buy
Japanese cars then find that they're nice and that they last a long time and
discover - hey! I don't need a huge honkin' truck to get around in!. They
stop buying Detroit cars altogether.

Why hasn't Detroit figured this out? They need good small cars to compete.
When the price of gas goes up, they have got to stay in the game.

And they have to build a quality car. Six years ago, Bob Lutz of GM said,
"there's no difference in quality." That's crap. Just look at the lates
issue of CR - the 2001s do no measure up to Toyota and Honda. People notice
this and it hurts Detroit's sales.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"dh" <dh (AT) stargate (DOT) com> wrote

I agree with most of this post, but I wanted to add a comment about Consumer
Reports. Do you realize that their ratings to which you referred are not
scientific? They're derived from the self reporting of their members, who
may themselves be biased. Frankly, I suspect that they are indeed biased.

Not only that, but the sample size is quite small. Did you know that for a
vehicle to have enough data to be rated, there need be only 100 reports on a
model. A sample so small is in no way scientifically accurate. Not only is
the sample size an issue, but common sense alone tells you that a person's
bias is going to sway his ranking of his own car. I'm personally quite
weary of people touting CR as the end all and be all of automotive quality
measurement.

CJB

"CJB" <colonyparkwagon (AT) excite (DOT) com> wrote

First, if CR's method wasn't giving satisfaction to its readers (i.e.,
steering them into purchases that work), CR would go out of business.

Second, why wouldn't this "positive reinforcement" effect (biased ranking of
one's own car), apply to Ford, GM and Chrysler products equally?

Further, 100 reports is probably a reasonable sample size. You'd be
surprised how few items must be sampled to reach 95% confidence level for
many things. It has been a while but I did QC for a time and was
responsible for calculating sample sizes. And for designing questionnaires.

You can also check JDPower and other sources, if you like and you can also
check resale values. Resale value is the sum of all the votes in the
market.

Finally, Toyota and Honda are *consistent*. The very dominant color on the
Toyota and Honda pages in CR is "good." That suggests a rigorous and
consistent approach to design and manufacture. That's how you achieve
quality.

And there is no reason Detroit can't do this. They just don't. It's
depressing, in fact, to consider the "first model year" effect. Ever hear
somebody say, "Yeah, I like the looks of Detroit's new Belchfire 8000 but I
don't think I'll buy one in the first model year?" That's because we
believe it takes a year or two to get the bugs out of the assembly process
for any given new model.

Think about this: Toyota and Honda are generally on 5-year product cycles.
I own three entirely trouble-free Rav4s. The were introduced in 1996,
slighly refreshed in 1999, entirely revamped in 2001, upgraded in 2004 and
completely revamped in 2006. They achieved good reliability rankings all
along the way, even the first model year. You might get a slightly better
car by skipping a first-model year purchase of a Toyota or Honda but even
their first-model year cars are usually very, very good.

Now look at Detroit. How long do they keep their cars in production without
a major revision? Seven years appears to be typical. Now open up CR. Is
there a marked improvement in reliaibility between the first and second or
even between first and seventh model years? I can't find one. For any
given model, after the first year, they've got a hundred thousand of them on
the street. Are they getting feedback from the field and making sure that
the second or third - or even seventh model year incorporates the knowledge
gained and engineering improvements to make the second or even seventh model
year car better? It sure doesn't look like it.

Now, you might be thinking, "why bother putting fixes in to the fifth, sixth
or seventh model year car?" That's a good quesiton, after all, they're
nearing the end of the production run and the resources that would be spent
on incremental improvement of the current model can be put into the next
version. True enough, up to a point. The experience with the Gen 1 Malibu
(or whatever), is one of the things that determines whether or not the Gen 1
Malibu customer will buy the Gen 2 Malibu.

I don't see why Detroit can't put the resources necessary into making sure
that incremental improvements are always on tap. It's bad enough to build a
less-than-reliable car in the first model year but there's no excuse for
doing it seven years in a row.

I'd like to think their quality is improving, the new Focus is an attractive
looking car with good performance, specifications and value but I'm looking
for hard evidence of that quality and reliability improvement before I buy
one.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

That is because domestic buyer are smarter. They are not going to spend all
that extra money to buy overpriced and underpowered cars when the cars they
buy already produce relatively little pollution Ford currently offers
'Flexfuel' vehicles that run on NG, propane, or ethanol and has for ten
years or more. They also have several hybrids on the market but buyer
prefer the lower cost conventionally powered versions Better to leave the
experimental cars to the tree huggers, they make them feel good and it gives
them something to talk about at the country club LOL


mike

"Picasso" <Picasso (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

You are entitled to your own opinion but you need to do more research, many
of the current domestic models on the market score better than do Toyotas
and Hondas among buyers surveyed. If one looks on the used car lots of
domestic dealers they will see plenty of Toyotas and Honda that have been
traded on domestics. Domestics are far less expensive to drive home as
well.

Fuel economy is not the only reason buyers chose to buy what they buy. Do
you think a guy that needs a vehicle large enough to carry his family of six
will not buy what he needs because it uses more fuel? Most American
families have more than one vehicle in any event, so they can buy the car
they need for their family as well as one for when they drive alone

I was talking to a guy, that I know owned a Honda Civic, who bought a V6
Milan. I asked why he did not buy another Civic. He told me although he
liked the car the dealer was offering him $3,000 UNDER wholesale for his
2004 on a 2007. The Honda dealer said with 72K on the clock it would have a
had time selling it retail. The LM dealer paid him wholesale and the Milan
MSRP was $200 less than the Civic. He saved $3,200 and got a V6 rather than
a four

mike


"dh" <dh (AT) stargate (DOT) com> wrote

I guess it depend on which magazine one chooses to believe. The Focus has
consistently been listed as a "best buy" in several consumer magazines

mike


"dh" <dh (AT) stargate (DOT) com> wrote