 | |
CAFE standards controlled by our Government? Can someone explain why?
Ford Vehicles Discussions About Ford Cars (alt.autos.ford)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#41
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: CAFE standards controlled by our Government? Can someone explain why? -
04-25-2007
, 12:52 PM
|
"Tegger" <tegger (AT) tegger (DOT) c0m> wrote in message news:Xns991D8831352E7tegger (AT) 207 (DOT) 14.116.130... "Jeff" <news (AT) googlemail (DOT) com> wrote in news:U4JXh.4322$A72.1112@trnddc07: "Tegger" <tegger (AT) tegger (DOT) c0m> wrote in message news:Xns991D5A6BA691Ategger (AT) 207 (DOT) 14.116.130... The fact that the cars are expensive to buy (and that Toyota only breaks even on them if they disregard development costs) tells you that hybrids are wasteful of resources. If a thing is relatively expensive, this can only mean one of two things: 1) profit margins are high, or 2) a tremendous amount of energy is going into the thing. 3) or, A lot of labor goes into making it. #3 is the same as #2. It doesn't matter where the energy comes from (human, machine, etc), just that it be expended. I disagree. It takes a lot of labor to write a computer program, but not all that much energy to make it compared to the costs of the human labor. |
It is energy regardless. The time it took to make that computer program is
gone forever. You cannot re-use that same time to produce anything else of
value.
--
Tegger
#42
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Jeff" <news (AT) googlemail (DOT) com> wrote in news:TgMXh.4338$A72.4213@trnddc07: "Tegger" <tegger (AT) tegger (DOT) c0m> wrote in message news:Xns991D8831352E7tegger (AT) 207 (DOT) 14.116.130... "Jeff" <news (AT) googlemail (DOT) com> wrote in news:U4JXh.4322$A72.1112@trnddc07: "Tegger" <tegger (AT) tegger (DOT) c0m> wrote in message news:Xns991D5A6BA691Ategger (AT) 207 (DOT) 14.116.130... The fact that the cars are expensive to buy (and that Toyota only breaks even on them if they disregard development costs) tells you that hybrids are wasteful of resources. If a thing is relatively expensive, this can only mean one of two things: 1) profit margins are high, or 2) a tremendous amount of energy is going into the thing. 3) or, A lot of labor goes into making it. #3 is the same as #2. It doesn't matter where the energy comes from (human, machine, etc), just that it be expended. I disagree. It takes a lot of labor to write a computer program, but not all that much energy to make it compared to the costs of the human labor. It is energy regardless. The time it took to make that computer program is gone forever. You cannot re-use that same time to produce anything else of value. |
They are not the same thing.
Jeff
Quote:
|
-- Tegger |
#43
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Bob Brown" <.> wrote in message news:gcek23tp2i1eee9jrbihb4t1n22elpfpnr (AT) bbb (DOT) org... stuff snipped Since it is clear that the private sector has no plans to mass produce affordable hydrogen cars, shouldn't we force them? If we force anything, we should force car makers to make more fuel-efficent cars. Let the private sector work with any technology they want, like gas, diesel, hydrogen, pedals (human powered). Whatever. The car makers are not shoving gas guzzlers down our throats. They are |
"oil crisis", the public DID force the automakers to produce more efficient
cars (sadly, at that time it meant smaaaalll) simply by refusing to buy
anything else. Remember the Vega and Pinto? Then, the buying habits of the
public changed so fast the auto makers had a heck of a time retooling to
compete with the suddenly popular Japanese compacts (which few people
wanted, except as a second car, prior to the oil embargo). Just as soon as
car buyers adjusted to the gasoline prices, they went back in droves to
larger vehicles. As long as the people buying the new vehicles (not me, by
the way) are actually buying them, there is no compelling reason to make
anything else. Besides, there are plenty of models out there that get very
good gas mileage and the mileage will only increase as engine control
technology advances.
#44
| |||
| |||
|
|
The car makers are not shoving gas guzzlers down our throats. They are making what the buying public wants to buy. Back in the mid '70s during the "oil crisis", the public DID force the automakers to produce more efficient cars (sadly, at that time it meant smaaaalll) simply by refusing to buy anything else. Remember the Vega and Pinto? |
years. They were both introduced in 1970 as 1971 models. The first oil
crisis didn't hit until 1973. I would argue that US automakers had
first tried to address the desire of Consumers for smaller cars in the
early 50's (Metro, Henry J) and then in the late 50's/early 60's
(Corvair, Falcon, Valiant). Even the late 60's Ford Maverick was a
relatively small car. Volumes were often good for the smaller cars
(Ford had great success selling Falcons, Mavericks, and Pintos) but
the profits were not so good. Low end cars had to compete with used
cars. Given the gas prices in the 60's and early 70's what do you
think must Consumers would rather have - a new Maverick, or a low
mileage 1 or 2 year old Mustang or Torino? I bought my first import in
1975 - a Datsun 280Z. I bought it because it was different, not
because of reliability (it wasn't) or fuel economy (it wasn't
particularly good on gas). A lot of people I know who bought imports
early on bought them because they were different. Over the years I
have owned imports from England (2 seat sports cars), Germany (Audi),
and Japan (Nissan, Mazda, and Toyota). I've never been overly
impressed with the quality or value of imported cars compared to
domestic cars. I really don't understand why Toyota has become so
successful. In terms of what I look for in a car, Toyota has
consistently been far down the list - even compared to the Japanese
rivals. Apparently boring is what Americans want.
Ed
#45
| |||
| |||
|
|
Bob Brown <.> wrote in news:6hjt23139p2qce419hekjqo57rl031la3l (AT) bbb (DOT) org: On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 02:26:00 +0000 (UTC), Tegger <tegger (AT) tegger (DOT) c0m wrote: You'll never keep a Prius (or any hybrid) long enough, or drive it enough, to recoup the extra cost of the purchase. Any "savings" come only if you disregard the premium you paid to be "green". Not trying to be mean but I aint going to pay a penny more for anything just because it's 'green'. If it costs more, it's not "green". Being "green" means reducing the use of ALL resources, not just the ones you WANT to pay attention to. |
whether or not it's a hybrid.
Newer technology always costs more until more people by that
technology.
I do no see a large jump towards greener cars, in fact I see people in
middle-class incomes tending to buy gas-guzzlers which much cheaper
technology. They're willing to pay high prices for gas and do not buy
into the CO2 myth either.
People settle for 25+ mpg cars/trucks now and they want a car/truck
with power and comfort. This means they want a bigger car that is 100%
gasoline powered.
The gov't will come along at some point and force us all into
expensive cars with high technology built-in.
Has it occurred to anyone that if the America driver shaves 10%-20% of
their gas consumption that OPEC will simply raise the price of oil to
make up the difference in profit lost?
$5-10$ per gallon gas will happen and that savings will be gone in a
flash.
I guess some people just what to 'feel warm' inside and not care that
their actions forced poorer people to become more poor.
#46
| |||
| |||
|
|
The Prius is "green" because by paying extra for it, you have less money with which to buy other goods and services, thus reducing productivity, employment, and all those other things that liberals hate. |
personal choice.
#47
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Bob Brown" <.> wrote in message news:1sjt23pf85aoh06vcmj9tg9iif9t97bbhb (AT) bbb (DOT) org... On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:50:31 -0500, "Ray O" rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote: "Bob Brown" <.> wrote in message news:0cet23le52mpeeidioojinbrffmbrtkr91 (AT) bbb (DOT) org... On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 16:10:05 GMT, "Jeff" <news (AT) googlemail (DOT) com> wrote: My point was that hybrids get better mileage on the highway than similar cars without a hybrid system. Isn't the point of all this to save the consumer money on gasoline while at the same time allowing them to have a comfortable ride in a car that will last some 7-12 years ? If so, how does a Prius do? The point of a hybrid drivetrain is to *reduce* fuel consumption while at the same time allowing the consumer to have a comfortable ride in a car that will last at least 7 to 12 years. Because of the higher cost of the hybrid drivetrain, the consumer doesn't really save money until the reduced fuel consumption has covered the premium paid for the hybrid drivetrain. Wouldn't that take 300,000 - 500,000 miles? No, not really. It is difficult to determine the "break even" point on a Prius because there is no conventionally powered version of the car. My guess is that the break-even point on a Prius vs. a 4 cylinder Camry is around 75,000 miles with gas at $3.00 per gallon. The 2 biggest variables are fuel cost and driving conditions. I'd love to see an article on the person who is first with a 100k prius. I'd also like a copy of his credit card/other accounts to see if he made any 'repairs' during that time. There are quite a few Prius with well over 100,000 miles, most notably in Taxi service in NYC. The article I read said that there were no repairs other than normal maintenance. I heard someone say 200K miles was the payoff point on the Prius, but what if like a lot of people you never make it to 200K miles? So cars are unlucky, even if they "average" 200K miles of life. Every car of that model is not going to get 200K miles even with proper care. 100,000 miles used to be considered the average life of a passenger vehicle, but 200,000 is very common now. |
warranties.
Nice.
#48
| |||
| |||
|
|
snipped 100,000 miles used to be considered the average life of a passenger vehicle, but 200,000 is very common now. So those 10 year/100K miles warranty are now basically 3-5 year warranties. Nice. |
--
Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)
#49
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 25 Apr 2007 15:37:57 GMT, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" nospam (AT) whitehouse (DOT) gov> wrote: The Prius is "green" because by paying extra for it, you have less money with which to buy other goods and services, thus reducing productivity, employment, and all those other things that liberals hate. I've noticed Liberals hate/oppose anything that involves freedom or personal choice. |
who hate/oppose anything that involves freedom or personal choice
would be fascist- either right wing or left wing.
Ed
#50
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Bob Brown" <.> wrote in message news:cp12339cm92pd0og0mhccfo120pnhclk0t (AT) bbb (DOT) org... On 25 Apr 2007 15:37:57 GMT, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" nospam (AT) whitehouse (DOT) gov> wrote: The Prius is "green" because by paying extra for it, you have less money with which to buy other goods and services, thus reducing productivity, employment, and all those other things that liberals hate. I've noticed Liberals hate/oppose anything that involves freedom or personal choice. Then they are not "Liberals." I think a more correct term for people who hate/oppose anything that involves freedom or personal choice would be fascist- either right wing or left wing. |
The correct term is "statist".
All the above mentioned people always wish to use the state's power to
enforce their desires.
--
Tegger
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.