Am I a bad person???

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob Smith @ Nov 13 2007, 07:32 PM) [snapback]539162[/snapback]</div>

My car is 11 years old. At that age, all the cars are roughly the same price. No matter how you slice it, a smaller car from that era isn't anywhere near as safe as a larger car. That's it. No two ways about it. I did check, though, and the crash test ratings for the driver are the same between my car and the Corolla, though you really can't compare cars across size classes. So did I sacrifice fuel economy for safety? Yes. Is that terrible? No.

Further, I'm not "pissed." I just don't think anyone should SMILE over the situation. That's callous.

I took the train/bus long before gas prices are what they are. It's quicker, I get to read, and I don't have to pay for parking.

Yeah...'cept that the only SUV in the top 10 of sales this year is the CR-V--hardly a guzzler. The top selling non-pickups (and there's only 3 pickups on that list) are the cars I mentioned earlier.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Nov 14 2007, 02:19 AM) [snapback]539321[/snapback]</div>

No, I wouldn't. Between traffic, parking costs, and the fact that I actually don't like burning gas if I don't have to, I wouldn't drive all the way to work even if gas was free.

Do any of you fully know of all the harmful pollutants that get put into the ground and air just to manufacturer cars like the Prius? The batteries, the metal for all of the wires, the plastics and so forth? Sure you're polluting less when you drive it, but the other pollution associated with the life/death of a car is likely much higher than a comparable Camry. You're not really doing all that much to ensure clean air and water. Making cars, using cars, maintaining cars, and salvaging cars all leads to pollution. We've all read the various "dust-to-dust" studies that ALL agree on the additional pollution created to manufacturer/recycle hybrid cars.

But if it makes you feel good to drive a Prius and save some money at the pump (maybe not overall, but at the pump), then that's great.

But your car isn't saving the air, cleaning the water, and warding off terrorism/increasing national security. To that last point, I can safely assume that you only buy gasoline from companies that don't import oil from U.S. hostile areas. I do, so none of the gas going into my V8 is from anywhere other than the western hemisphere. If you can't say that, then you can't push the national security argument as a reason you drive a Prius

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Chrome @ Nov 14 2007, 06:58 AM) [snapback]539365[/snapback]</div>

It really appears that you are still in denial. Fortunately, you made the first step in rocovering from fossil fuel addiction, that was joining this site. Welcome - we're glad that you are here.

Your rationalization for the purchase of your current vehicle is just that, rationalization. The 'safety' excuse is really just that, an excuse, especially considering your use of public transportation. If you were to disclose the exact time frame of your purchase and the price range in which you shopped, I am sure we could more clearly examine the break-down in logic.

They myths that you listed about the Prius being only slightly less of an envior-harmful have been fully de-bunked if you would simply do a search in regard to 'myths about the prius.'

Unfortunately the only thing that is going to bring most Americans out of their rationalization and situational ethics is $4+ dollar per gallon gasoline. You Chrome, have made the first step- just as I did a year ago. Your registered to this site. Please read on and keep an open mine. Also please watch the movie "who killed the electric car" the whole version of the film is available on Google video - for free. You should also reaqd up in regard to petroleum peaking.

Again- welcome. I know we are all glad that you are here, I just ask that you open your mind to some of the evidence-based information that is presented here!

Cheers-
Brent

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(brentmeister @ Nov 14 2007, 08:53 AM) [snapback]539375[/snapback]</div>

Thanks for the welcome, though I've been here for over a year already--longer than you. Perhaps if this site didn't harbor so much anti-Americanism I wouldn't be so adverse to the hybrid rhetoric.

The truth is, I probably use less gas getting to work than most of the people on here. No amount of fancy batteries and complex computer networks is going to get a Prius to burn the zero gallons of gasoline I burn to get to work. Maybe some of you should move to areas were public transportation is more accessible. Nah. Few of you are that committed to making a difference. It's much easier to just sign a check and buy a guilt-reducing automobile. Some of us actually moved, and that's made all the difference.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Chrome @ Nov 14 2007, 04:58 AM) [snapback]539365[/snapback]</div>

Actually you are wrong again. I know you had to have seen all the rebuttals for the CNW Marketing report but in case you didn't here is another one. RMI's rebuttal

By using the word "AntiAmericanism" I can only conclude who you tend to get your source material from and I would urge you to listen to a more diverse source. The point is not anti-American so much as anti-waste and unfortunately that is what our country does best (waste). Is it wrong to want to change this mentality?? Does wanting somethng better for your country make you an evil outsider? Nah, I think resistance to such changes makes you less American in the traditional sense.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Chrome @ 2007 11 14 06:32) [snapback]539389[/snapback]</div>

My main mode of transportation in 1981 got 80mpg. My mileage has steadily improved since then, commuting by bicycle, then walking, and now working from home. We specifically chose an area to live that was accessible to transit, shopping, recreation, and schools.

Most of us are taking steps in the right direction, and are encouraging others to do the same.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Nov 14 2007, 11:04 AM) [snapback]539437[/snapback]</div>

Don't twist it. This site is anti-American in the sense that anything made by American manufacturers is automatically garbage, anything they say is a lie, and everything they do is rooted in some kind of evil.

Change is great, I'm all for it. I'm not all about abandoning an industry that helped establish this country as a wealthy superpower with a healthy populace.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Chrome @ Nov 14 2007, 09:26 AM) [snapback]539499[/snapback]</div>

Why not abondon them if they lobby against measures that help the health of the country? When records and data prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that some of these companies are in it for profit (due to fiduciary responsibility or other) and regularly do things that harm the American people, why should we care about them? If there are companies out there doing it better then I will buy from them regardless of their country of origin. If our contry consistantly does the wrong thing then it should fall just like every other civilization has that followed a similar path. Life does not care about national boundaries and neither should we in the grand scheme. If by our international purchases we sway the market in the U.S. to change then I would gladly choose a product that is "made in the U.S.A" but to choose such a product due simply to nationalism regardless of the harm that company does is unethical IMO. An economy that puts profits ahead of it's people should not be practiced.

As for a healthy populace. We are disproportionately unhealthy compared to our GDP. We regularly rank much lower in health than we think.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Nov 14 2007, 12:36 PM) [snapback]539506[/snapback]</div>

Toyota lobbies against those same measures. That didn't stop you from buying a Prius, so that argument is invalid.

And GM is the largest provider of private health insurance in this country. Add in Chrysler and Ford and that's a big contribution. And now they're giving BILLIONS to the Union so they can manage their own insurance.

The health care provided by the Big Three a generation or two ago changed the face of this country. Sure, maybe now other countries have passed us, but to ignore the past and disregard the present contributions is myopic.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Chrome @ Nov 14 2007, 11:26 AM) [snapback]539499[/snapback]</div>

I am a proud American and Veteran of a foreign war. Veterans fight for the freedoms that we enjoy in this great country. One of those freedoms is speech and expression. I don't find this site anti-American in any way. People both here on this site and in American Society have grown tired of the deplorable quality and engineering that is coming from the American Auto manufacturers. Do you feel that Consumer Reports is anti-American also?

In regard to your statement about American manufacturers, specifically automobile manufacturers: If the shoe fits...

I've mainly owned American cars until my most recent purchase and unless things drastically change with our native auto companies, I'll not buy one again. Besides the ‘Big Three’ are outsourcing as much as they can to Mexico and Canada, while Toyota and others are expanding plants in the United States. While the quality and engineering of the 'Big Three' has steadily deteriorated over the past two decades, other auto companies have done it better and cheaper. Several of them are even doing it right here in the good ole' USA! h34r:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Chrome @ Nov 14 2007, 09:50 AM) [snapback]539516[/snapback]</div>

The argument is not invalid. Toyota put out a product that polluted less and fit my needs. GM did not. I sold all of my GMs and replaced it with a Prius. That is just a simple example of buyer choice driving the market despite marketing pushes. Now look at all the manufacures scrambling to create hybrids. Choose the lesser of the two evils if you are forced to make a choice right? Never make the mistake and assume I like Toyota as a company. I do not subscribe to brand loyalties. I do subscribe to public responsibility and quality of product. GM lost on both accounts to Toyota in my opinion.

What is the actual ratio of health care contribution to income for GM? How is this going to be effected when they close all of those plants down by 2012 and move their manufacturing overseas and/or to Mexico?

The point of this thread transformed into a discussion on critical thinking and the myriad connections the price of gas plays on the economics and healthy choices a society makes. It is very evident that we need to re-evaluate our current system and choices if we are going to continue with a high quility of life when faced with degradational methods of production/consumption and antiquated bookkeeping practices. IE, simply having gas prices go higher does help sway buyers decisions but it does not address the root of the problems we face now and only exacerbates the problems we will face in the future.

 

By Paul Niedermeyer
October 2, 2007




GM’s decline began fifty years ago, when the domestic automaker failed to repel import sales with competitive products. GM’s rear-engined air-cooled Corvair provided the template: technically advanced, but too expensive to provide profit. A string of over-ambitious and ultimately doomed imports fighters followed: aluminum-engined Vega, the Wankel, X-Body FWD, Olds Diesel V8, Cadillac V8-6-4 and EV-1. Now, when it can least afford a costly mistake, GM is launching a blitz of four different hybrid systems in a desperate attempt to counter Toyota’s successful Hybrid Synergy Drive (HSD). Is GM’s Volt the Corvair reincarnated?

Toyota’s ascendancy has been well documented: the tortoise approach to continuously improved products, processes and technologies. The Prius was born in the early nineties when oil was $15 a barrel. Initially subsidized by Toyota, the Prius is now a profitable product. And Toyota continues to relentlessly wring-out the costs of HSD; the Japanese automaker expects its hybrids to have the same (high) profit margins as its conventional cars by 2010.

Instead of figuring out how to make its (conventional) small cars profitably, GM has opened the floodgates to hybrid development. In fall ’06, Saturn introduced the belt-assist (BAS) or “mild hybrid†Saturn Vue. While GM’s BAS system allowed the domestic automaker to crow that it was, finally, in the hybrid business, sales are… unknown. [GM is the only automaker that doesn’t to break out hybrid sales numbers.]

The two-mode hybrid system set to be introduced on the Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon is classic GM: a technically ambitious product that costs too much money. GM has publicly stated that the two-mode costs the company $10k. Try amortizing that with three dollar gas; it just doesn’t pan out. No surprise that development partners Daimler and BMW are quietly walking away from the two-mode in favor of their own cheaper partial-hybrid systems. Even using six bucks a gallon gas, Europeans can’t justify the extra investment.

GM will sell a few thousand hybrid Tahoes and Suburbans to politicians, celebrities and the like, so they can ride in their behemoths “guilt free.†Meanwhile, GM is rushing their new light-truck diesel to market. The oil burner’s a better and cheaper choice for the real world conditions in which pickups and SUV’s operate (highway mileage improvement of the hybrid Tahoe is all of 2 mpg). And just who’s going to buy a Chevrolet Malibu with a $10k two-mode hybrid system?

Now, “plug-in hybrids†have replaced the fuel cell as the eco-darling concept du jour. GM has no fewer than two such systems in development. A plug-in version of the Vue could well end up costing $45k ($6 to $10k on top of the $10k cost of the two-mode system).

And then there’s the Volt. According to GM’s Bob Lutz, “Five years from now there will be one technology leader in the world, and it will be GM.†That boast has a familiar ring to it. And even if it turns out to be true, it will be a hollow (i.e. unprofitable) victory.

GM is sending its series-hybrid Volt to a showdown at the ECO corral against the parallel-hybrid Prius. With its projected 40 miles plug-in range and on-board generator, the Volt sounds impressive. But the Gen3 Prius due out in 2010 (like the Volt?), may well equal and even eclipse the Volt’s efficiency.

The Volt’s weakness– intrinsic drive train inefficiencies– show up as soon as its battery range is exhausted. While GM projects 50mpg during “charge sustaining operation†operation, that’s a misleading claim. The batteries will need to be charged by the generator– as well as keeping the car moving. Like all electric vehicles, the Volt will do best in shorter-range city driving.

The Prius’ HSD drive feeds the output of its gas engine directly to the wheels at higher speeds. It’s an intrinsically more efficient solution than using a generator to send power to an electric motor via the batteries. And Gen3 Prius will easily meet or exceed the Volt’s 50mpg continuous-use projection; Toyota projects a 15 to 20 percent improvement over the Prius’ current 46mpg EPA rating. Gen3 Prius will also have expanded electric-only range, as well as an optional plug-in range extender, approaching the Volt’s electric-only range.

GM will milk all the publicity it can get from the Volt. Hard-core eco-poseurs will buy in. After spending a billion dollars developing the Volt, they’re looking to sell some 60k annually at $30k apiece. GM is anxious about that price, and is already floating the idea of renting the battery pack separately from the car (negating any actual savings from plug-in electric energy) to try to blunt the impact (“We’ll sell you a Volt for $20k, battery not includedâ€).

Meanwhile, Toyota will be selling 150k similarly-efficient Prii for a mere $20k, and making a tidy profit doing so.

 

I just thought I'd add that I have had a GM car. It was my favorite car EVER. It was also the ONLY vehicle that was ever taken away from me, against my will. I was never allowed to purchase that car. I offered to buy it at the end of the lease, at a premium over the residual. I, along with hundreds of others, wrote the check. It was rejected. I also offered to keep paying my lease payments. Rejected.

Yes, we're talking about the one pollution-free car that GM has made. The EV1. I had one. I loved it. They took it away.

Everybody else stopped their EV programs... GM is the only one who took the cars away on their terms. If GM is what's good for this country, then we're in serious trouble. This view doesn't make me anti-American any any sense of the word. I want what is best for America... and the rest of the world (remember that part about how we're all connected?) GM has told us for years that we do NOT want smaller cars, hybrids, EVs, etc. That they only make the cars that we want to buy. Well... why are we buying hybrids from other makers then? GM had the lead in clean cars. They spent million$ to flush it down the toilet. Now they're trying to play catch-up. Am I supposed to buy what they offer, and ignore what is *best?* What message does that send to the American car-makers? That I'm happy with their offerings, and to please make MORE giant cars? Yes, companies like Toyota makes giant, stupid cars as well. But you know what? We're all here because we bought their best car - the Prius. (OK, second best after the Rav4EV, but you know what I mean).

Let me also add here that I realize I'm off-topic. I do NOT smile at other's misfortunes. I'm not happy to see others suffer. And this is just one of the reasons why we need higher gasoline prices.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ 2007 11 14 10:01) [snapback]539531[/snapback]</div>

Yes, the accounting errors go waaay past anything the bad boys at Enron ever thought of. Here's a few radical slogans from a left-wing bicycle-riding accountant you aren't likely to read in economics 101:

In the long run, the environment IS the economy.

Liquidation of natural capital is NOT income.

Use full cost pricing or suffer the consequences.

Life is not an externality.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Nov 14 2007, 03:46 PM) [snapback]539705[/snapback]</div>

I love it when someone from an entirely different field of study agrees with me. lol

 

Well
i'm not happy about gas rising because as mentioned by others in this thread, i work with alot of people at lower pay grades having or who will have difficulty with higher gas prices---there is zero public transport where i live in rural new mexico so there are no options for people outside of individual vehicle transport.

I suppose i am somewhat simply happy/proud of myself for taking the best possible step that was open to me for transportation after evaluating the available alternatives....that i took steps to help myself and the economy (both personal and private) and the environment as best i could, prior to problems rather than being hit in the face with overwhelming gas price increases...

I feel that based on where i live i am doing what i can with the prius technology
it's not happiness over our bad condition it is that for once thinking about things the way i do may have paid off regardless of the jibes of others.

just my thoughts
Froley

 

Am I a bad person???, As I smile as gas prices rise

Only if you point and laugh while pumping gas.

 

In reply to Chrome's posts I must point out that you can't have it both ways. US corporations have abandoned their workers by cutting workforce then expecting those remaining to pick up the slack, eliminating most benefits, not keeping wages up to CEO payout levels, moving business overseas, abandoning the principal of community responsibility, polluting and expecting the public to pay for their cleanup, and in general abandoning the populace which built those corporations. They led the way to lowered expectations, lobbied against the general public interest, abandoned any responsibility toward employee loyalty, etc.

Now a few dinosaurs like Chrome believe we still 'owe' allegiance to those who have abandoned us in our time of need. We respond just like the corporations did. We seek the biggest bang for our buck, resent those who have cost our nation by not cleaning up after themselves, corps provided an uninspired regurgitated product year after year, abandoned any semblance of quality control, lobbied heavily against the consumer's best interest. Now the US corporations are reaping the law of unintended consequences, and a few apologists tag along in their wake of destruction. Why?

Corporations took a relatively good relationship between the company and the workers and voluntarily changed the rules of the game and sucked the workers dry, placed their business responsibilities on the general public (clean up), took the 'extra' profits and gave them to the CEOs instead of investing in R&D, presented an inferior product relative to their competitors, then get a few citizens to complain that those who have had enough of the corporate shenanigans are somehow 'against America'. Hogwash!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Nov 15 2007, 01:03 PM) [snapback]540063[/snapback]</div>

Right, and Toyota is the corporate utopia: high factory wages, fair trade practices, factories that don't pollute, and lobbying for higher fuel economy and emissions standards. Oh right, that's not true.

You're the one living in the past. It's not the '70s anymore. Companies change.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Chrome @ Nov 14 2007, 01:26 PM) [snapback]539499[/snapback]</div>

I've challenged Ford in the past, and will challenge the Big Three together: make a fuel-efficient car comparable in quality to a Honda Civic, and I'll gladly buy it. Give me a high-quality car that gets 40 mpg.

I'm still waiting...

If that's un-American, then I'm un-American.

Harry