Holman Jenkins continues making his case against CAFE and other root
causes of the Big Three's inability to make profitable cars in Detroit.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123069003507444659.html

The Wall Street Journal, 31 December 2008.

Joe Gwinn

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
Holman Jenkins continues making his case against CAFE and other root
causes of the Big Three's inability to make profitable cars in Detroit.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123069003507444659.html

The CAFE law is definitely wrong-headed. Gasoline taxes as Ed has described
are the way to go but will probably never happen. If they're going to keep
the CAFE law, allowing the foreign manufacturers to skirt it by paying
relatively small fines should be stopped.

On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 10:05:16 -0500, the infamous Joseph Gwinn
scrawled the following:

Holman Jenkins continues making his case against CAFE and other root
causes of the Big Three's inability to make profitable cars in Detroit.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123069003507444659.html

When I bought my truck last year, I drove both the 5.7 and 4.7L
versions. I'd never read anything about the little V-6 and there were
none on the lot, so I didn't have a chance to check that out. I bought
the 4.7 because it had well more than enough power to move itself out
of the way of trouble when needed, and plenty for hauling around the
sub-1-ton loads I carry.

When gas was $4/gal, I wished they'd offered a 4-cyl version. Coupled
to the very efficient 5-speed auto trans, it would probably have had
enough power for most of my driving needs.

P.S: I'd like to meet Janna Dake. She looks interesting.


The Wall Street Journal, 31 December 2008.

I read his article on (Dec 17, "Put Madoff In Charge of Social
Security") last week and really like the guy.

------
We're born hungry, wet, 'n naked, and it gets worse from there.

CAFE laws have killed thousands of people. Think of it that way.

Light cars don't survive. But the 5 MPH or less bumper made of plastic
the plastic radiator, the fold into nothing front destroys a very very
expensive car and protects about the same with a real front end and airbags.

Insurance rates are way up due to CAFE and just what else - not pay scales.

Martin

ATP* wrote:
"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
Holman Jenkins continues making his case against CAFE and other root
causes of the Big Three's inability to make profitable cars in Detroit.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123069003507444659.html

The CAFE law is definitely wrong-headed. Gasoline taxes as Ed has described
are the way to go but will probably never happen. If they're going to keep
the CAFE law, allowing the foreign manufacturers to skirt it by paying
relatively small fines should be stopped.

On Dec 31 2008, 10:05*am, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
Holman Jenkins continues making his case against CAFE and other root
causes of the Big Three's inability to make profitable cars in Detroit.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123069003507444659.html

The Wall Street Journal, 31 December 2008.

Joe Gwinn


CAFE is a good example of a supposed good idea gone bad. Since the
actual cost to drive a large, low mileage vehicle for errands to the
market with one passenger etc. was low, people naturally wanted bigger
vehicle. The auto companies saw the demand for heavy, large, fast
vehicles and just responded with truck size SUV's and marketing of
trucks to people for daily driving. When gas went high and raised the
real cost of moving a 3 ton vehicle around for no good reason, many
began to think a 3 ton SUV was not a such a great idea. The lesson
from this is, if you want to limit fuel use, tax the fuel, don't
impose contrived mandatory fuel standards. In Europe fuel consumption
has dropped 20%, while at the same time in the US fuel consumption has
increased since CAFE was mandated. When fuel costs 4-8 dollars a
gallon you don't use as much. You can't "mandate" a 3 ton vehicle to
get 35 mpg. Of course in Europe Diesel is not a dirty word, and since
diesels are ~ 30% more efficient and 50% of the cars are diesel, that
helped a lot. Meanwhile are roads and bridges are falling apart, and
states are selling off to the highest bidder the toll roads for short
term gains to make ends meet. TAX the fuel, but PUT the TAX back into
the roads, not pet projects. May as well ditch the 55mph speed limit
at the same time, it was about as useful as CAFE.

On Dec 31 2008, 11:56*am, Larry Jaques
wrote:

When gas was $4/gal, I wished they'd offered a 4-cyl [truck]. Coupled
to the very efficient 5-speed auto trans, it would probably have had
enough power for most of my driving needs.

I have a 1991 Ranger with the 2.3L 4, 5-speed MT, 7' bed and 4WD. I
got $4000 off + dealer A/C because it had been on the lot for six
months and the new ones were due out -- no one else wanted it. Ford
discontinued that combination soon afterwards.

It has enough power empty around town, in fact it will burn rubber off
a stop light. The 4.11 rear axle helps. On the Interstate it's barely
adequate for light, fast traffic and hills. It can reach 80 but 70 is
the max practical cruising speed. Removing the tailgate made no
difference, leaves and snow showed that the wind in the bed moves
forward in the vortex behind the cab. It was fine for my commute in
heavy, slow traffic on flat roads in MA.

It could get 28 - 29 MPG at 55MPH on a long trip in the summer, around
20 - 22 commuting in winter. I don't trust it far from home any more
and haven't checked the mileage carefully with an ethanol blend, but I
think it's 26 or less.

A full half ton of iron in the bed doesn't bother the truck much
although its tilted headlights bother the driver ahead. I drive slowly
and carefully then anyway in case the load shifts. It has a crane like
Iggy's and handily placed bed bolts to attach the baseplate to the
frame.

Jim Wilkins

On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 16:57:26 -0800 (PST), oldjag
wrote:
snip
Holman Jenkins continues making his case against CAFE and other root
causes of the Big Three's inability to make profitable cars in Detroit.
snip
--------------
Its a shame these laws only apply to Detroit and not all car
producers in the US....[not] :-

Jenkins continues to make excuses for Detroit. The root problems
are that their cars were/are crap, the vendors have been beaten
into the ground, labor relations are very bad, and senior
management remains in total denial.

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 16:57:26 -0800 (PST), oldjag
wrote:
snip
Holman Jenkins continues making his case against CAFE and other root
causes of the Big Three's inability to make profitable cars in Detroit.
snip
--------------
Its a shame these laws only apply to Detroit and not all car
producers in the US....[not] :-

The *do* apply to all car producers in the US, and to importers, too. They
all have to comply with CAFE or pay a fine.

Detroit got around it by lobbying for a lower standard for light trucks,
which they got. Then they started making a lot of light trucks and created
the SUV. The light-truck/SUV market went from 18% of their sales in 1980 to
51% early last year.

Most of the importers and foreign builders in the US make enough small cars
that they have no trouble meeting the CAFE standards. BMW is an exception
(and Benz, too, I think), but they have no trouble paying the fine and
adding it to the price of the car. That's what happens when you build good
cars and don't destroy your own reputation.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

The *do* apply to all car producers in the US, and to importers, too. They
all have to comply with CAFE or pay a fine.

But that fine is fairly small if the linked article in op is accurate. If it was me
bulding cars, I'd just post the cafe fine on the sticker and let the customers know how
much choice cost them.

Free markets work if you trust them. I abandoned my old truck at 1.699 a gallon. Going
from a 15 mile commute to a 70 mile one had somethign to do with that.

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

The *do* apply to all car producers in the US, and to importers, too. They
all have to comply with CAFE or pay a fine.

But that fine is fairly small if the linked article in op is accurate. If
it was me
bulding cars, I'd just post the cafe fine on the sticker and let the
customers know how
much choice cost them.

Free markets work if you trust them. I abandoned my old truck at 1.699 a
gallon. Going
from a 15 mile commute to a 70 mile one had somethign to do with that.

Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't. And sometimes it depends on
what you mean by "work."

--
Ed Huntress

On Jan 3, 3:47*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Free markets work if you trust them. *I abandoned my old truck at 1.699 a
gallon. *Going
from a 15 mile commute to a 70 mile one had somethign to do with that.

Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't. And sometimes it depends on
what you mean by "work."

Ed Huntress

Despite all the noise -very- few people actually buy the high-mpg
vehicles that have been offered.
http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/198...ivic-t208.html

I never saw a Civic FE outside the showroom.

jw

Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Jan 3, 3:47 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Free markets work if you trust them. I abandoned my old truck at 1.699 a
gallon. Going
from a 15 mile commute to a 70 mile one had somethign to do with that.
Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't. And sometimes it depends on
what you mean by "work."

Ed Huntress

Despite all the noise -very- few people actually buy the high-mpg
vehicles that have been offered.
http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/198...ivic-t208.html

I never saw a Civic FE outside the showroom.


So, I'm guessing you live in Montana or some other red-meat and
republicans only enclave.

In mid-west Cincinnati, the mall and supermarket lots have a very
reasonable percentage of Prius and Civics, I see many Toyota
Matrix/Vibe, and other well made vehicles with excellent mileage Almost
all are American made, Japanese designed cars. A few months ago, I
looked at a PT cruiser, almost the same interior size as a Matrix, but
about 10 MPG less. What is Detroit's trouble? That is Detroits trouble.

And I find the arguments that the cost of a hybrid means they are
un-viable is spurious at best. I never saw a reasonability test of
buying an Escalade instead of a Malibu.

Stuart

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
On Jan 3, 3:47 am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Free markets work if you trust them. I abandoned my old truck at 1.699 a
gallon. Going
from a 15 mile commute to a 70 mile one had somethign to do with that.

Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't. And sometimes it depends on
what you mean by "work."

Ed Huntress

Despite all the noise -very- few people actually buy the high-mpg
vehicles that have been offered.
http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/198...ivic-t208.html

I never saw a Civic FE outside the showroom.

Well, in 1982, the idea was still pretty alien to people away from the
coasts. On the other hand, until the recent slowdown, Toyota couldn't keep
Prius's in stock, the demand was so high. Even in 2008, Toyota sold over
200,000 hybrids in the US through November:

http://www.electricdrive.org/index.p...icles&topics=7

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 09:34:37 -0500, Stuart Wheaton
wrote:


Ed Huntress

Despite all the noise -very- few people actually buy the high-mpg
vehicles that have been offered.
http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/198...ivic-t208.html

I never saw a Civic FE outside the showroom.


So, I'm guessing you live in Montana or some other red-meat and
republicans only enclave.

In mid-west Cincinnati, the mall and supermarket lots have a very
reasonable percentage of Prius and Civics, I see many Toyota
Matrix/Vibe, and other well made vehicles with excellent mileage Almost
all are American made, Japanese designed cars. A few months ago, I
looked at a PT cruiser, almost the same interior size as a Matrix, but
about 10 MPG less. What is Detroit's trouble? That is Detroits trouble.

And I find the arguments that the cost of a hybrid means they are
un-viable is spurious at best. I never saw a reasonability test of
buying an Escalade instead of a Malibu.

Stuart


Son...in urban ********s, you are unlikly to get those high mileage
numbers because you never drive very far.



Gunner

"Upon Roosevelt's death in 1945, H. L. Mencken predicted in his diary
that Roosevelt would be remembered as a great president, "maybe even
alongside Washington and Lincoln," opining that Roosevelt "had every
quality that morons esteem in their heroes.""

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Well, in 1982, the idea was still pretty alien to people away from the
coasts. On the other hand, until the recent slowdown, Toyota couldn't keep
Prius's in stock, the demand was so high. Even in 2008, Toyota sold over
200,000 hybrids in the US through November:


When their batteries crap out a few years down the road and they get the price tag on a
new set, do you think they will be repeat buyers of hybrids?

Cost differntial on a hybrid vs a IC only compact car doesn't make economic sense. I
doubt anyone has saved any money with a hybrid on a life cycle cost basis.

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Well, in 1982, the idea was still pretty alien to people away from the
coasts. On the other hand, until the recent slowdown, Toyota couldn't keep
Prius's in stock, the demand was so high. Even in 2008, Toyota sold over
200,000 hybrids in the US through November:


When their batteries crap out a few years down the road and they get the
price tag on a
new set, do you think they will be repeat buyers of hybrids?

The guys that had EV1's begged to be allowed to buy them.
The answer to your question is "Yes".

JC

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Well, in 1982, the idea was still pretty alien to people away from the
coasts. On the other hand, until the recent slowdown, Toyota couldn't keep
Prius's in stock, the demand was so high. Even in 2008, Toyota sold over
200,000 hybrids in the US through November:


When their batteries crap out a few years down the road and they get the
price tag on a
new set, do you think they will be repeat buyers of hybrids?

Did you check before questioning what the "price tag" is? You ought to do
so. Look up their warranty and your question will be answered.

You might also want to check out Toyota's post-warranty battery replacements
(I'll give you this one: it's 1 out of every 40,000 Priuses sold since
2001).


Cost differntial on a hybrid vs a IC only compact car doesn't make
economic sense. I
doubt anyone has saved any money with a hybrid on a life cycle cost basis.

Wes

Again, check your facts. The miles one has to drive to recover the costs are
pretty well established. Somebody on the Web even has a calculator that
allows you to plug in gasoline costs, but I couldn't find it today.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Well, in 1982, the idea was still pretty alien to people away from the
coasts. On the other hand, until the recent slowdown, Toyota couldn't
keep
Prius's in stock, the demand was so high. Even in 2008, Toyota sold over
200,000 hybrids in the US through November:


When their batteries crap out a few years down the road and they get the
price tag on a
new set, do you think they will be repeat buyers of hybrids?

Did you check before questioning what the "price tag" is? You ought to do
so. Look up their warranty and your question will be answered.

You might also want to check out Toyota's post-warranty battery
replacements (I'll give you this one: it's 1 out of every 40,000 Priuses
sold since 2001).


Cost differntial on a hybrid vs a IC only compact car doesn't make
economic sense. I
doubt anyone has saved any money with a hybrid on a life cycle cost
basis.

Wes

Again, check your facts. The miles one has to drive to recover the costs
are pretty well established. Somebody on the Web even has a calculator
that allows you to plug in gasoline costs, but I couldn't find it today.


The good thing here is that Wes will.
I hope the rest of our country looks like him.
Buffaloed maybe, stupid - no.

JC

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

When their batteries crap out a few years down the road and they get the
price tag on a
new set, do you think they will be repeat buyers of hybrids?

The guys that had EV1's begged to be allowed to buy them.
The answer to your question is "Yes".

And GM thinking about the lifecycle costs they would have to deal with said no.

I remember water jetting the belly pans for those things. We made them out of srim.
Another project we spend way too much time and money on with no pay off.

Wes

PS don't do a clear all yes on a Fanuc RJ control, not the same as on a RH. OOPS!

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Well, in 1982, the idea was still pretty alien to people away from the
coasts. On the other hand, until the recent slowdown, Toyota couldn't
keep
Prius's in stock, the demand was so high. Even in 2008, Toyota sold over
200,000 hybrids in the US through November:


When their batteries crap out a few years down the road and they get the
price tag on a
new set, do you think they will be repeat buyers of hybrids?

Did you check before questioning what the "price tag" is? You ought to do
so. Look up their warranty and your question will be answered.

You might also want to check out Toyota's post-warranty battery
replacements (I'll give you this one: it's 1 out of every 40,000 Priuses
sold since 2001).


Cost differntial on a hybrid vs a IC only compact car doesn't make
economic sense. I
doubt anyone has saved any money with a hybrid on a life cycle cost
basis.

Wes

Again, check your facts. The miles one has to drive to recover the costs
are pretty well established. Somebody on the Web even has a calculator
that allows you to plug in gasoline costs, but I couldn't find it today.


The good thing here is that Wes will.
I hope the rest of our country looks like him.
Buffaloed maybe, stupid - no.

I wouldn't have suggested it if I didn't think he'd actually do it. That
wasn't a brush-off.

Most people won't, though. They'd rather be angry and ignorant.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Well, in 1982, the idea was still pretty alien to people away from the
coasts. On the other hand, until the recent slowdown, Toyota couldn't keep
Prius's in stock, the demand was so high. Even in 2008, Toyota sold over
200,000 hybrids in the US through November:


When their batteries crap out a few years down the road and they get the
price tag on a
new set, do you think they will be repeat buyers of hybrids?

Did you check before questioning what the "price tag" is? You ought to do
so. Look up their warranty and your question will be answered.

The last time I looked it was in the 4-6 grand territory. That buys a lot of gasoline.

You might also want to check out Toyota's post-warranty battery replacements
(I'll give you this one: it's 1 out of every 40,000 Priuses sold since
2001).

That is interesting. I keep hearing a 100K mile life. Since I tend to think any car that
can't get over 200K miles with proper maintenance is a lemon, I may have a different
perspective.


Cost differntial on a hybrid vs a IC only compact car doesn't make
economic sense. I
doubt anyone has saved any money with a hybrid on a life cycle cost basis.

Wes

Again, check your facts. The miles one has to drive to recover the costs are
pretty well established. Somebody on the Web even has a calculator that
allows you to plug in gasoline costs, but I couldn't find it today.

Depends hugely on driving conditions. The prius is a metro car. May make sense for the
NY, Boston, DC corridor or whatever that is called. Doesn't make much sense in
flyoverville.

Wes

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Well, in 1982, the idea was still pretty alien to people away from the
coasts. On the other hand, until the recent slowdown, Toyota couldn't
keep
Prius's in stock, the demand was so high. Even in 2008, Toyota sold
over
200,000 hybrids in the US through November:


When their batteries crap out a few years down the road and they get
the price tag on a
new set, do you think they will be repeat buyers of hybrids?

Did you check before questioning what the "price tag" is? You ought to
do so. Look up their warranty and your question will be answered.

You might also want to check out Toyota's post-warranty battery
replacements (I'll give you this one: it's 1 out of every 40,000 Priuses
sold since 2001).


Cost differntial on a hybrid vs a IC only compact car doesn't make
economic sense. I
doubt anyone has saved any money with a hybrid on a life cycle cost
basis.

Wes

Again, check your facts. The miles one has to drive to recover the costs
are pretty well established. Somebody on the Web even has a calculator
that allows you to plug in gasoline costs, but I couldn't find it today.


The good thing here is that Wes will.
I hope the rest of our country looks like him.
Buffaloed maybe, stupid - no.

I wouldn't have suggested it if I didn't think he'd actually do it. That
wasn't a brush-off.

Most people won't, though. They'd rather be angry and ignorant.

I wasn't passing judgement on either of you Ed, just offering my opinion.
That we are all full of crap isn't important.
Frankly, we are, and that's important.

I think you know what I mean.

JC

On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 22:55:44 -0500, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Again, check your facts. The miles one has to drive to recover the costs are
pretty well established. Somebody on the Web even has a calculator that
allows you to plug in gasoline costs, but I couldn't find it today.

Depends hugely on driving conditions. The prius is a metro car.

I disagree. As a dual-fuel, it can go hundreds of miles between
fillups + charges. All-electric cars are truly metromobiles.


May make sense for the
NY, Boston, DC corridor or whatever that is called. Doesn't make much sense in
flyoverville.

Right, but 90% of the cars on the road today are metromobiles. If it
weren't for the ton of tools and product I need to haul, I could use a
metromobile. I seldom drive 100+ miles/week.

------
We're born hungry, wet, 'n naked, and it gets worse from there.

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Well, in 1982, the idea was still pretty alien to people away from the
coasts. On the other hand, until the recent slowdown, Toyota couldn't
keep
Prius's in stock, the demand was so high. Even in 2008, Toyota sold
over
200,000 hybrids in the US through November:


When their batteries crap out a few years down the road and they get
the price tag on a
new set, do you think they will be repeat buyers of hybrids?

Did you check before questioning what the "price tag" is? You ought to
do so. Look up their warranty and your question will be answered.

You might also want to check out Toyota's post-warranty battery
replacements (I'll give you this one: it's 1 out of every 40,000
Priuses sold since 2001).


Cost differntial on a hybrid vs a IC only compact car doesn't make
economic sense. I
doubt anyone has saved any money with a hybrid on a life cycle cost
basis.

Wes

Again, check your facts. The miles one has to drive to recover the
costs are pretty well established. Somebody on the Web even has a
calculator that allows you to plug in gasoline costs, but I couldn't
find it today.


The good thing here is that Wes will.
I hope the rest of our country looks like him.
Buffaloed maybe, stupid - no.

I wouldn't have suggested it if I didn't think he'd actually do it. That
wasn't a brush-off.

Most people won't, though. They'd rather be angry and ignorant.

I wasn't passing judgement on either of you Ed, just offering my opinion.
That we are all full of crap isn't important.
Frankly, we are, and that's important.

I think you know what I mean.

Oh, yeah, I didn't take it negatively. I thought you were saying that Wes is
the kind of guy who shapes his opinions based on an understanding of the
facts. That's my impression, too, and that's what I meant.

--
Ed Huntress

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Well, in 1982, the idea was still pretty alien to people away from the
coasts. On the other hand, until the recent slowdown, Toyota couldn't
keep
Prius's in stock, the demand was so high. Even in 2008, Toyota sold over
200,000 hybrids in the US through November:


When their batteries crap out a few years down the road and they get the
price tag on a
new set, do you think they will be repeat buyers of hybrids?

Did you check before questioning what the "price tag" is? You ought to do
so. Look up their warranty and your question will be answered.

The last time I looked it was in the 4-6 grand territory. That buys a lot
of gasoline.

The price tag, up to 100,000 miles or 8 years, is $0. In CA, it's 150,000
miles or 10 years. In CT, it's 15 years.

Replacement cost is now around $2,800 for the battery, plus up to $700 for
installation. But most people are buying used ones for $700 - $1,500.


You might also want to check out Toyota's post-warranty battery
replacements
(I'll give you this one: it's 1 out of every 40,000 Priuses sold since
2001).

That is interesting. I keep hearing a 100K mile life. Since I tend to
think any car that
can't get over 200K miles with proper maintenance is a lemon, I may have a
different
perspective.

Toyota says the battery is built for an expected life of 180,000 miles, and
some independent reports indicate a life of 350,000 when they're well cared
for. Even with the 150,000 mile warranty in CA, their warranty claims on
batteries are close to nil. In any case, at $4/gallon, you break even at
just under 100,000 miles, which is the warranty life. That's assuming 45 mpg
for the Prius, and 35 mpg for whatever you're comparing it with, combined
highway and city. There aren't many cars that will get 35 combined. In fact,
I think Edmund says the number of non-hybrid gas-powered cars sold in the US
that will do it is zero. Users are reporting Prius mileage figures all over
the map, but 45 mpg combined seems like a conservative average.



Cost differntial on a hybrid vs a IC only compact car doesn't make
economic sense. I
doubt anyone has saved any money with a hybrid on a life cycle cost
basis.

Wes

Again, check your facts. The miles one has to drive to recover the costs
are
pretty well established. Somebody on the Web even has a calculator that
allows you to plug in gasoline costs, but I couldn't find it today.

Depends hugely on driving conditions. The prius is a metro car. May make
sense for the
NY, Boston, DC corridor or whatever that is called. Doesn't make much
sense in
flyoverville.

A lot of people in flypaper country have bought them.

I don't like the extra complication, although I'll be convinced if someone
comes up with a good plug-in version.

--
Ed Huntress

On Jan 3, 9:34*am, Stuart Wheaton wrote:
Jim Wilkins wrote:
...
I never saw a Civic FE outside the showroom.

So, I'm guessing you live in Montana or some other red-meat and
republicans only enclave.

At that time most of my driving was in Massachusetts. Many drivers
there are impatient and bully all small cars, some of which poke in
the fast lane. Under those conditions pickups and SUVs made sense for
self-defense.

jw

Ed Huntress wrote:
I don't like the extra complication, although I'll be convinced if someone
comes up with a good plug-in version.

That's supposed to be coming in the next year or so. Some people have
hacked theirs to allow plug-in charging, though that obviously voids the
warranty....
One of my customers has a Prius and just loves it. It certainly gets far
better milage than his 1963 Chevy PU!
But here's someone that's not so impressed with them....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOvp69lnZbA


Jon

"Jon Anderson" wrote in message
news
Ed Huntress wrote:
I don't like the extra complication, although I'll be convinced if
someone comes up with a good plug-in version.

That's supposed to be coming in the next year or so. Some people have
hacked theirs to allow plug-in charging, though that obviously voids the
warranty....

Since you keep drawing the batteries down low when you drive on electric
only, there's a concern about battery life, too. I've heard that's the
reason that Toyota was bad-mouthing plug-ins early on, and wouldn't build
one. Also, you'd need about $30,000 worth of their current type of batteries
(NiMH, apparently soon to change to Li-ion) to get any worthwhile range out
of it. One hopes that will improve over time.

One of my customers has a Prius and just loves it. It certainly gets far
better milage than his 1963 Chevy PU!
But here's someone that's not so impressed with them....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOvp69lnZbA

ROFLMAO! Oh, that's funny.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 12:23:25 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Jon Anderson" wrote in message
news
Ed Huntress wrote:
I don't like the extra complication, although I'll be convinced if
someone comes up with a good plug-in version.

That's supposed to be coming in the next year or so. Some people have
hacked theirs to allow plug-in charging, though that obviously voids the
warranty....

Since you keep drawing the batteries down low when you drive on electric
only, there's a concern about battery life, too. I've heard that's the
reason that Toyota was bad-mouthing plug-ins early on, and wouldn't build
one. Also, you'd need about $30,000 worth of their current type of batteries
(NiMH, apparently soon to change to Li-ion) to get any worthwhile range out
of it. One hopes that will improve over time.

I haven't started reading it yet but I have a copy of _Build Your Own
Electric Vehicle_ in my queue.

Online, I found references to lithium polymer batteries, the next gen
battery. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqywKcJ0J2M


One of my customers has a Prius and just loves it. It certainly gets far
better milage than his 1963 Chevy PU!
But here's someone that's not so impressed with them....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOvp69lnZbA

ROFLMAO! Oh, that's funny.

You want funny? (Totally un-related and not PC.
http://www.uti.com/~thekeep/blondie.jpg

--
Books are the compasses and telescopes and sextants and charts which other
men have prepared to help us navigate the dangerous seas of human life.
--Jesse Lee Bennett

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 12:23:25 -0500, the infamous "Ed Huntress"
scrawled the following:


"Jon Anderson" wrote in message
news
Ed Huntress wrote:
I don't like the extra complication, although I'll be convinced if
someone comes up with a good plug-in version.

That's supposed to be coming in the next year or so. Some people have
hacked theirs to allow plug-in charging, though that obviously voids the
warranty....

Since you keep drawing the batteries down low when you drive on electric
only, there's a concern about battery life, too. I've heard that's the
reason that Toyota was bad-mouthing plug-ins early on, and wouldn't build
one. Also, you'd need about $30,000 worth of their current type of
batteries
(NiMH, apparently soon to change to Li-ion) to get any worthwhile range
out
of it. One hopes that will improve over time.

I haven't started reading it yet but I have a copy of _Build Your Own
Electric Vehicle_ in my queue.

Online, I found references to lithium polymer batteries, the next gen
battery. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqywKcJ0J2M


One of my customers has a Prius and just loves it. It certainly gets far
better milage than his 1963 Chevy PU!
But here's someone that's not so impressed with them....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOvp69lnZbA

ROFLMAO! Oh, that's funny.

You want funny? (Totally un-related and not PC.
http://www.uti.com/~thekeep/blondie.jpg

Jeez, you're crude. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Since you keep drawing the batteries down low when you drive on electric
only, there's a concern about battery life, too. I've heard that's the
reason that Toyota was bad-mouthing plug-ins early on, and wouldn't build
one. Also, you'd need about $30,000 worth of their current type of batteries
(NiMH, apparently soon to change to Li-ion) to get any worthwhile range out
of it. One hopes that will improve over time.

LiPo batteries sure look interesting.

LiPo 130-200 Wh/kg
Nicad 40-60 Wh/kg
NiMH 30-80 Wh/kg

Wes

Martin H. Eastburn wrote:
CAFE laws have killed thousands of people. Think of it that way.

Light cars don't survive. But the 5 MPH or less bumper made of plastic
the plastic radiator, the fold into nothing front destroys a very very
expensive car and protects about the same with a real front end and
airbags.

Insurance rates are way up due to CAFE and just what else - not pay scales.
Oh, really?

I bought a Honda Civic Hybrid last fall. My 21
year-old daughter ran it THROUGH a power pole and
flipped it. The pole was completely severed. She
walked away without a SCRATCH! This car gets well
over 50 MPG after you get it broken in.

Of course, she had her seat belt on, and the air
bags did their job.

Oh, the plastic bumper is just for aerodynamics
and looks. There is a massive extruded aluminum
box beam behind it. It really doesn't look all
that substantial, but it absorbed a 50 MPH impact
with a power pole without tearing in half. After
the rollover, the roof was caved in pretty good,
but all 4 doors still opened and shut just like new!

I can't speak for any other make-model, but Honda
really did the engineering right on the integrity
of the passenger compartment.

Jon

F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 16:57:26 -0800 (PST), oldjag
wrote:
snip
Holman Jenkins continues making his case against CAFE and other root
causes of the Big Three's inability to make profitable cars in Detroit.
snip
--------------
Its a shame these laws only apply to Detroit and not all car
producers in the US....[not] :-

Jenkins continues to make excuses for Detroit. The root problems
are that their cars were/are crap, the vendors have been beaten
into the ground, labor relations are very bad, and senior
management remains in total denial.


Yeah! After two "american brand" cars in a row
had VERY expensive transmission breakdowns, I have
finally got my wife to swear off those disasters.
I switched to Toyota in 1986 for my own car.

Jon

(Edward A. Falk) wrote:

Amen to that. Fuel should be taxed at *least* enough to pay the costs
of maintaining the roads and all the other collective costs of automobiles.

My understanding is that the taxpayers subsidize private cars to the tune
of $3000-5000 per year per car. That just sounds like bad economic and
environmental policy to me.


How many taxpayers do not own private cars?

Now explain the math to me.

Wes

They say that every time the government passes a new air quality law,
the Japanese auto manufacturers hire a hundred new engineers and the
American auto manufacturers hire a hundred new lawyers.

--
-Ed Falk,
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

... TAX the fuel, but PUT the TAX back into
the roads ...

Amen to that. Fuel should be taxed at *least* enough to pay the costs
of maintaining the roads and all the other collective costs of automobiles.

My understanding is that the taxpayers subsidize private cars to the tune
of $3000-5000 per year per car. That just sounds like bad economic and
environmental policy to me.

--
-Ed Falk,
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

"Wes" wrote in message
...
(Edward A. Falk) wrote:

Amen to that. Fuel should be taxed at *least* enough to pay the costs
of maintaining the roads and all the other collective costs of
automobiles.

My understanding is that the taxpayers subsidize private cars to the tune
of $3000-5000 per year per car. That just sounds like bad economic and
environmental policy to me.


How many taxpayers do not own private cars?

In 1970, less than 6 percent of American households owned three or more
vehicles, according to the Department of Transportation. By 2000, that
percentage had jumped to 18.

More than 244 million vehicles were in operation in 2006, far outnumbering
the 202 million licensed drivers in the country, according to the most
recent federal statistics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/business/06auto.html


JC

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 06:20:41 +0000 (UTC),
(Edward A. Falk) wrote:

snip
They say that every time the government passes a new air quality law,
the Japanese auto manufacturers hire a hundred new engineers and the
American auto manufacturers hire a hundred new lawyers.
snip
---------------
The problem in a nut shell. One of the few nuggets that makes
sense.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

On Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:09:30 -0500, Wes wrote:

(Edward A. Falk) wrote:

Amen to that. Fuel should be taxed at *least* enough to pay the costs
of maintaining the roads and all the other collective costs of automobiles.
It already is, at least as far as the roads go. The problem is
that much of the funds are diverted to other purposes such as
building boat ramps and at the state level transferred into the
"general funds."

My understanding is that the taxpayers subsidize private cars to the tune
of $3000-5000 per year per car. That just sounds like bad economic and
environmental policy to me.


How many taxpayers do not own private cars?

Now explain the math to me.

Wes
-----------
This rapidly gets *VERY* complicated, and is one of the basic
reasons the "free market" is having such problems of late, namely
that it is from difficult to impossible to determine the true
cost of an item or activity. In many cases if the consumer was
aware what a particular activity or item would cost them in
total, they would never purchase it.

The 3-5 k$ figure is of necessity an estimate, and derives from
many sources. Mainly this is in the form of taxes that are
avoided/evaded and "externalized costs" which the car companies
and others should pay, but have managed to foist off on others,
particularly the government, rather than any actual government
subsidy check. The individual and small business taxpayer must
make up the shortfall.

In many cases the auto manufacturers have received special
governmental financing and tax legislation amounting to 100K$ and
up per employee for the location and continued operation in an
area. This is upped still farther when special tax increment
financing districts are created so that costs of necessary
infrastructure improvements such as sewers, roads, utilities,
etc. constructed for their use are considered as taxes, in lieu
of actual cash payments to the governmental unit. Additionally,
by shifting retiree medical care to Medicaid, the automobile
companies are saving [or more precisely "cost avoiding"] billions
of dollars per year at tax payer expense.

In contrast to individuals, interest is tax deductible for most
corporations.

More indirectly, the petroleum companies that supply the vehicle
fuel also receive huge tax breaks in the form of depletion
allowances, "free" or very low cost oil pumped from publicly
owned land, and special tax treatment, for example allowing the
companies to offset much of the cost of crude oil imported from
overseas against their US taxes, because the exporting country,
apparently in collusion with the oil companies, raised their
taxes rather than increasing their royalties on oil. In most
cases the domestic refineries also receive huge tax breaks on
their local property taxes, compared to the normal property tax
rates and fees. A very considerable amount of "transfer pricing"
also occurs where profits are shifted to low/no tax
jurisdictions.

The construction/maintaince of roads is another very expensive
area, with some new express ways in California now costing more
than 1 million dollars *PER INCH* to construct.

When environmental damage and worker safety are included, the
costs may well be [far] in excess of 5k$. For example the rate
of cancer is much higher in refinery workers and people living in
close proximity than the general population, and their
treatement/premature deaths result in a huge expense to the
economy. Another concern is the mercury contamination around
most refineries and carbon black operations, and the neurological
damage this substance can cause. A "retard" is an economic drain
on society as long as they live, and the more the handicap, the
higher the cost [and someone must pay].


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 07:49:05 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
(Edward A. Falk) wrote:

Amen to that. Fuel should be taxed at *least* enough to pay the costs
of maintaining the roads and all the other collective costs of
automobiles.

My understanding is that the taxpayers subsidize private cars to the tune
of $3000-5000 per year per car. That just sounds like bad economic and
environmental policy to me.


How many taxpayers do not own private cars?

In 1970, less than 6 percent of American households owned three or more
vehicles, according to the Department of Transportation. By 2000, that
percentage had jumped to 18.

More than 244 million vehicles were in operation in 2006, far outnumbering
the 202 million licensed drivers in the country, according to the most
recent federal statistics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/business/06auto.html


JC

----------
According to the latest numbers I could find, there are 1.05
vehicles [cars or light trucks, not including motorcycles] per
person in the US, with a high of 1.82 per person in Wyoming to a
low of 0.48 in D.C.

The unusual thing is that the per capita vehicle ownership
decreases as the per capita GDP income increases, possible
because higher income individuals tend to be concentrated in
congested areas where cars are less useful.

For data and regression chart in xls format click on
http://mcduffee-associates.us/PE/vehiclespercap.xls


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).