OT<>

Page 2 of 9  
miles wrote:

Some people ... not all people.

They save some money depending on the manufacturer (cost of hybrid option varies) and how it is driven. However, (dare I open this can of worms?), MANY (forward thinking) people that purchase hybrids do so because it saves $$ on fuel. Less fuel is burned resulting in lower air/water pollution.
This helps with *hidden* costs that you have not factored in like cleaning the water and air (tax dollars) that have been polluted by combustion engines. Another hidden cost is doctor visits (insurance/out-of-pocket) for allergies or respiratory illness (including cancer) irritated or *caused* by particulate matter in the air stirred up or created by combustion engines. These hidden costs increase every year.
Also, hybrids require less maintenance. The engine doesn't run all of the time. This doubles sometimes triples the savings over the life of the vehicle. Fewer oil changes, filter (air/fuel/oil). Tires on hybrids are typically much smaller and cheaper than its regular full combustion counterpart.
To save money AND the environment, in order: walk or bike, public transit, all electric vehicles, hybrids.
Craig C.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

than my share of dirtying thing's up. Hell, on a couple of them I had to pay the friggin' gas guzzler tax.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Craig C. wrote:

True, some want to be environmentally cleaner. But most don't have the luxury of extra money sitting around to afford a hybrid for that reason.

The SUV Hybrids are around a $4500/difference and thus break even in gas savings over a 3-5 year period. But the Civic, Prius and Camry won't come close.

Less fuel burned does not in itself equate to lower emissions. Look at the horrible emissions of motorcycles...averaging many times the pollution of typical cars yet getting 40-70mpg.
Most people do not have the extra money to spend on a car for the purpose of cutting pollution. Savings in the wallet has got to be the driving force in order to get the masses to widely purchase hybrids. They sold well in their first few years but thats slowed. Honda is dropping the Civic Hybrid for the lack of demand.

That is not a cost directly born by the consumer in their wallets. If the government were to give a large tax rebate for purchasers of hybrids then it could help.

True but thats across the board and not recognized on a per individual basis. A person can't cut their costs of Dr's bills by purchasing a hybrid. Only when almost everyone does so.

Electric motors wear out as well. They are far from maintenance free. Only time will tell what the expenses of a hybrid are.

Tires are the same size on the Civic, Highlander and Escape. Which vehicles are you referring to when you say typically?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I've never heard that before. I'm not saying I don't beleive you, but it just doesn't sound right to me. Are 2-cycle motorcycles included in this average?
--
Ken



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nosey wrote:

It's very true. Motorcycles don't have the emission requirements that cars must adhere to. A typical motorcycle pollutes far more than an average car. Heck, even a lawnmower does. 2-cycles pollute even worse and are why their sales are now outlawed in some states. They're not included in most studies I've seen because they are generally not made for street use.
I have heard figures of 10-20 times more pollution from a motorcycle but looking at a few reports suggest its closer to 2-3 times. I'll have to see if I can find a few studies from reputable sources.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'd like to see the figures. I always thought a well-tuned motorcycle was very clean. I guess I was wrong about that.
--
Ken



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
miles wrote:

Some/All new 4 cycle mowers have catalytic converters integrated in the muffler. I picked up a v-shaft Tecumseh 6.5 off Ebay (electric start, $145ish shipped - starts great off a 4.5 ah sealed 12v battery, and has a generator) to replace a bent shaft B&S 3.5 on my push mower. Using Rotella T HD30 oil changed at 3 and 20 hours. After 25 hours of use the exhaust ports are *clean* like brand new. This leads me to believe the exhaust stream is significantly cleaner than it was in the past.
More on topic, I believe its 10-20x more pollution based on maximum carrying ability of the vehicle. Most cars are driven by one person, carrying very darned little in the car. Something that could easily fit on a 100cc scooter. Of course, thats still 2-3x more pollution than a clean running 3Lish V6-powered car would get making the same route, despite that 3Lish v6 powered car using, say, 3x more fuel in the process (so lets say.... 10x more pollution per gasoline unit burned)
Now, theres nothing saying this couldn't be fixed. Theres no rule saying small engines have to be dirty. Its up to the customer (or the customer's government, in today's society) to dictate the requirement for cleaner engines.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

I haven't heard any federal laws of such. I have heard of a few states that have recently started passing laws controlling small engine pollution. Now if only they would get rid of those dang leaf blowers that kick up tons of dust all over my car!

Thats true and is happening on a state level for small engines in garden equipment. Still little seems to be going on with motorcycles.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Make up your mind Miles. First you say that the economy is doing fantastic and everyone is making much more money and now you are saying that most cannot afford a few thousand more for a hybrid. It's either one way or the other Miles. The sad part is that the majority believe as you sadly do, that if it doesn't put more money in their pocket, screw it and the future.

Yea, I guess that fuel prices are where they will stay for the next 5 years, LOL!

Hahahahaha, more right wing spin. Sure, motorcycles currently do not have the emissions equipment that cars do and will have somewhat higher PPM counts than a car, they also (with the exception of the super bikes) put out way less volume than a typical car which also equates to less polution. This of course, means nothing because he was talking about hybrids and they have the same emissions equipment as any other car and put out way less volume so in this case, less fuel burned DOES directly equate to lower emissions.

Typical short sighted thinking. Saving fuel now will equate to savings over the long term because reduced demand for oil will hold the price lower over the long term (supply and demand).

Agreed but unlikely to happen. At least until it is way to late to do any good which is sadly the typical short sighted thinking method, much like global warming.

And as long as everyone feels this way, it will never happen.

It depends on the type of electric motor Miles. Brushless motors have few wear parts (the bearings) and with sophisticated control system, can be protected from burnout due to lockup andf overheating as well.

--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

Oh geez. You'll find a liberal reason to argue about anything!! The economy is doing very well. You can't show me a dang thing to prove otherwise can you? Oh ya, you know someones neighbors, brothers uncle that is having problems in your area...sorry, I forgot!
Sorry TBone, the vast majority of people who buy hybrids do so thinking they will save money. Their sales have gone up as the price of gas has gone up which equated to higher demand for economy cars in general. So how many hybrid cars have you bought lately to do your part? Oh ya, you own a gas guzzler truck along with those hybrids!!

WRONG TBone. Motorcycles put out more pollution per mile that a typical car. Not PPM. Do some research before making more un-researched off the top of your head guesses.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sorry Miles, but the economy is doing well for those who already were doing well. Perhaps it is you that needs to do a little research.

Do you have proof to back this up? My wife wants one and her concern is the planet, not saving a few cents on fuel.

Lets see some factual data to back this load of crap up and even then, it still doesn't matter as it was in relation to a hybrid that has the same emissions equipment as a conventional car.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

Which means what? Is the economy doing well for the vast majority or not? Unemployment is down, new jobs rate is increasing, the median income is rising which means the new jobs are not low end. So please tell me what data source you have that says the economy has worsened. Show me the numbers TBone. Put up, or shut up.

Oh ya, just like your figures that say the economy is bad, unemployment is bad all based on a few people you know. Good grief! Now go buy that Hybrid. Why haven't you already since you talk about how we all need to help the environment.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Which means that while most of the rich are getting richer, the rest of us are either for the most part static or taking the hit.

NOT.
More smoke and mirrors. First of all, the unemployment figures are based on the number of people collecting so once they run out of time, they come off of the unemployed numbers as well. Second, the unemployment figure does not take into account how much the new job pays compared to the old one so if a person loses a $60,000 a year job due to outsourcing and takes another at Wallmart making $25,000, the unemployment number looks good but the lifestyle of that family is significantly reduced.

Where Miles, in the lower paying service industry and even lower paying retail.

It means no such thing as you have yet to give me a link to single person income, just that family of four crap where all income is added, including childrens. For example, a person loses his $50,000 a year job due to outsourcing. He finds another job but due to the number of people with his skills looking for work due to the same outsourcing, he can only get $35,000. Now that is not enough money so the wife gets a job as well. She gets one at HD for around $25,000 a year (which is really high for HD) but they have two kids and one is to young to be left at home alone they now have to pay for day care which sucks about $12,000 in increased expenses not to mention the increased cost of living that comes from two people working. Of course, they can no longer afford to give their son Johnny his allowence anymore so he gets a part time job delivering papers and cutting lawns and makes around $3,000 a year. Now your bullshit median income will show this family with an increase of $13,000 a year and will attribute that to the "booming" economy which is complete bullshit when in reality it is due to a piss poor economy for most and while they are bringing in more money, their disposable income and quality of life is significantly reduced.

Read above and I have said this before. Provide a link showing individual income which would be the only valid thing that would prove you right otherwise, STFU already.

Actually Miles, it has nothing to do with the people I know. Gubberment reports say that many of the service jobs that have appeared to replace the massive amount of factory jobs that have left are lower paying and have less or no benefits and as you like to say, go look it up.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

So the economic indicators only measure whats happening with the very small % of rich people? The same indicators used during Clintons era that you tout has having a great economy? Do you always pull ideas out of thin air or do you have some solid data to back up this 'only the rich are doing well' guess?

Hmm...the same indicators used by the liberals during Clintons era suggest otherwise.

Smoke and mirrors is right TBone. If your statement were true then the new jobs created and total workforce numbers would not be going up.

Then that would be reflected in the median income reports which clearly show an increase, not a decrease. Once again you pull concepts out of thin air to support your beliefs rather than reality.

No Tom, the median income is rising, not falling. The only way for that to happen is if the new jobs or raises are rather high. The median income isn't a poor salary. It's middle class Tom.

And that income is rising faster than inflation.

The number of new jobs while very good doesn't support your claim. Besides, you used the very same economic figures to say why the economy was so good under Clinton. Show comparable provable stats Tom.

No Tom they do no such thing. Show me the 'Government' reports and not a liberal commentary site.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

LOL, I never said that it only applies to the rich but it can only apply to the rich if they are the ones making all of the money.

Indicators are just that, indicators. These indicators only show gross values, not what is creating them and that's what makes them failrly worthless by themselves.

LOL, more complete BULLSHIT!

I can see that you really don't understand the very reports that you quote. Since the report shows TOTAL INCOME FOR EVERYONE in a family of 4, if in the above example if the wife also got a $25,000 a year job and a 17 year old child also got a $15,000 part time job (while still going to school), then your madian income would show an increase of $5,000 which to an idiot like yourself, would also indicate an increase in salary and a great economy when in reality, it shows a stressed family.

Sorry Miles, but you really don't know WTF you are talking about. It is a meaningless report as to the increase or decrease in salary. Only a single person salary report would indicate which way the salary for specific fields are going.

Prove it.

LOL, please show me where I used any of these bogus indicators to show anything.

Sure they do Miles, go and look.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

Just above you replied to my question about the economy doing well. You mentioned it means that the rich are getting richer and the rest are static or taking a hit (worse). I then asked if the market indicators that you liberals touted that showed a good economy under Clinton now suddenly only apply to the rich. Sounds like you pick and choose to fit your personal beliefs.

Then why did so many liberals use those very same indicators to tout the great economy under Clinton if now you're saying they're worthless. Pick and choose at will huh TBone?

Tom, the same reports show the number of people in the workforce. Do the math!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Now you are simply spinning yourself. As I asked before, I'll ask again, when did I ever use these bogus numbers to back up anything. The answer is I never did because they are meaningless without the data that created them.

Yawn, the difference was in the other indicators that you fail to mention, imagine that.

LOL, that is also a meaningless number. If it goes up (which I'm sure that it did as it pretty much always does), it simply means that more people are working but even in my example that you deleted once again (imagine that) the number increased in part because more people needed to work due to reduced salaries and if it goes down, that could be indicating that people on unemployment have run out of time and are now considered no longer looking for work.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

Oh? Do tell TBone. Tell us what published standard indicators are different.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
miles wrote:

Not far from where I live (in Dallas), is the poorest community in the area. It's called Pleasant Grove. People live in shacks. Yet, they have a set of 24" rims and other mods on their 10 mpg car which cost them at least $5000.00.
So, miles, I *completely* disagree with your comment. It's simply not the case. Most people *do* have the money. It's a matter of priorities. Clean air and water take a back seat to big screen TV's, loud stereos and rims.

Now is the time for American car companies to take the market. If only they hadn't outsourced the talent and jobs to other countries ...

Well, we were discussing cars. Hybrid cars have the same emissions requirements as full combustion vehicles. Therefore, less fuel burned means fewer/lower emissions/pollution.
In fact, I read in the Dallas paper some time ago that the exhaust emitted from the tailpipe of the Prius was cleaner than the air it took in. Therefore, I supposedly cleans air.
Now, I don't know whether I fully believe that or not, but it is an interesting and alarming article. Interesting that the Prius is that clean. Alarming that Dallas air is that filthy.

Unfortunately, I agree. Most Americans are very short-sighted and selfish. This results in screwed up priorities. This is where our government can help make a difference.
Offering higher tax breaks for cleaner vehicles, both to the consumer AND the automobile company could bridge the gap.

I had not heard this. Where did you read it?

Well, there was an "okay" tax break in place. Bush has all but killed it at this point. However, I firmly believe that the next president, regardless of party affiliation, will be forced to kick up the tax incentives.

Right. It is the responsibility of those that know better to educate and be an example to those that do not.
So ... when are buying your new hybrid? :-)

True. However my point was that the reduced cost of maintenance added to the fuel savings and factoring in *something* for the hidden costs not only mitigates the extra cost of the hybrid option, but saves money. The unfortunate thing, as I mentioned earlier, is that most Americans are too distracted to notice or care.

I attended the car show a couple of months ago in Dallas. Hybrid Civic sitting next to a full combustion Civic had smaller tires. A Prius has *tiny* tires. Very cheap to replace. There really is nothing to compare it to except the Yarus.
Craig C.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I understand they are dropping the accord and keeping the civic
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.