Dark Side of the Hybrids

"Doug McCrary" wrote in news:yIWGe.12547$W%5.11957@trnddc05:

Sure,there are many people who just toss their batteries in the trash,just because they are unaware of alternatives,or just take the easiest route.

But Radio Shack and other stores that sell batteries accept them for recycling.And most auto stores require a "core" fee that is refunded when you return the old LA battery,and they send them off for recycling.

Reply to
Jim Yanik
Loading thread data ...

"Steve Bigelow" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@rogers.com:

They get charged before they run completely down;partial charges,"topping off".They still are charge cycles.

Reply to
Jim Yanik

is spinning their side of the story very hard in order to sell more stuff. By that token, you shouldn't simply believe it wholesale without investigating it more.

Reply to
Sid Schweiger

They have an agenda--sell more cars.

I don't. I simply don't like being spoon-fed by people who have an agenda.

If you enjoy being spoon-fed by people who have an agenda--and everything you say points that direction--that's your problem.

Is it, then, your assertion that they are NOT spinning?

Hmmmmmm.....I don't think I ever said that one way or another.

I simply said "beware, and investigate it more". You, on the other hand, appear to be saying that there's no need to investigate it more--that everything they say in that PR piece is 100% the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

One wonders why you would say that.

I see, so far, no evidence to support the press release. Toyota said some things. I say, that's nice--but investigate further. You say, "if they said it, I assume that it's 100% true and you have to prove otherwise." That's your problem.

Reply to
Elmo P. Shagnasty

"Sid Schweiger" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:

Tobacco companies had data,too,yet still told people smoking was safe.

And auto companies often have "hidden" warranties or don't bother telling people about free repairs to correct deficiencies.Toyota is not any "saint".They,like any other product seller,are going to paint their product in the best possible light,and not disclose and downsides.

Reply to
Jim Yanik

(just waiting here for Sid to respond. Not holding my breath, but still...)

Reply to
Elmo P. Shagnasty

Reply to
Sid Schweiger

Um, I don't believe it's up to me to come up with anything. I simply warned you that Toyota in this case is in the same role as the tobacco companies, and that you'd be best to be wary.

What part of that didn't you understand, Sid?

Reply to
Elmo P. Shagnasty

Well, since Toyota has put their side in black and white, it's up to you to to do the investigating and come up with something concrete. So far the assertion that they are lying through their teeth (as they must if the claim they are recycling the batteries is false) is weaker than the "who shot Kennedy" conspiracy theories. Give us something we can use. Either you can catch them in a huge lie or you are blowing smoke.

Mike

Reply to
Michael Pardee

Is it your position that Toyota's press releases are 100% truthful and without omissions?

You miss my whole point.

Let me put it this way: when President Bush puts something in black and white like that, do you agree that one should be careful and not necessarily accept what he says at face value?

That's all I said. Nothing more. I never said they were wrong; I said they were spinning things, exactly like any politician or corporate flack spins things.

Whenever a company puts out a press release, they're spinning things. That's why corporations like that have big PR departments, and that's why they have corporate policies that any contact with the press be done only by or in conjunction with someone from their corporate PR department.

All I said was, it looks good--but remember, they have an axe to grind, and they spin things just like any other corporate or political entity.

Would it surprise any of us if we found out that they weren't being 100% truthful? Not at all--because it's their job to obfuscate anything that would be detrimental to their sole job of making money for their shareholders.

Reply to
Elmo P. Shagnasty

However, they are not failing. Try googling "prius battery fail" and you will see about 10K hits with a ton of speculation about when the battery will fail and about failures of the 12 volt aux battery (which is as vulnerable as the 12 volt battery in conventional cars)... but good luck finding a report of one that has actually died a natural death. Then google "acura transmission fail" and you will get about 22K hits; why the transmissions are failing, what to do about the transmissions failing. One member of the Yahoo Prius group just had his150K mile service done on his

2001 and has done nothing but scheduled maintenance and tire replacement - no battery failure yet. That figures since Toyota warranties the hybrid system, including battery, for 8 years/100K miles (150K miles in CA). Even the original Prius, sold since 1998 in Japan, has no battery failure issues.

There is nothing in chemistry that limits the number of charge cycles for a primary cell. Edison cells, for example, have no natural limitations on charge/discharge cycles and usually last for decades but have poor energy density. We are familiar with lead acid and NiCads which have serious life limitations because of their particular chemistry so we assume all rechargables do. Then we look at the batteries in portable electronics - they are designed to charge as quickly as possible, have the highest possible energy density and be profitable to replace - and we decide no rechargable battery could last longer than a couple years... just as we might watch sprinters and conclude no human can run more than a mile.

When it comes down to it, the experiment is on the roads and has been successful for 7 years. At least one Prius has exceeded 200K miles

formatting link
Mike

Reply to
Michael Pardee

"Sid Schweiger" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:

I note you edited out the comments about auto companies knowing about product defects in their vehicles(hidden warranties),yet not revealing them so they would not have to correct them at their expense,until enough 'incidents' occur and public indignation forces them to correct them,hoping that the owners would fix them themselves at their own cost.Also,the "lemon" laws that had to be passed to get auto companies to replace vehicles with major recurring defects.

Actually,disgruntled tobacco employees revealed that the companies had the data for many years.

It's also like the recent cellphone while driving debate;It's common sense that it's a dangerous distraction,and the data has not been collected sufficiently to prove it,but rational people still know that CP use while driving is dangerous.

Reply to
Jim Yanik

Mike, It's difficult for most of us to conduct that sort of research. Perhaps a disgruntled (sp??) employee might eventually sneak data out of the company and release it to the news media. If that never happens, we will probably never learn the true facts related to this issue. A Federal investigation might also force them to release the true facts. On the other hand, perhaps Toyota is being totally honest related to the data that they release to the news media and post on the internet. Do you really believe that any company is totally honest related to information they release to the news media or post on the internet? I doubt it. There is a conflict of interest involved. Jason

Reply to
Jason

They don't call it the Toyota "Pious" for nothing.

Reply to
Elmo P. Shagnasty

snipped-for-privacy@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@pm4-broad-9.snlo.dialup.fix.net:

There's certainly enough evidence that auto companies have had "hidden warranties" to fix problems they do not want the public to know about. And that they usually fight any effort of the consumer groups on class actions concerning major auto problems.(like wheels falling off)

So,one should blindly trust the auto companies??

Reply to
Jim Yanik

Back to the issue.... Let me put it this way: all Toyota has to do is enter into a contract with a company to handle the recycling on a per-unit basis and add the cost of that and the $200 deposit to the battery. Then they can make the claim in good conscience. It greatly limits their liabilities and costs them nothing at all. They would be incomprehensibly stupid not to... so what on earth would make you think such a thing?

Mike

Reply to
Michael Pardee

Fuel economy is only a side effect of hybridization. The major reason for the change is to correct the fundamental engineering debacle of using a 260 hp engine to move a personal vehicle through city traffic or along a freeway while we could have *better* performance and economy from a 100 hp engine running when needed and electric power to do the rest. In effect, hybridization separates engine power from acceleration performance. Honda has a good example in their 2001 concept car, the Dualnote (

formatting link
). 4 passengers, 400 combined hp, with off-the-line acceleration comparable to a 600 hp car (according to Honda engineers interviewed in a Popular Mechanics article a couple years ago), and fuel economy estimated around 40 mpg. Kinda like a Super Lupo ;-)

Admittedly, hybrids are in their infancy now (but as an owner I can tell you the Prius is a really nice infant!) As an engineer I believe it is safe to say hybrids will be the rule rather than the exception for passenger cars (but not trucks) within 20 years for very sound design reasons. You may believe what you wish.

Mike

Reply to
Michael Pardee

"Michael Pardee" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@sedona.net:

Was the orignal claim about Toyota not recycling their NiMH batteries or the amount of battery life the batteries would have under ordinary service? I thought it was the latter.

I do not doubt that Toyota would recycle the batteries. Their claims on life expectancy,I might doubt.

Reply to
Jim Yanik

"Michael Pardee" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@sedona.net:

Any ICO will not always be making it's full rated power,usually far less.

Reply to
Jim Yanik

Mike, You are probably right. I know that you will be right once the price of hybrid vehicles comes down to the point where almost anyone can easily afford to buy them. The Honda Accord Hybrid is so expensive that Honda is having a difficult time selling very many of them. If the Accord Hybrid was priced the same as the 6 cyld. Accord, they would sell lots more of them. Jason

Reply to
Jason

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.