Oh excuse me, it was for WMD's (snicker).
The fact is though that we really need to develop this sort of technology to
become more energy independant. That is why I responded to this, and I
applaud any company that goes in this direction. We have a 2003 Sante Fe
which we love but I'm in the market now for a second car which will probably
be a Toyota Prius. I hope Hyundai will develop similar cars ...and I would
consider them as I am very impressed with Hyundai quality.
But unfortunately, this does all tie in with politics. China and India
(1/3 of the world population) are rapidly developing. Their energy needs
are going to skyrocket soon. Oil prices will do the same. The more energy
independant we are, the better.
What a joke HONDA has. They advertise a hybrid but it get 29 mpg????
As the salesman attempted to explain their pantented hybrid technology
he stated the gas engine is ALWAYS RUNNING!
Our deaership manager still states the MG is due out in a few months to
replace the Accent, then the hybrid Tucson will follow for 2006. Santa
Fe will not be hybrid.
A friend has had a Toyota Prius for about 6 months. He keeps pretty
meticulous records and uses it on the job, so he puts a lot of miles on it.
He says he's been getting about 52 mpg. His last trip was to go skiing so
there was considerable climbing too.
One thing that people lose sight of in all this hybrid craze is that
whether buying a hybrid is a good idea from an economic standpoint or
not depends on your current automotive situation. If you definitely need
a new car - because your current car is worn out or you need an
additional vehicle - buying a hybrid makes sense. However, if you have a
functioning car that gets reasonable gas mileage and has a few years of
life left in it, getting rid of it and buying a hybrid is unlikely to
save you any money, due to the high cost of the initial purchase. If
you're the type of person who regularly turns their cars over every few
years, you're used to wasting money so you may as well go for it. ;-)
It's not mine at all, it's simply what I've learned from experts in the
field who know much more about it than I do.
So in order to avoid paying for repairs that may never happen, you're
paying more for your cars up front, EVERY time, by getting rid of them
while they still have a lot of life left?
Please don't take this personally, as I don't intend it that way. I
didn't realize this either until I read the book I referred to in the
other post above (many years ago) and some other materials that
corroborated it. Although it's possible that you may avoid a costly
repair once in a while, on balance, it's much more expensive to turn
your cars over prematurely. The fact that you're hanging onto them for 5
years rather than 2 or 3 mitigates that somewhat, but it's still not the
most economical way to own, especially considering the durability of
modern vehicles. Please don't take my word for it; check it out for
yourself. There are a lot of good references on the subject.
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.