Hybrids are coming...get your name on the list

VW Jetta Diesel $600 (US)

Jetta Diesel 5.1l/100km

-- Dominic Richens | snipped-for-privacy@alumni.uottawa.ca "If you're not *outraged*, you're not paying attention!"

On Tue, 25 May 2004 19:51:38 GMT, "Dominic Richens" wrote in news:c9084f$6i5$ snipped-for-privacy@news.storm.ca:

So more like $824 but

Consumption is listed at 5.6l/100km

So $905. Plus maybe a higher price.

And diesel in North America is still dirty compared to European.

Diesel does have a big edge for longevity and proven track record.

I bought the Forester over the Honda CR-V because of the gas economy, among other things. So, I am interested in economy. At this time, it gets the same or less mileage than my 94 Pontiac Bonneville. But, I wanted a wagon and AWD.

I've thought about hi-breds but as my miles pile up on the highway, question what the economy versus payback would be then. Currently, I think diesel is the way to go. I might consider a Jetta wagon. I find the AWD without locking axel is ineffective when the going gets tough. Why would Subaru put limited slip on the Outback and not the Forester where such a feature would be expected?

Sorry about changing the topic but hopefully Subaru corporate is reading and understands some catching up is needed. I'd love a turbo but will not pay for premium fuel. So, if I can't have a snorting power wagon, I want fuel economy.

Not in the Prius. I don't believe the Honda has this ability either, but I don't have first-hand knowledge of that car like I do of the Prius. BTW, my folks both absolutely love my Mom's Prius. My Dad has a really nice Dodge Caravan, but unless they have more than four people to carry, they *always* take the Prius on all their trips. Now that my Dad's retiring, I expect that his Caravan will probably get driven something very close to never.

- Greg Reed

When I watched a Jetta with "TDI" on the trunk pull out in front of me yesterday (illegally), I rolled my eyes in anticipation of having to smell diesel exhaust for the next 8 miles (the likely distance before I'd have an opportunity to pass). I neither smelled nor saw anything in those 8 miles that would lead me to suspect the car had a diesel in it. Diesel engines have come a long way since the black plume-spewing 1978 Rabbit my friend Mark sometimes drives. But he gets 45 mpg in it, and pays about 70 cents less per gallon for his fuel than I do -- all this being US dollars and gallons. And miles. (Does anybody else still use miles?)

- Greg Reed

My XT has a limited slip differential on the rear axle, though I'm not sure of exactly what variety. Since you've indicated a distate for the turbo, you might want to check Subaru.com to find out whether the XS also has a limited slip. I know it has many of the XT's other upgrades (but not the turbo).

- Greg Reed

And the TDI's would get even better numbers if they had a CVT.

Yes, I might be out of date with my objection. My Forester is a 2002 and I think I got caught up in the AWD sales hype. In fairness, I have taken it through some deep snow and had a blast. However, I once got stuck where only two diagonal wheels would move. I used to have that problem plowing airport runways with an old Jeep CJ5. I learned the importance of axel locks then.

Not true....The legal requirement is to not post numbers that are HIGHER than the EPA tests. The CAN legally post lower numbers. But, of course, they would be crazy to do so.

Fruit Pie the Magician wrote:

Not worth the extra cost. My gas cost for my vehicle is about $600/yr. Right, I don't drive a lot, and you know, I don't need to. At any rate, for the $3000 premium for a hybrid, I can drive for 5 yrs..and then it's trade-in time. So what's the point? And how much does it cost to replace the batteries? Think life cycle costs and you'll stick with IC engines.

Al

Think clean air for your children and a reduced dependence on dead dino juice from a terribly unstable region of the planet, and demand more efficient vehicles.

Hard dollar thinking and gas prices that were (quite artificially) lower than the cost of a gallon of milk have gotten us to where we are today....both in terms of gas prices, and continued involvement in that political nightmare known as the Middle East.

-- Todd H.

I disagree with both of your claims and believe that you have fallen into the trap of the eco-fanatics. 10 years ago, production cars were being made - and sold - that had emissions that were cleaner that the ambient air that they took in. With the current emission standards ("current" being those in place since 1985), a highway full of automobiles is causing less pollution than a herd of cows. Nobody is protesting this existence of cows or asking for the development of hybrid cows. Contrary to the cries from Al Gore, the automobile is not our greatest enemy. Now if we could get the same reduction in pollution from heavy equipment, you would have something. But I don't see anybody making, buying, selling or talking about hybrid Freightliners, Mack trucks or diesel locomotives.

For someone that spends only $600/year on gasoline, and I am in that camp along with the OP, the few gallons saved by going to a hybrid isn't going to reduce the rate of dependence on "dead dino juice". We could fuel our cars with ethanol and get that result without the expense of hybrids. Since you live in the Chicago area, as I do, you are already using gasoline with 10% ethanol. Many cars (and trucks) are equipped to run on 85% ethanol. Did you hear that it was on a promotional sale for $0.85/gal a couple of weeks ago in Chicagoland? That would have been the thing to buy to reduce emissions and dependence on oil. Oil goes into more things than automobiles. It is used to generate electricity, make plastics and chemicals, and more. Saving a minute amount of oil by switching to a hybrid vehicle isn't going to make any difference in when we run out.

The problem I have with hybrid vehicles is that they still use gasoline and they have batteries, which IMHO are not a very efficient method for storing energy. What about all the pollution generated and/or energy needed to dispose of or recycle the batteries in that hybrid at the end of their useful life? I see the true solution to the items you ask us to think about is by developing vehicles that operate on something other than oil.

Walt Kienzle

GM hasn't made hybrid cars or light trucks (yet) because it's focusing on the big pollution producers.

Um, changing to hybrid buses saves one city a lot of gallons. (a mere drop multiplied by many cities) If in 5-10 years the world auto market switched almost entirely to hybrid (especially diesel powered ones) powertrains and saved a conservative 25% in fuel economy, don't you think that will help conserve the supply for a while?

Depends what kind of efficiency. Batteries used on modern EVs are quite efficient storing and giving back electrical power. However they are very inefficient when compared to liquid fuels with an energy to weight ratio.

Might be equivalent to reducing the number of tankers (sea and land) needed to carry all that gasoline weight around the world.

I agree on that point, but fuel cell cars are probably decades away from being produced economically. They exist now, but check out the development costs. And don't forget to factor in the cost of replacing or augmenting most every gas station in the world with a hydrogen/whatever station. Hybrids will help bridge the gap. Plus, what if the hydrogen needed to power fuel cells is most economically derived from oil?

- Byron

Rightly so cus cows aren't manufactured goods.

It's certainly the most numerous.

How many front end loaders or locomotives do you see on our morning commute?

That's where your math is troublesome. If you can double the mileage of all production automobiles, you multiply that by how many millions of vehicles there are... and you sure as hell make a huge difference.

It's progress that tailpipe emissions on a given automobile are cleaner than they once were. It's embarassing from an engineering perspective that average mileage is little changed over the past 15 years. With the SUV boom, average mileage I believe has in fact gone down.

If Subaru made a natural gas fired outback, I'd buy one. Nothing out the tailipe but water vapor.

If one isn't part of the solution on this issue, they're part of the problem.

Consumers only looking at the bottom line of today's fuel cost are hampering the adoption of LEV's and alternative fuel vehicles, and the future doesn't look too rosey

-- Todd H.

The conflict in the Middle East is only a portion of gas prices. Both China and the US have increased consumption and with the trend of bigger, heavier and less-efficient vehicles continuing, well, it comes down to supply and demand. Greater demand means greater price.

It's been over 100 years for the life of the IC engine. It's time for a new alternative that does not fund terrorist organizations.

Henry

They aren't?

When did herefords thunder across the Serengeti?

Ford gets a lower average MPG now than they did in their Model T days. That's downright disgusting. (I'm not knocking the Model T, but you'd think a century of refinement could improve the efficiency.)

And CO2.

If you want water vapor as your only byproduct, you have to burn pure hydrogen.

Any CxHy (hydrocarbon) fuel is going to produce both CO2 and H2O, unless you fail to burn the carbon at all.

-DanD