Take it from one who knows (I will NOT show this email to my wife): Having children is a form of self inflicted poverty if none of them stick around to take care of you in your final days. But to not raise kids and have them turn out well is the poverty you speak of and ... I agree.
Most of these people with breathing problems have never been this old before! ;-)
Agreed.
An MBA would not say Toyota is losing money on a grander scale, rather, the company's "cash flow" is greatly improved! ;-)
That's one opinion. Here's another.
As I crest the hill and look over Silicon Valley, I see a thick brown haze. I have plenty of time to watch it, as the traffic is bumper to bumper an creaping at 10 MPH. The Santa Cruz foothills are beautiful in the distance, rising above the smog. I can't see the 10(?) story high blimp hanger at Moffit Field. The stench of the thousands of exhaust pipes give the air a certain taste that my latte helps wash from my mouth.
Forcasts call for 100 degree heat this afternoon. I need to make a stop on the way home. Last time when I missed an offramp because the road sign was too caked with grime to read from a distance. I hope a good wind comes up so I can see it in time.
In the last two years, I have seen similar smog in LA, Phoenix, SF and Sacramento.
The SULEV cars like the Prius put out 1/10th the pollution of a ULEV like a Taurus with a 4 cyl engine. If all new cars were that clean maybe we'd hit a point where we don't have days when asthmatics are warned to stay inside with HEPA filters. But the cars aren't that clean... yet.
Daniel
No, SULEV cars are *allowed* to produce less of certain pollutants than ULEV vehicles. That does not mean that all ULEVs are 10x dirtier than all SULEVs, and it does not mean that all SULEVs are 10x cleaner than all ULEVs. It's a question of what's permitted vs. what's produced.
The cars are. The heavy trucks and buses aren't. They are particularly bad offenders on PM10 and NOx, two pollutants which seriously aggravate respiratory conditions and cause photochemical smog, respectively. We're only just beginning to see half-serious attempts at control of emissions from heavy duty diesel engines such as used in transport trucks and buses
-- unions and industry have been all too effective at opposing such measures for far too long.
Cars are an easy and convenient target for environmentalists' guilt trips, because individual motorists are much more easily shamed, goaded and taxed than are industries and unions.
DS
I did not complain, I was boasting :-) It feels really neat to pull out of the driveway and SMOOTHLY accelerate to 25 without the slightest hint that the car was started just moments before. I never have to worry about pulling out into traffic, as I know that the electric motor will pull cleanly and with teh same power every time.
I guess that I've never found a properly operating fuel injected car. Damn mechanics! ALl of my cars have felt weaker in the first minutes after cold starting. Something having to do with richer mixtures and higher idle speeds till the catalyst warms, I suspect. And cold auto trannys always slip more than when they are warmed. Some more, some less. The mechanics tell me that's normal too. Damn!
Daniel.
Toyota wants to sell Piruses for several reasons (imagine, CAFE rules, market share gain, etc.). The subsidy from the US governemt allows them to lose less per car. You are right, it could increase the total number of vehciles sold, so it might actually increase the total loss to Toytoa for selling Piruses while decreasing the loss per vehicle. It is still corporate welfare. Selling Piruses at a loss allows Toyota to sell other low fuel economy vehicles at a profit and not violate the CAFE rules. One 50 mpg Pirus probably offsets 4 or 5 LS400s. So, in the end the US government is helping Toyota sell more enviromentally irresponsible luxury cars, by selling enviromentally dangerous hybrids. Politicians are so stupid.....
THINK before you jump on the eviro-idiot bandwagon.
Ed
Is anybody looking?
Ed
That is really odd, because i went to a Ford Dealer just yesterday, and looked at a F-250. 85% North american parts, witht eh body from America and the engine from Canda (the Windsor plant, most likely). This is import HOW?
As does every fuel injected car for the past 15 years. LOL
Danny boy..... I smell a troll, a contrived viewpoint.
There is a small group of buyers for ANYTHING new and cutting / bleeding edge where technology is concerned. These are also the first people to trade for the next "bleeding edge" release. Those who need bragging rights ... a conversation piece. No judegement here, just an observation.
A -vacuous- statement if ever there was one. Do you see any brand new unsold 2002 Corollas sitting around? If you make only ONE of something and sell it, you can say you sold all you made too!
"Practice what you preach" is a great motto. ;-)
"Figures don't lie but liars figure" If the baseline is 100 and your reduce your pollution to 1% of the baseline, you've done your job. It is simple lying to say that 1/10 of that 1% is significant. Lying. Now, where does all that photochemical smog go during the winter months? I know your area well enough through repeat visits to the Richmond rail head to pickup containers to know what your Bay Area weather is like, year round. The traffic is congestion is constant year round made worse by highway constructions. Having hundreds of thousands of cars sitting, idling in traffic is your issue, not exhaust emissions. Take the BART. You people pay dearly for it anyway. LOL BTW, has anyone posited the notion of increased smog due to oxygenate use (MTBE or alcohol) from your formulated gasoline? While CO and HC drops a little, I found an article suggesting NOx (necessary ingredient in photochemical smog) -increases- with oxygenate use. Does your water taste better now? Just curious. LOL
~~Philip
"Never let school interfere with your education - Mark Twain"
Here's a third: when I look at California, I don't give a rip. Any pain CA residents feel is self-inflicted. Unfortunately, CA residents keep moving HERE and bringing their Californication of the landscape with them.
:-p
It's being done, for medium-sized commercials at least.
See
Let's try some numbers... assume the regenerative brakes are required to dissipate 100 kW (134 hp), and that a long downgrade lasts for 100 seconds.
Total energy to be stored is then 10 MJ... energy density for Ni-MH is given variously as 60 Wh/kg, 80 Wh/kg and 60-80 Wh/kg. Call it 80 Wh/kg, which is 80x3600 = 288 kJ/kg, and we need 10000/288 = 35 kg.
Alternatively, a 44-tonne truck doing 20 m/s (~45 mph) has 0.5x44000x20x20 = 8 800 000 or 8.8 MJ of kinetic energy to be stored up if it's brought to a standstill, which is a similar figure to the one I came up with before.
Now that *is* interesting - obviously there'd be extra cost and weight penalties in terms of motors and controllers, but the principle actually seems sound. I'll watch this space closely!
Jonny
Let's see....
85% North American leaves.... let me think... 15% Imported?Hmmmmmmm
They are all imported... Scott in Florida
Most of this is actually from commercial, industrial, and shipping emissions(trucks and ships). At least it has been for several years now.
I saw a report that said that the smog in L.A., for instance, was three times worse in the 60s, despite the lower number of cars.
Evidently there are several examples that Toyota bought back from such drivers - in the U.S., Canada, and Japan for testing. They came through with flying colors.
In an electric system, mileage and charge cycles is everything as far as durability goes, so 200K in 4 years is just as hard on the system as 200K in 10 years.
Oh - my father has a 70 year old electric motor in his garage connected to a grinding wheel. Still works.
So that leaves battery degradation due to age. Last I heard, NiMH batteries are good for a decade of use, so no problems there, either.
Where is it made?
How would you differentiate the bleeding edge American buyers back in
2000 from 2004 model buyers?
While I could not accurately quantify the 1960's level at "three times worse," I do recall quite well flying in from Denver and landing in fledgling LA airport back in 1959. The smog level was far worse in the summer months than it is currently. Forget light brown ... think wild fire proportions. THIS is why I refer to a "historic perspective" when I get into low emission vehicle discussions. Such discussions are nearly always with people born after 1980 and whose historic perspective about smog starts from about 1990. In other words, you young guys -missed- the -real- smog.
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.