Car That Can Park Itself Put on Sale by Toyota

Since when are loan guarantees provided by government NOT considered corporate welfare? Also consider that Chrysler had to hand warrants to the government in exchange for those loan guarantee, yet after the loans were paid off, Chrysler received more corporate welfare when it was allowed to buy back the warrants for much less than market value.

1997, actually, in Japan.

Uhh, most commuters do lots of stop-and-go on highways. And how many transmissions have you driven more than 100,000 miles with no repairs?

Isn't it?

Scott in Florida

Gee- when other businesses (steel comes to mind) sell for less than the true cost it's called dumping. But Toyota gets the government involved and it's called a subsidy. Interesting.

max-income

I moved to L.A. in the early seventies and remember that every summer there would be days when going outdoors meant your eyes watering to the point of not being able to see. It hasn't been l;ike that for a long time, so the smog regs have done some good. But when the methane in cow farts is considered to be a major smog problem (this is true- Chino area dairies were going to be assessed a smog fee when I left the area for Oregon) I start thinking that someone is trying to justify his high paying job.

max-income

But then we'll have all those tranny mechanics applying for welfare !!!! LOL

IT'S STILL POISON!!

Whether we are harmed from a large dosage or a small dosage doesn't matter.

The point is that it's still harmful.

Making excuses about quantity is wrong. You insist that most vehicles survive a very, very, very long time. So not even trying to improve is really wrong. You are basically ignoring the problem and forcing your children to deal with it instead, even though a solution is already available.

JOHN

Since they don't involve any cost to "government" (i.e. taxpayers).

...seven years early...

Uh...no. Chrysler *asked* to buy back the warrants for less than market value. The government said "No".

DS

I am talking about here. The poster whom I responded to made no stipulation of where it was and it's an assumption that it was here in the US unless said otherwise considering these are predominantly American groups.

I still don't find city driving comparable to mainly freeway driving. Compare the brake life on a interstate delivery trucks and a city bus.

[ SNIP ] [ SNIP ]

I think I was supposed to feel insulted here. Fortunately, I learned long ago not to get upset by false accusations.

It's VERY difficult to compile real world figures, What I was able to do was to look at

compare like cars over the years. They use measured emission insteadof permitted emissions. It's a fun page to play with. I didn't find a lot of models that have stayed over the last 25 years, so I chose cars that were similar (as far as I remember).

1978 Chevy Nova put over TWICE the C02 of a 2003 Chevy Cavalier. 1978 Chevy Nova put out FOUR TIMES the C0 of a 2003 Chevy Cavalier. 1978 Chevy Nova put out SEVEN TIMES the NOX of a 2003 Chevy Cavalier. 1978 Chevy Nova put out FOURTEEN TIMES the HC of a 2003 Chevy Cavalier.

The Prius, on the other hand is closer to the 1% that phil was talking about.

1978 Chevy Nova put over TWICE the C02 of a 2003 Toyota Prius. 1978 Chevy Nova put out EIGHT TIMES the C0 of a 2003 Toyota Prius. 1978 Chevy Nova put out EIGHTY TWO TIMES the NOX of a 2003 Toyota Prius. 1978 Chevy Nova put out SIXTY NINE TIMES the HC of a 2003 Toyota Prius.

So there appear to be liars, facts and people who make up facts. hmmmmm. I hope phil finally stops trying to make up reasons to claim that standard modern cars are clean enough.

Either way, smog is still a BIG problem in many areas, and cleaner cars are one way to help, especially for large cars and in congested areas where traffic is NOT optimal.

Daniel

I'm sorry you feel that way... And congrats on never letting facts interfere with your education either.

One is not a troll if one is responding to erroneous posts or relating personal perspectives and experiences. One is only a troll if posting antagonistic, non informative or misleading messages. Present company excepted, of course :-)

Daniel

Only for someone like yourself who knows nothing at all about auto exhaust emissions and is trying to bluff your way through a discussion of the matter.

Tell us: What makes you accept the figures presented by this organisation without questioning their veracity?

Despite what you think you did, you were in fact NOT able to compare "like cars over the years", for several reasons:

1) Cars are not alike year-to-year. Under the system that's been in place in the US since the mid-late 1960s, emissions certification of each individual vehicle configuration (=engine, transmission, emission system, body) is valid for one model year ONLY. No vehicle configuration may be offered for sale without emissions certification, so each configuration must be tested and certified to comply with the emissions standards in place for each new model year. If you were even passingly familiar with auto exhaust emissions and their control, you would know that there have been comparatively very few instances of a vehicle configuration carrying over intact from one model year to the next. Much more commonly, there are significant changes to the emission control (and later, to the engine management) system as well as other vehicle systems to comply with the new model year's requirements. Carburetors and distributors (later engine control computers) were recalibrated EACH AND EVERY year, for instance. 2) The testing protocol has undergone a great many significant changes over the last three and a half decades, rendering test results from 1978 (for instance) largely incomparable to test results from 1988 or 1998 or 2003.

There are none. What is more, if -- as seems to be the case -- you're defining "model" as "the nameplate on the trunklid", you're even less knowledgeable about automobiles than it first appeared.

Doesn't look like you "remember" very far. The smallest engine available in the 1978 Chevrolet Nova had a piston displacement of 250 cubic inches, and weighed approximately 75% more than the 2003 Chevrolet Cavalier. The

*LARGEST* engine available in the 2003 Cavalier has a piston displacement of 135 cubic inches, or just slightly over half the size of the 1978 engine.

Furthermore, using only comparative numbers ("SEVEN TIMES!!!") without actual numbers is dishonest. I'll tell you why if you *really* can't see for yourself, but why don't you think about it for a few moments and see if you can't figure it out for yourself.

Nevertheless, your attempt at proving your point in fact proves what you're trying to deny, especially when actual numbers are plugged into your hysterical post about "SEVEN TIMES!" "FOURTEEN TIMES!" and the like:

2003 cars are quite clean enough.

Interesting that you chose to make this irrelevant comparison instead of comparing the 2003 Cavalier to the 2003 Prius. The latter comparison would still be irrelevant since the two cars themselves aren't particularly comparable, but it would've been more honest and forthright.

DS

loan and loan guarantee programs were for a long time notreported as a component of the budget. For example, in 1979 theChrysler Corporation was in financial difficulty and could not borrowexcept at high interest rates because the lenders feared bankruptcyfor the firm. Chrysler sought and received a Federal loan guranteewhich meant that if Chrysler did not repay the loans the FederalGovernment would repay them. This enabled Chrysler to borrow at muchlower interest rates. As it happened Chrysler did repay the $1.5billion in loans and the Federal Government did spend anything. Butif Chrysler had had to get a private organization to accept the riskof nonpayment it would have had to pay many millions of dollars forthat insurance. Thus the Federal Government gave something toChrysler, a loan guarantee, which was worth many millions toChrysler. The 1992 Federal Credit and Reform Act now requires thecost of Federal credit programs to be estimated and budgeted. In 1994the costs of such direct loan programs at -subsidized interest- andloan guarantee programs was estimated to be between $123 billion and$223 billion.

Gee... who "subsidized" those preferred interest rates? Hmmmm!

None of my American cars. All of my Japanese. Those 15k mile fluid changes are KEY!

Debateable. Transmission repairs will exist so long as there are gears inside them and will never be repair free. One needs to do a lifetime cost accounting, rather than this tit for tat accounting with no figures. Eliminating the Saudi oil dependence objective is laughable.

Oh shut up. There is ARSENIC in nearly everything you eat too. You ain't dead yet. Why?

SEE. You have just exposed yourself as an extremist. Another eco-nazi-nut case.

I have said that many vehicles (raw numbers in the sourthwestern United States) rack up in excess of 100,000 miles. And I have said that vehicles subjected to snow, ice, salt, sand, etc do not for reasons of corrosion and accidents but not limited to just those two mitigating factors.

Attempting to "improve" without a historic perspective is how you got about things. Not I.

The original "problem" has been solved for practical purposes. The "problem" is that you have adopted environmentalism as your personal religion. I blaspheme your dogma ... and happily so.

Every generation ever born as left a "mess" for the subsequent generation to deal with. It's Biblical! Deal with. The solutions usually CREATE a whole set of new problems. There is no ultimate solution, not ever. Be like a dung beetle.... eat dirt, miltiply, and die. ;-)

Oh ... were the world's problems so simple. Not.

Wrongo. Look up "Hormesis" and educate yourself.

DS

Here ... lemme help you out ... which way did you come in?

In 1978, a Chevy Nova was a mid sized car, 4 door, and typically equipped with a 350 V8 engine (5.7 liter), 4 barrel non feedback carburetor, automatic transmission, and a catalytic converter in California. 15 mpg was pretty common highway fuel consumption. Favorite police car in many states. Prius is a 91 cu/in (1500cc) four cylinder of current technology.

While you must have a source for the above claims, I need to see the actual numbers. "X-times more than ... " is a classic method of distorting raw data. Also, are you speaking of exhaust emissions before the catalyst or at the tailpipe? And is the example1978 Nova a California version ... because in 1978, not all of states had Novas equipped with converters, EGR valves, retarded spark advance curves and cam timing with less overlap.

Ya see Danny boy, you get transient weather situations there in the Bay Area involving that marine inversion layer, sunshine and alternating air flow from the ocean and the warmer inland areas. Then there's the costal mountains that help stagnate the daily creation of photochemical smog too. What are you doing about industrial sources that generate components of photochemical smog.

Tell ya what. Start working graveyard. You'll solve both your commuter angst and your awareness of smog. LOL