Who Says Cars Aren't an Investment?

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:19:37 -0700, L Sternn wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:54:22 -0700, "C.H." >
> wrote:
>
>>This guy will need 4-5 new batteries along the way and eventually the
>>Insight will simply not be usable any more because parts for it are
>>unavailable. Try to buy a part for a '1973 Honda Accord,
>
> That would be pretty ****ing difficult,

Calm down, you don't want to burst an artery.

> especially given that the Accord wasn't introduced until 1976.

Then try to get a part for a '76 Accord or maybe for a '73 CVCC. Doesn't
change the fact that parts for old japanese cars are often unavailable or
very difficult to come by and expensive to boot. Even parts for new
japanese cars are ridiculously expensive.

And http://learn.to/quote is your friend.

Chris

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:12:46 -0700, L Sternn wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:56:35 -0700, "C.H." >
> wrote:
>
>>> Hybrids haven't been around long enough for you to make such a
>>> comparison.
>>
>>Hybrids have custom parts like batteries which have a) limited lifespans
>>like all batteries
>
> |How long does the Prius battery last and what is the replacement cost?
> |
> |The Prius battery (and the battery-power management system) has been
> |designed to maximize battery life. In part this is done by keeping the battery
> |at an optimum charge level - never fully draining it and never fully recharging it.
> |As a result, the Prius battery leads a pretty easy life. We have lab data showing
> |the equivalent of 180,000 miles with no deterioration and expect it to last the
> |life of the vehicle. We also expect battery technology to continue to improve: the
> |second-generation model battery is 15% smaller, 25% lighter, and has 35% more
> |specific power than the first. This is true of price as well. Between the 2003 and
> |2004 models, service battery costs came down 36% and we expect them to
> |continue to drop so that by the time replacements may be needed it won't be a
> |much of an issue. Since the car went on sale in 2000, Toyota has not replaced a
> |single battery for wear and tear.
>
> Granted, that's from Toyota's website but feel free to point out
> specifically where they are wrong.

Lab tests and real life usually have nothing in common. Least of all
battery tests, which simply assume that because of some more charge and
discharge cycles in a nice airconditioned lab they will be able to predict
the lifespan of a battery that may be frozen today, heated to 200 degrees
tomorrow and ...



And the 'lifespan'
the japanese car manufacturers usually apply is about 5 years, because in
Japan you have to junk your car after 5 years if you don't want to perform
a total resto with exchange of most safety relevant parts, including the
complete brake system (yes, with lines).

>>, b) are custom made for this specific car and c) will
>>simply be unavailable 10-15 years from now.
>
> If there's a market for them, they will be available.

There is a market for parts for 20 year old Hondas. Yet the parts are
_very_ hard to come by or simply unavailable, which makes hacks necessary.

The japanese auto makers want you to junk your car every 5 years and buy a
new one. They don't care about classic cars or people who don't want to
blow 30000 bucks by buying a new car every 5 years.

Feel free to buy a Prius and come back in 10 years, when your dealer told
you that your battery is damaged and a new one costs $10000 instead of the
original 5000 because there are only a handful of them left.

Chris

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:10:48 -0700, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:02:04 -0700, L Sternn wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:40:42 -0700, "C.H." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> WTF?
>>>
>>>Thanks for proving my point.
>>>
>> Show us a personal attack in this thread that didn't emanate from your
>> own keyboard.
>
>Read your own postings and you will find a whole bunch.
>
>>>> I haven't attacked you at all. In fact, it is you who attacked Prius
>>>> drivers.
>>>
>>>No, I merely stated an obvious fact.
>>
>> Your opinion is not fact.
>
>My opinion isn't, but the fact that Prius owners buy there cars for
>appearance instead of for the environment, is.


You're hilarious. You apparently don't know the difference between a
fact and an opinion.

> Even funnier is, that some
>people openly admit that they buy a Prius for the money savings at the
>pump only. They get the equivalent of a Corolla for 10000-15000 dollars
>more than they would pay for the Corolla just to be able to save a few
>cents at the pump.
>
>A Corolla gets 30mpg, a Prius (under ideal coditions) maybe 45mpg. So over
>90000 miles the Corolla uses 3000 gallons, the Prius 2000 plus an $5000
>battery. Very economical indeed, not to mention so environmentally
>friendly. Even at 5 dollars a gallon and not taking the batteries into
>account a Prius would have to last at least 180000 miles until it breaks
>even with the lowly Corolla.

I'm not even going to check your math since it's irrelevant.

GIGO. You've pulled numbers out of thin air in order to support your
statements.

It very well might not work out economically. Lots of cars do not.

>
>Good thing for Toyota, that math is not a strength of their average
>customer.
>

Nor are facts as you've so amply demonstrated.

>>>> I simply don't believe that none of them actually care about the
>>>> environment.
>>>
>>>I didn't say that and you know quite well that I didn't. I said that care
>>>for the environment is not a major factor in buying a Prius.
>>>
>> You're splitting hairs.
>
>No, I simply corrected your lie.

Well, actually, it's not what you originally said:

"The people, who drive Priusses do so, because they want to
look intellectual, not because they care for the environment."

So you're right - you didn't say they didn't care about the
environment.

You also didn't say the "environment is not a major factor" You said
it wasn't a factor at all.


You also claimed they wanted to look "intellectual".

>
>>>> I'd also love to see you back up any of your claims regarding the
>>>> environmental costs of hybrids vs. conventional cars with facts.
>>>
>>>And I'd love to see you behave in a civilized manner.
>>>
>>
>> There's another personal attack.
>
>No, it's a statement of fact.
>
>> To quote you:
>>
>> "Nice try. Come back when you have arguments instead of personal
>> attacks."
>
>Feel free to.
>

Sure thing, Mr. "Intellectual".

>Chris

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:54:14 -0700, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:12:46 -0700, L Sternn wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:56:35 -0700, "C.H." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Hybrids haven't been around long enough for you to make such a
>>>> comparison.
>>>
>>>Hybrids have custom parts like batteries which have a) limited lifespans
>>>like all batteries
>>
>> |How long does the Prius battery last and what is the replacement cost?
>> |
>> |The Prius battery (and the battery-power management system) has been
>> |designed to maximize battery life. In part this is done by keeping the battery
>> |at an optimum charge level - never fully draining it and never fully recharging it.
>> |As a result, the Prius battery leads a pretty easy life. We have lab data showing
>> |the equivalent of 180,000 miles with no deterioration and expect it to last the
>> |life of the vehicle. We also expect battery technology to continue to improve: the
>> |second-generation model battery is 15% smaller, 25% lighter, and has 35% more
>> |specific power than the first. This is true of price as well. Between the 2003 and
>> |2004 models, service battery costs came down 36% and we expect them to
>> |continue to drop so that by the time replacements may be needed it won't be a
>> |much of an issue. Since the car went on sale in 2000, Toyota has not replaced a
>> |single battery for wear and tear.
>>
>> Granted, that's from Toyota's website but feel free to point out
>> specifically where they are wrong.
>
>Lab tests and real life usually have nothing in common. Least of all
>battery tests, which simply assume that because of some more charge and
>discharge cycles in a nice airconditioned lab they will be able to predict
>the lifespan of a battery that may be frozen today, heated to 200 degrees
>tomorrow and ...
>

Replace "they" with "you" in the following excerpt from

http://cars.about.com/cs/familysedan...id_explain.htm

"Perhaps they should ask Vancouver BC's Andrew Grant, the world's
first Toyota Prius taxi cab driver. After three years of daily use his
Prius had logged over 180,000 miles with only a handful of minor
problems. Grant has now purchased a new-generation Prius and more of
these remarkable vehicles are being used by cab owners willing to take
a chance on the technology."

There's your real life example.

>
>
>And the 'lifespan'
>the japanese car manufacturers usually apply is about 5 years, because in
>Japan you have to junk your car after 5 years if you don't want to perform
>a total resto with exchange of most safety relevant parts, including the
>complete brake system (yes, with lines).

The lifespan of Japanese cars is only about 5 years?

I couldn't find a different source and I'm not going to devote more
time looking for one.

Feel free to provide your own if you have any.

http://www.reliabilityindex.co.uk/ma...382522333 596

Average age of carss by make (I've only listed those >= 5 here):

HONDA 5.1
JEEP 5
MAZDA 5.6
MITSUBISHI 5.8
NISSAN 5.5
TOYOTA 5.5
VOLVO 5

Well, Volvos and Jeeps aren't Japanese at least - then again, they
barely made the list.

Well, here's another statistic although it doesn't break it down by
brand:

"The average age of passenger cars in Japan has reached a record 9.96
years.......Sources: Automobile Inspection
Registration Association, Nikkei Industrial Daily"

http://www.phaze3.com/Editions/g001113.PDF


>>>, b) are custom made for this specific car and c) will
>>>simply be unavailable 10-15 years from now.
>>
>> If there's a market for them, they will be available.
>
>There is a market for parts for 20 year old Hondas. Yet the parts are
>_very_ hard to come by or simply unavailable, which makes hacks necessary.
>

Whatever gets juice into the car. In 10-15 years, hybrid technology
will have advanced enough that this should be trivial.

>The japanese auto makers want you to junk your car every 5 years and buy a
>new one.

They all do.

> They don't care about classic cars or people who don't want to
>blow 30000 bucks by buying a new car every 5 years.

You think Detroit does?

>
>Feel free to buy a Prius and come back in 10 years, when your dealer told
>you that your battery is damaged and a new one costs $10000 instead of the
>original 5000 because there are only a handful of them left.
>

Nah - I don't want to look "intellectual".

>Chris

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:48:08 -0700, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 18:19:37 -0700, L Sternn wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 17:54:22 -0700, "C.H." >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>This guy will need 4-5 new batteries along the way and eventually the
>>>Insight will simply not be usable any more because parts for it are
>>>unavailable. Try to buy a part for a '1973 Honda Accord,
>>
>> That would be pretty ****ing difficult,
>
>Calm down, you don't want to burst an artery.
>

Don't worry - I'm actually laughing as I type this.

>> especially given that the Accord wasn't introduced until 1976.
>
>Then try to get a part for a '76 Accord or maybe for a '73 CVCC. Doesn't
>change the fact that parts for old japanese cars are often unavailable or
>very difficult to come by and expensive to boot. Even parts for new
>japanese cars are ridiculously expensive.
>

And how many Accords did Honda make in 1976?

>And http://learn.to/quote is your friend.
>

When it takes up more than half a screen, I'll trim, okay?

Geez - who's gonna burst an artery?

>Chris

In article >, L Sternn wrote:

>>I doubt most of the owners of these hybrids will keep their cars more
>>than 5 years before they seek out something new. Thusly they are consuming
>>resources at a far greater pace than I.

> I've read that new car buyers (or leasers) get a new car on average
> once every 3 years.

So I'm correct, no more than.

> Perhaps you keep your vehicle longer, but if hybrid owners keep their
> cars 5 years, they're consuming at a slower pace.

I didn't write that, read it again.

> Got any stats on the number of hybrids sold that are no longer on the
> streets?

What difference does that make?

>>Yet, to them, I am not good to the environment because I have one car
>>with a V8 and another that is 32 years old. I can drive many many years
>>on what they consume each time they replace a car.

> I think we're getting into differing kinds of environmental costs as
> well.

Let's see, my '73 should have been replaced by 10 cars now, and my '97
with 2. I've saved the manufacture of 12 cars. How many decades will that
let me drive before break even?

And if my '73 was allowed to slide down the used car consumption chain,
it would have vanished before 1980. My '97 would be near vanishing point.
I am now seeing '96 model year cars in the U-pull that aren't even smashed.

In article >, L Sternn wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:40:47 -0500,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article >, L Sternn wrote:
>>
>>> But as pointed out by me, if noone else, part of the reward isn't
>>> polluting as much as you.
>>
>>I pollute less than the hybrid driver by the mere fact that I keep my
>>cars for a very long time. I don't require a new car to be built for me
>>anywhere close to as often.

> You compare your specific habits to a group of people - how about
> comparing them to the guy who keeps his Insight 32 years?

Unlikely. And battery replacements will count against the total.
Now, if they were atomic cars.....

I'm just sick of people who think that replacing everything with new
equates a better condition without considering the costs involved with
building the new product.

In article >, L Sternn wrote:

> http://cars.about.com/cs/familysedan...id_explain.htm
>
> "Perhaps they should ask Vancouver BC's Andrew Grant, the world's
> first Toyota Prius taxi cab driver. After three years of daily use his
> Prius had logged over 180,000 miles with only a handful of minor
> problems. Grant has now purchased a new-generation Prius and more of
> these remarkable vehicles are being used by cab owners willing to take
> a chance on the technology."
>
> There's your real life example.

Um, when you study batteries, and find out why this doesn't equate to 5-10
years of use, get back to us.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:21:38 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article >, L Sternn wrote:
>
>>>I doubt most of the owners of these hybrids will keep their cars more
>>>than 5 years before they seek out something new. Thusly they are consuming
>>>resources at a far greater pace than I.
>
>> I've read that new car buyers (or leasers) get a new car on average
>> once every 3 years.
>
>So I'm correct, no more than.

But that's for ALL cars, not just hybrids.

>
>> Perhaps you keep your vehicle longer, but if hybrid owners keep their
>> cars 5 years, they're consuming at a slower pace.
>
>I didn't write that, read it again.

I wrote that - I thought you'd understand the simple concept that if
they keep their car 5 years and the typical car is only owned for 3,
they are consuming at a slower pace.

>
>> Got any stats on the number of hybrids sold that are no longer on the
>> streets?
>
>What difference does that make?

Think about it.

>
>>>Yet, to them, I am not good to the environment because I have one car
>>>with a V8 and another that is 32 years old. I can drive many many years
>>>on what they consume each time they replace a car.
>
>> I think we're getting into differing kinds of environmental costs as
>> well.
>
>Let's see, my '73 should have been replaced by 10 cars now, and my '97
>with 2.

That's only if you wish to compare yourself to the average.


> I've saved the manufacture of 12 cars. How many decades will that
>let me drive before break even?
>
>And if my '73 was allowed to slide down the used car consumption chain,
>it would have vanished before 1980. My '97 would be near vanishing point.
>I am now seeing '96 model year cars in the U-pull that aren't even smashed.
>
>

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 00:27:57 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article >, L Sternn wrote:
>
>> http://cars.about.com/cs/familysedan...id_explain.htm
>>
>> "Perhaps they should ask Vancouver BC's Andrew Grant, the world's
>> first Toyota Prius taxi cab driver. After three years of daily use his
>> Prius had logged over 180,000 miles with only a handful of minor
>> problems. Grant has now purchased a new-generation Prius and more of
>> these remarkable vehicles are being used by cab owners willing to take
>> a chance on the technology."
>>
>> There's your real life example.
>
>Um, when you study batteries, and find out why this doesn't equate to 5-10
>years of use, get back to us.
>

We were discussing miles driven. He said 180,000 was only achieved
under lab conditions.

Elsewhere he claimed you'd have to replace the battery after 90,000
miles.

Toyota claims never to have had to replace a battery due to wear and
tear.