Smart people buy Priuses

"Roger Blake" > wrote in message
...
> In article <1i1pt5v.1vya33u17qooopN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsul t.com>, Mike
> Rosenberg wrote:
>> In September, 2004, I bought a Prius for about the same price as a
>> comparably equipped Camry would have cost, and I've averaged 46 MPG
>> since then.
>
> About the same as a 30-year-old VW Rabbit diesel. Very impressive.
>
> --
> Roger Blake
> (Subtract 10s for email.)




Yeah. That was a real non-polluter, wasn't it? Quiet too, eh?

Roger Blake > wrote:

> > In September, 2004, I bought a Prius for about the same price as a
> > comparably equipped Camry would have cost, and I've averaged 46 MPG
> > since then.
>
> About the same as a 30-year-old VW Rabbit diesel. Very impressive.

So the Rabbit has A/C, A/T and an interior as roomy as the Prius?

--
<http://designsbymike.info/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts
<http://designsbymike.info/shop/musings.cgi> Muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.info/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers
<http://designsbymike.info/shop/dance.cgi> Ballroom dance shirts & gifts

In article >,
Roger Blake > wrote:

> > In September, 2004, I bought a Prius for about the same price as a
> > comparably equipped Camry would have cost, and I've averaged 46 MPG
> > since then.
>
> About the same as a 30-year-old VW Rabbit diesel.

The Rabbit was a smoky rattletrap.

In article >,
Roger Blake > wrote:

> In article <ZWfpi.4395$Gs4.4039@trndny05>, Richard Warren wrote:
> > Yeah. That was a real non-polluter, wasn't it? Quiet too, eh?
>
> We were discussing fuel economy, not "pollution" or "quietness," little one.

Yeah, who cares about pollution and quietness, anyway. Buncha
God-damned treehuggers.


> However having said that, you will find that today's diesels are much
> more refined that those of 30 years ago, while still offering outstanding
> fuel economy. (Of course you knew that, you were simply being disingenuous.)
> All without hundreds of pounds of expensive batteries or a complex Rube
> Goldberg drivetrain, and of course a properly-designed diesel engine will
> run nearly forever by automotive standards.
>
> To today's hybrids I say "Thanks, but no thanks." But I would certainly
> consider a diesel.

Meanwhile you'll stand on the sidelines and snipe? Thanks for sharing.

In alt.autos.toyota.prius Jeff DeWitt > wrote:
> What is it going to cost to replace the batteries when they go bad? How
> about those two motor/generators?

What makes you think they will go bad?

> Some of us keep our cars for a really long time, I've got well over
> 300,000 miles on my little Cherokee and have no plans to replace it.
> What is going to happen to a Prius as it gets really high mileage?
> Those cars are a lot more complected then a conventional car.

Most conventional cars don't go to 300000, because keeping them stops
being economical quite some time before that. Glad that your Cherokee
gives you good service, but why wouldn't a Prius do that?

> http://www.cleangreencar.co.nz/page/...technical-info
>
> There is a lot to be said for the KISS principal.

Like having a gear box with at least 11 cogs, and moving them in an out
all the time, pushing against synchronizing rings to adjust rotation
differences?

Standard technology is well understood and known. But KISS looks
different to me :-)

> I think the current hybrid technology is very much a transitional
> technology, much as the turboprop was. Technologies like GM is
> developing for the Chevy Volt are going to become a lot more common than
> current hybrid technology.

Actually turbo prop was developped after jet engines. 50 years on,
people still buy them and on short hops they seem to be very economical
and loved by the airlines.

Why would the fact it may be a transitional technology speak against
hybrids? Today it's a quite interesting package to eco conscious new car
buyers. That's what counts.

cu
.\\arc

In alt.autos.toyota.prius Roger Blake > wrote:
>> In September, 2004, I bought a Prius for about the same price as a
>> comparably equipped Camry would have cost, and I've averaged 46 MPG
>> since then.
>
> About the same as a 30-year-old VW Rabbit diesel. Very impressive.

And you can't even kill yourself using the exhaust fumes of a Prius... :->

I'm in Europe, I've got access to up to date Diesel technology. And most
Diesels, unless they have filters, stink. Not when new or after a year or
two, but when they start aging, they are not fun to drive behind in a
convertible.

cu
.\\arc

Richard Warren wrote:
> "Jeff DeWitt" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Tom Ricostronza wrote:
>>> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 00:03:31 -0400, Jeff DeWitt >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> richard schumacher wrote:
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> "Bob Myers" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It should be noted of course, that -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Smart people do a lot of things, not all of which are necessarily
>>>>>> smart, and
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2.Therefore, whether or not some smart people do a certain thing
>>>>>> has very little to do with whether or not that thing is a "smart"
>>>>>> thing to do.
>>>>> True enough. I've even heard that a few smart people voted Republican.
>>>> Yesss... and I've heard a lot of folks that thought they were smart who
>>>> voted Democrat.
>>>>
>>>> Jeff DeWitt
>>> I know a lot of smart Republicans who voted for a moron named Bush who
>>> thinks he's the Messiah and will never vote Republican again.
>> That's funny, I know of a smart guy named Bush who keeps outsmarting a
>> bunch of Democrats in Congress.
>>
>> Just what have those guys accomplished this year?
>>
>> Jeff DeWitt
>
>
>
> Bush smart? What flavor Kool-Ade is that you're drinking?
>
>
Yep, stupid people, of whatever party, just don't get elected President
of the United States... and I havn't had Kool Aid in years, you?

Jeff DeWitt

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article >,
> Jeff DeWitt > wrote:
>
>>>> That's funny, I know of a smart guy named Bush who keeps
>>>> outsmarting a bunch of Democrats in Congress.
>>> He outsmarted them so much that the wrested both houses from his
>>> party's control.
>> That wasn't Bush, that was the Republican Congresscritters spending
>> too much time playing games and not enough time actually doing what
>> they should have been doing, along with a bit of corruption.
>
> That was the voters getting fed up with the GOP, which Bush was the head
> of. It was the voters getting fed up with GOP congresscritters which
> never gave Bush a bill he didn't like. Well, once; a stem-cell research
> bill.

Whatever, the current crop of Congresscritters are doing even worse.


>> So the Democrats took power, they are playing even more games, getting
>> less done,
>
> Considering that what the GOP controlled congress got done was harmful
> to the country, that's an improvement.

As you are obviously far to the left of me we will disagree on this one.
>
>> are even more corrupt,
>
> Got any citations for that?
>
>> and have a lower approval rating than the Republicans they they replaced,
>
> Got any citations for that?
>
>> and an approval rating less than have of the Presidents.
>
> The democrats have less than a 15% approval rating? Got any citations
> for that?

According to the latest CBS News/New York Times polls Bush is at 30%,
Congress at 26%
>
>>> Bush is smart only in comparison to those who think that he is smart.
>>>
>> See, he's outsmarted you too!
>
> You have a reading comprehension problem.

No I read very well, although sometimes I have trouble understanding
lefties.

As for the rest... do your own digging, I really came here to talk about
cars.

Jeff DeWitt

Marc Gerges wrote:
> In alt.autos.toyota.prius Jeff DeWitt > wrote:
>> What is it going to cost to replace the batteries when they go bad? How
>> about those two motor/generators?
>
> What makes you think they will go bad?

I don't know that they will, electric motors and generators potentially
have very long lives, there are electric cars almost 100 years old with
their original motors. But we just don't know about these, they haven't
been around that long... and however reliable they are they aren't gong
to be cheap to replace.
>
>> Some of us keep our cars for a really long time, I've got well over
>> 300,000 miles on my little Cherokee and have no plans to replace it.
>> What is going to happen to a Prius as it gets really high mileage?
>> Those cars are a lot more complected then a conventional car.
>
> Most conventional cars don't go to 300000, because keeping them stops
> being economical quite some time before that. Glad that your Cherokee
> gives you good service, but why wouldn't a Prius do that?

Even assuming the motor/generators, the power split device and the drive
chains hold up to get that kind of life the engine is going to have to
be rebuilt and the batteries replaced. I've no doubt a Prius COULD be
made to last that long, when you come right down to it any car can be
kept going for as long as you are willing to spend money on it.

I've got a total of about $4,000 in repairs aside from normal
maintenance stuff in that 300,000 miles. (Engine, clutch and radiator)
>
>> http://www.cleangreencar.co.nz/page/...technical-info
>>
>> There is a lot to be said for the KISS principal.
>
> Like having a gear box with at least 11 cogs, and moving them in an out
> all the time, pushing against synchronizing rings to adjust rotation
> differences?
>
> Standard technology is well understood and known. But KISS looks
> different to me :-)

Ever look inside an automatic? As you say stick shift technology is
well understood and I know more about the inside of those things than
I'd care to remember... my Jeep may be about as reliable as a cement
block but my 48 year old Studebaker is something else again!
>
>> I think the current hybrid technology is very much a transitional
>> technology, much as the turboprop was. Technologies like GM is
>> developing for the Chevy Volt are going to become a lot more common than
>> current hybrid technology.
>
> Actually turbo prop was developped after jet engines. 50 years on,
> people still buy them and on short hops they seem to be very economical
> and loved by the airlines.

I stand corrected.
>
> Why would the fact it may be a transitional technology speak against
> hybrids? Today it's a quite interesting package to eco conscious new car
> buyers. That's what counts.

It speaks against hybrids if you want to keep the thing for a long time,
if your going to buy one, drive it for a few years and sell it again
that's something else again.

Jeff DeWitt

In alt.autos.toyota.prius Jeff DeWitt > wrote:
>> Most conventional cars don't go to 300000, because keeping them stops
>> being economical quite some time before that. Glad that your Cherokee
>> gives you good service, but why wouldn't a Prius do that?
>
> Even assuming the motor/generators, the power split device and the drive
> chains hold up to get that kind of life the engine is going to have to
> be rebuilt and the batteries replaced. I've no doubt a Prius COULD be
> made to last that long, when you come right down to it any car can be
> kept going for as long as you are willing to spend money on it.

Look at the battery as no more than 166 D cells, because that's in the
end what it is (they're even replaceable in packs of 6 or 8, I think).
Does the thought of these frighten you? There's 6 of them in every
ghetto blaster.

There's no drive chains, and the power split device is a bunch of gears
in constant mesh. Old technology, never breaks. The engine is just an
engine, and the traction motors are just plain old electric motors that
live a hundred years.

> I've got a total of about $4,000 in repairs aside from normal
> maintenance stuff in that 300,000 miles. (Engine, clutch and radiator)

I would still expect the battery to keep up over 300000 - there's a
bunch of Priuses around that age really, really well. And 4000 in
repairs already buys a handful of shiny new parts for a Prius.

>> Standard technology is well understood and known. But KISS looks
>> different to me :-)
>
> Ever look inside an automatic? As you say stick shift technology is
> well understood and I know more about the inside of those things than
> I'd care to remember... my Jeep may be about as reliable as a cement
> block but my 48 year old Studebaker is something else again!

PSD has what... 5 cogs, in constant mesh?

>> Why would the fact it may be a transitional technology speak against
>> hybrids? Today it's a quite interesting package to eco conscious new car
>> buyers. That's what counts.
>
> It speaks against hybrids if you want to keep the thing for a long time,
> if your going to buy one, drive it for a few years and sell it again
> that's something else again.

So, would you buy a conventional car today, understood it's aged
technology past its prime?

cu
.\\arc