Who Says Cars Aren't an Investment?

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.

N E One wrote:
>
> Yes, you said they wanted to look "intellectual" and they didn't care
> about the environment.
>

Chris has said a lot of stuff in r.a.d. that's really hard to support.

If you do a google search on r.a.d. with the parameter
", you get a lot of interesting history. Go back
to 2003 or so. Quite amusing and enlightening.

E.P.

In article >, L Sternn wrote:

>>The thing is, besides the look-at-me-i'm-driving-a-hyrbid factor, I was
>>refering to the cost analysis. They think they'll make it back on fuel
>>savings, but unless gasoline hits $4-5 a gallon they would have been
>>better off with a conventional gasoline powered car of similiar size with
>>the best available fuel economy.

> Perhaps for some, it's worth the economic cost to pollute less. (or
> do you side with CH and claim that hybrids are more harmful to the
> enviro?)

A bigger nearly totally clean gasoline engine vs. the manufacturing
burden of the hybrid's batteries, electric motors, etc. Not to mention
battery replacement. Make sure you do a total comparision. There are many
ways to avoid polluting, some are not as apparent as others.

> Perhaps Bio-Willie is the answer.
> That's right - Willie Nelson is selling biodiesel
> http://www.wnbiodiesel.com/

I like bio-gasoline.
http://www.changingworldtech.com/

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:49:54 -0700, N E One apparently lost interest in
the discussion and tried to start a flamewar.

Nice try. Come back when you have arguments instead of personal attacks.

Chris

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:08:11 -0700, N E One wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 00:14:14 -0700, "C.H." >
> wrote:
>
>>> Prius doesn't have a puny powerplant. Granted, its not a muscle car,
>>> but the 0-60 is 11 seconds.
>>
>>That _is_ puny. My car accelerates from 0 to 60 in 5 seconds
>
> not really typical, is it?

No, but neither is 11s from 0-60. Even econoboxes nowadays manage to get
to 60 in less than 10s.

Chris

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:05:58 -0700, Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 00:14:14 -0700, "C.H." >
> wrote:
>
>>No, the person driving the Prius will have emitted a lot more carbon
>>dioxide than my car will do for the rest of its lifespam just by having
>>their Prius built.
>
> Was that some sort of Freudian Slip?

How was that a Freudian slip?

Chris

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 13:06:46 -0700, "C.H." >
wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 07:49:54 -0700, N E One apparently lost interest in
>the discussion and tried to start a flamewar.
>
>Nice try. Come back when you have arguments instead of personal attacks.
>

WTF?

I haven't attacked you at all. In fact, it is you who attacked Prius
drivers.

I simply don't believe that none of them actually care about the
environment.

I'd also love to see you back up any of your claims regarding the
environmental costs of hybrids vs. conventional cars with facts.



>Chris

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.
>

Hybrids haven't been around long enough for you to make such a
comparison.

In article >, N E One 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.
>>
>
> Hybrids haven't been around long enough for you to make such a
> comparison.

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.

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.

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 16:51:01 -0500,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article >, N E One 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.
>>>
>>
>> Hybrids haven't been around long enough for you to make such a
>> comparison.
>
>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.

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

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

>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.