vertcobra9

hybrids are the biggest fad since the pet rock... once people realize that in the long run it costs you more to own a hybrid then it does a normal small engine car. There will be no more of them. Not to mention that hybrids are worse for the environment then a hummer. Let me tell you why.

The place where they mine all the nickel is in canada and this place is void of all life including plants, animals, bacteria for miles. This is because the nickel is so toxic. NASA uses this area for testing. Not only that but after 5 years you have to replace those batteries in your hybrid... and guess how much that is going to cost you? I have heard upwards of 2-3k and thats way more then you would have saved on gas using the car over 5 years. That and the fact that most hybrids don't get the MPG that they claim.

HYBRIDS

bimbels

Vertcobra you're spewing alot of myths about hybrids - I'm not a treehugger but I have done my research and neither of your points are true. There are 5+ year old Priuses out there right now that have over 200k miles and are still running on the same battery that takes a perfect charge. And drilling for oil doesn't hurt the environment? Emissions don't hurt the environment? You are snowed by Big Oil telling you how bad hybrids are - not the truth. Google anything and you'll get 10 different answers - so yeah someone will say they're bad. But they're not.

YES, though, in the long run it does cost more to own a hybrid - speaking of Lexus you have to drive them for 10+ years to break even with the estimated gas costs.

However, it's going to cost us all ALOT MORE IN THE LONG RUN if we continue to ignore global warming - car emissions being the #1 contributor. So, if I buy a hybrid, it will not be to "save money" - it will be to do the right thing by our planet. Period.

I do not think hybrids are the answer, though. I'll be happy when we can have a vehicle that can run on 100% electricity, give to the grid as it charges overnight, and have a battery capacity of more than a few hundred miles.

boe

I have no issue with going hybrid -
1 to reduce my dependence on countries I don't think will ever see peace
2 to reduce my emissions - less gas, same standards for fuel emissions
3 to reduce the amount of trips I make to the gas station

Lithium Ion battereis are recyclable and while only 2% of regular batteries such as AA batteries are recycled, 98% of car batteries are recycled as they are often shipped direct to recyclers and those who throw them in the trash, still are easy to find for waste management companies.

Is it going to cost me a little more - most likely although all calculations are based on current gas prices - who knows what gas prices will be just four years from now.

lobuxracer

iTrader: (2)

You've unfortunately bought into the hype about global warming being man-made. It isn't true, and more climatologists are reversing their positions daily. Solar activity is the #1 reason for atmospheric change on Earth. If this were not true, then please explain why the polar ice cap on Mars is retreating just as quickly as our ice caps are melting. Carbon emissions control to prevent global warming is fool's talk. Don't get me wrong, there are millions of other reasons to limit our use of polluting energy sources, and I'm definitely onboard with good stewardship for the planet, but the whole carbon argument for global warming is hogwash.

That said, there is a tiny fraction of advantage for a hybrid. You can recoup the energy used to accelerate when you brake. It unfortunately comes with a cost - many barrels of oil used to create the semiconductors, batteries, and metals required to make this technology work. Add to this that it is impossible to efficiently transform energy from one form (heat to electricity) to another and you have the other fundamental fault of how hybrids work. Your hybrid on a long freeway run will not get as stellar efficiency as you'd expect because moving a mass over a distance requires a certain amount of energy. If you convert directly from heat to force (conventional engine) you have fewer losses than converting from heat to electricity to force. Fundamental physics here. So, the only place hybrids really make sense is in city traffic. Cabs, postal vehicles, buses, garbage trucks, and other vehicles that make frequent stops are ideal candidates for this technology. Infrequent use vehicles for general transportation are marginal, and the advantages depend entirely on the use profile. Few people are a really good fit.

So in the end, the oil companies really don't care if you have a hybrid or not. You're going to spend the money up front on building the car (all those polymers they use for the batteries? Guess where they get the feedstock?), or you're going to put gas in the tank and do direct conversion.

Hybrids will eventually go away. But the other choice - full electric - is no better. With the amount of coal that gets burned in this country to provide electricity and all the toxic wastes associated with coal burning, I'd rather just keep burning gasoline. I can't ever remember seeing heavy metals in an unleaded gasoline analysis, but I sure do remember seeing lead and uranium in coal emissions profiles. Plus, I'm not generating the energy, transporting it 20 - 30 - 50 miles at significant losses, then applying it to a platform that also loses energy (ever touch a battery charger in service? they waste a lot of energy) in the charging process, only to have it plugged in again and suck up some more...electricity can't remain cheap, and going to electric cars will cause infrastructure issues - our grids were not build with the goal of providing energy for the transportation sector - so we're going to spend more on upgrades (more barrels of oil!!!) to meet the new demand.

Finally, take a look at the GS450h. Open the trunk. Figure out where you're going to put luggage with that beast, then consider an equivalent space taken out of the IS and adding another 250 or 300 lbs to an already very porky car. I'm sorry, I just can't imagine not having any trunk at all in a $35k automobile. And I seriously doubt there will be any significant sales volume for an IS hybrid once the buying public sees this.

bimbels

Aaahaaha. Ok. Well it's really semantics - whether or not it's man made or not (which I believe it is, but whatevs. We are so freaking arrogant it's comical.), it IS happening and so why not do our part lower our contributions? Automobile emissions are THE BIGGEST contributor to it.

I agree with you that hybrids aren't the end all be all. But they do have low emission - I hardly think you can argue with that. But I also think we do not have the technology to make any alternatives now. And there DO need to be alternatives to what we're doing now - because it's not working. Even if you believe nothing about global warming - have you heard of Peak Oil? We have no way of knowing if we're there yet - but we will be eventually and it will result in worldwide recession, wars, blah blah if we don't find an alternative. If you don't want to be a part of the process as we figure out where to go next, then fine - but we do have to have changes and hybrids are a part of that overall process.

350ripper

Global warming = Liberal propaganda

100th post woo-hoo

lobuxracer

iTrader: (2)

I've actually read a lot about peak oil. The point is, it takes MORE barrels of oil to produce and operate a hybrid than it does a conventional drivetrain over the typical life of the car. So instead of making things better, it's actually accelerating the process of running out (if you believe the dinosaur theory of oil production - I don't, but that's me).

What we're doing right now is working. People live better than at any time in recorded history. Sustaining this lifestyle is the challenge for the future, but right now, it's pretty darn good.

bimbels

I can see we couldn't be further apart on this issue and I'm sure many many others. It's one of those deals where you could type 1000 pages and you would never, ever draw me even 1 mm towards your position. So we shall agree to disagree and not waste any more typing.

encore888

The RX 400h doesn't suffer any loss in trunk space, and the LS 600h trunk space is somewhat bigger than the GS 450h's--at least that's my impression from ToL. I think it would be cool if they came up with a hybrid IS, and other more environmentally-friendly vehicles, but they should make the hybrid IS have sufficient trunk space.

herbvdh

bimbels: and anyone else intersted.
Pure electric cars are here do a search for Tesla motors or Phoenix motorcars. As for me give me a hybrid I just traded a Prius 50MPG for a 400h 27.5 MPG simple I like the IS F (saw it yesterday) a lot but it will not go up my driveway apron without major damage and then if it snows I am stuck.

lobuxracer

iTrader: (2)

Not attempting to change your mind. Just pointing out the facts as I know them from researching them. I work in sales as a sales engineer. I'm the techie who explains to the customer how the technology works and gets the customer excited about all the cool features. I also know what marketing does and how it works. I have an innate distrust of what I've been told by many marketers including Toyota's.

You think hybrids are green because you've been told they are by very clever marketers. I think they're not because I know how they're made, what they're made from, who makes them, what the real total cost of ownership is from cradle to grave, I understand the underlying science, and most importantly, the power of marketing to make people believe things that just aren't true when examined in the cold light of day.

But we can certainly agree to disagree.

bimbels

And you believe global warming is not caused by humans because you've been told otherwise by selfish politicians and corporations.

Yep. Totally disagree.

lobuxracer

iTrader: (2)

You should read all 27 parts of this article and see what real scientists are saying. Not oil companies.

Not only that, but the oil companies could never adequately fund a defense against the government when the government is spending over $1B a year on research supporting the man-made theory of global warming.

As I said, I look for root causes. CO2 isn't a root cause of the Martian ice cap's retreat. But I'm wasting your time, you really should read the article. It's far better at explaining why our arrogance is unfounded in sound science.

bimbels

We can end this here. As I said, you will not change my mind. I don't feel like typing it all out here because I recognize it would be totally wasted on you, as your words are to me, but I've read just about every book, article, blurb on this subject and I do not agree with you. You can find scientists who disagree with this just like you could find "scientists" who thought the world was flat in the 1500s.

the reality is neither you nor I know the answers because the problem is bigger than we are. You choose to believe your scientists, I choose to believe mine. Either way we're all screwed.

vertcobra9

I know I am probably wasting my words on you but even if the ice caps do melt it will be over a very large period of time. And it has happened multiple times over over the corse of earths existance. For example when the dinosaurs were around there was no ice at the caps. And the earth in general was about 10 degrees warmer then it is now. The world didn't end. and the whole worlds wasn't under water. Its like a glass of ice water, when all of the water melts does the glass overflow? no it doesn't. The seas might rise a meter or two and that would cause alot of devistation. But to say the worlds climate is changing due to human interfearance is ignorant considering a single volcano that erupts emits more green house gasses then man has over its entire existance.