Hybrid owners not re-buying
- Thread starter tig1
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: exranger06
These cars have been around since what, 1997? I'm sure there are thousands out there with well over 100k by now.
And plasma TV sets were first presented in 1964 and available to the public in 1997. We all know how that went.
These cars have been around since what, 1997? I'm sure there are thousands out there with well over 100k by now.
And plasma TV sets were first presented in 1964 and available to the public in 1997. We all know how that went.
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: exranger06
These cars have been around since what, 1997? I'm sure there are thousands out there with well over 100k by now.
And plasma TV sets were first presented in 1964 and available to the public in 1997. We all know how that went.
Completely invalid comparison. I'm not even sure what you're trying to get at with that statement. You guys are acting like hybrids have only been around for a year or two. Saying things like "I want to see how these cars are at 100k miles/10 years old" was a valid point back in 1998, but guess what? Over 10 years HAS passed and now we KNOW how these cars are doing. Over 2.5 million of these cars have been sold and that is seriously not enough for you? Let me ask you this: When WILL you have enough data that you don’t consider it “one or two anecdotal references?” How many years must they be on the road, how many must have been sold, and how many 100k+ mile examples do you need to see before you can make a conclusion about their reliability? (I really would like an answer to that, please)
Note: I never said hybrids were reliable or that I even like them (I never said the contrary, either). ALL I’m saying is acting like this is new technology with unknown long-term reliability is absolutely ridiculous, because hundreds of thousands have already been on the road for years now.
Originally Posted By: exranger06
These cars have been around since what, 1997? I'm sure there are thousands out there with well over 100k by now.
And plasma TV sets were first presented in 1964 and available to the public in 1997. We all know how that went.
Completely invalid comparison. I'm not even sure what you're trying to get at with that statement. You guys are acting like hybrids have only been around for a year or two. Saying things like "I want to see how these cars are at 100k miles/10 years old" was a valid point back in 1998, but guess what? Over 10 years HAS passed and now we KNOW how these cars are doing. Over 2.5 million of these cars have been sold and that is seriously not enough for you? Let me ask you this: When WILL you have enough data that you don’t consider it “one or two anecdotal references?” How many years must they be on the road, how many must have been sold, and how many 100k+ mile examples do you need to see before you can make a conclusion about their reliability? (I really would like an answer to that, please)
Note: I never said hybrids were reliable or that I even like them (I never said the contrary, either). ALL I’m saying is acting like this is new technology with unknown long-term reliability is absolutely ridiculous, because hundreds of thousands have already been on the road for years now.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
The same case could be made for DI, however there are still obvious issues with the technology that are being worked out.
10-15 years isn't a long time if you consider how long the automobile and the internal combustion engine have been around.
10-15 years isn't a long time if you consider how long the automobile and the internal combustion engine have been around.
I have two Prii (pron Pree-I) and am definitely not what you would consider a greenie. My wife lovers her Prius for the technology. I like mine becuase it goods great mpgs. We both like them because of Toyota dependability. Toytota had the best reliability of the brands that most people can affort.
Prii are selling very well, thank you. From and article today at CleanMPG, "The Prius Family (Prius hatch, Prius v, Prius PHEV and Prius c) accounted for a total combined sales volume of 25,168 units. Based on current sales, the demand for the fuel-saving Prius Family models seems to be outpacing the company's initial U.S. target of more than 220,000 units this year.
Including the Prius PHEV, here are Toyota’s April hybrid sales breakouts.
Prius hatch - 15,661
Camry hybrid - 4,406
Prius c* - 4,006
Prius v - 3,847
Prius PHEV - 1,654
Notable among the Prius models is the sales pace of the subcompact Prius c. This 53/46 mpgUS rated B-Segment hybrid has a starting below that of the Honda Insight-II at $18,950. During its first 49 days on the market, the c posted sale of 8,901 units. "
My new Prius C weighs the same as my 1989 CRX, is several times more safe, gets better mpgs (53.2 last tank, without hardly trying), and has all the whiz-bang stuff you should expect for $25k.
Prii are selling very well, thank you. From and article today at CleanMPG, "The Prius Family (Prius hatch, Prius v, Prius PHEV and Prius c) accounted for a total combined sales volume of 25,168 units. Based on current sales, the demand for the fuel-saving Prius Family models seems to be outpacing the company's initial U.S. target of more than 220,000 units this year.
Including the Prius PHEV, here are Toyota’s April hybrid sales breakouts.
Prius hatch - 15,661
Camry hybrid - 4,406
Prius c* - 4,006
Prius v - 3,847
Prius PHEV - 1,654
Notable among the Prius models is the sales pace of the subcompact Prius c. This 53/46 mpgUS rated B-Segment hybrid has a starting below that of the Honda Insight-II at $18,950. During its first 49 days on the market, the c posted sale of 8,901 units. "
My new Prius C weighs the same as my 1989 CRX, is several times more safe, gets better mpgs (53.2 last tank, without hardly trying), and has all the whiz-bang stuff you should expect for $25k.
I couldn't say about any of the other hybrids, but if you would have had Prius hybrids dropping like flies you would have certainly heard about it. There are many in taxi service that have over 200k miles on them. PriusChat would have a ton of complaints from dead Prius buyers, but don't. And the people who are just dead-set agin' 'em would have more than just bad feelings to go on about.
I most certainly have not drank the Toyota kool-aid, but with the good luck we've had and the dearth of "My Prius Blew Up" reports, I'd say they have a winner on their hands. Not every body is suited to every kind of car. There's no shame in not liking the Prius. Just as with anything else, though, you have to have good reasoning or experience or you're just a complainer.
I most certainly have not drank the Toyota kool-aid, but with the good luck we've had and the dearth of "My Prius Blew Up" reports, I'd say they have a winner on their hands. Not every body is suited to every kind of car. There's no shame in not liking the Prius. Just as with anything else, though, you have to have good reasoning or experience or you're just a complainer.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
The same case could be made for DI, however there are still obvious issues with the technology that are being worked out.
10-15 years isn't a long time if you consider how long the automobile and the internal combustion engine have been around.
I posted a link in one of my previous posts showing that hybrid car was patented over 100 years ago!!!!!
Various hybrid cars were made over the last century. There were hybrid cars already when gas cars were in infancy stages! The first front wheel drive car was a hybrid (Porsche in 1898). This is a very mature technology.
One has to be very ignorant of history or close minded to refuse to acknowledge that.
There is some more history to study: http://www.hybridcars.com/history/history-of-hybrid-vehicles.html
Porsche-Lohner hybrid:
The same case could be made for DI, however there are still obvious issues with the technology that are being worked out.
10-15 years isn't a long time if you consider how long the automobile and the internal combustion engine have been around.
I posted a link in one of my previous posts showing that hybrid car was patented over 100 years ago!!!!!
Various hybrid cars were made over the last century. There were hybrid cars already when gas cars were in infancy stages! The first front wheel drive car was a hybrid (Porsche in 1898). This is a very mature technology.
One has to be very ignorant of history or close minded to refuse to acknowledge that.
There is some more history to study: http://www.hybridcars.com/history/history-of-hybrid-vehicles.html
Porsche-Lohner hybrid:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
The same case could be made for DI, however there are still obvious issues with the technology that are being worked out.
10-15 years isn't a long time if you consider how long the automobile and the internal combustion engine have been around.
I posted a link in one of my previous posts showing that hybrid car was patented over 100 years ago!!!!!
Various hybrid cars were made over the last century. There were hybrid cars already when gas cars were in infancy stages! The first front wheel drive car was a hybrid (Porsche in 1898). This is a very mature technology.
One has to be very ignorant of history or close minded to refuse to acknowledge that.
There is some more history to study: http://www.hybridcars.com/history/history-of-hybrid-vehicles.html
Porsche-Lohner hybrid:
You must have missed the post where I specifically mentioned Audi's early Hybrid efforts
Variable valve timing is steam engine era technology. Yet it didn't catch on until Honda started using it.
The automobile has been mass produced with its internal combustion engine since the Model T. The hybrid systems being discussed and the evolutions of them currently in place have only been in use since 1997. Hardly comparable.
One has to be very ignorant or closed minded (to toss your phrase back at you here) to refuse the knowledge that just because somebody makes a few prototypes of something nearly a century ago doesn't gift that concept with 100 years of successful consumer use and testing.
Specifically speaking to Toyota (who was not part of the original development of the technology....), their system is certainly the most mature in terms of ones that have been used in the consumer marketplace, and that system came to market in 1997.
for comparison, the Ford Windsor engine began production in 1962. Yet I don't base the reliability of the Windsor engine on the history of the Internal Combustion engine which predates it significantly. Because the durability and longevity characteristics of the Ford Windsor are unique to that engine, and do not represent the Internal Combustion Engine as a whole. Just like the durability and longevity of Toyota's Hybrid system does not represent the Hybrid system as a whole.
Stated perhaps a little more clearly:
The Internal Combustion engine, as a whole, in automotive use, has been mass produced, used, and tested by consumers since 1908.
While various incarnations of the ICE have been produced by the majors since, the common theme is that they are produced in VOLUME, consumed in VOLUME and subsequently, we have 104 years of ICE engine history in the automotive realm. But the concept of the car itself is certainly not 104 years old.....
The same goes for Hybrids. Whilst the theory of the Hybrid is as old as the automobile, the "Model T" of the Hybrid world is the Toyota Prius. It was the first Hybrid consumed in volume and has been very successful! However, 1908 is a bit further back on Grandpa's pocket watch than 1997.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
The same case could be made for DI, however there are still obvious issues with the technology that are being worked out.
10-15 years isn't a long time if you consider how long the automobile and the internal combustion engine have been around.
I posted a link in one of my previous posts showing that hybrid car was patented over 100 years ago!!!!!
Various hybrid cars were made over the last century. There were hybrid cars already when gas cars were in infancy stages! The first front wheel drive car was a hybrid (Porsche in 1898). This is a very mature technology.
One has to be very ignorant of history or close minded to refuse to acknowledge that.
There is some more history to study: http://www.hybridcars.com/history/history-of-hybrid-vehicles.html
Porsche-Lohner hybrid:
You must have missed the post where I specifically mentioned Audi's early Hybrid efforts
Variable valve timing is steam engine era technology. Yet it didn't catch on until Honda started using it.
The automobile has been mass produced with its internal combustion engine since the Model T. The hybrid systems being discussed and the evolutions of them currently in place have only been in use since 1997. Hardly comparable.
One has to be very ignorant or closed minded (to toss your phrase back at you here) to refuse the knowledge that just because somebody makes a few prototypes of something nearly a century ago doesn't gift that concept with 100 years of successful consumer use and testing.
Specifically speaking to Toyota (who was not part of the original development of the technology....), their system is certainly the most mature in terms of ones that have been used in the consumer marketplace, and that system came to market in 1997.
for comparison, the Ford Windsor engine began production in 1962. Yet I don't base the reliability of the Windsor engine on the history of the Internal Combustion engine which predates it significantly. Because the durability and longevity characteristics of the Ford Windsor are unique to that engine, and do not represent the Internal Combustion Engine as a whole. Just like the durability and longevity of Toyota's Hybrid system does not represent the Hybrid system as a whole.
Stated perhaps a little more clearly:
The Internal Combustion engine, as a whole, in automotive use, has been mass produced, used, and tested by consumers since 1908.
While various incarnations of the ICE have been produced by the majors since, the common theme is that they are produced in VOLUME, consumed in VOLUME and subsequently, we have 104 years of ICE engine history in the automotive realm. But the concept of the car itself is certainly not 104 years old.....
The same goes for Hybrids. Whilst the theory of the Hybrid is as old as the automobile, the "Model T" of the Hybrid world is the Toyota Prius. It was the first Hybrid consumed in volume and has been very successful! However, 1908 is a bit further back on Grandpa's pocket watch than 1997.
^^^Bravo.
Ignorant? Closed minded?
I think not.
Skeptical? Yes. I am on record as opposing complexity, I prefer simple.
In no way is any of this Hybrid tech proven to me.
Ignorant? Closed minded?
I think not.
Skeptical? Yes. I am on record as opposing complexity, I prefer simple.
In no way is any of this Hybrid tech proven to me.
I would like to see a calculation as to exactly how many BTU' of energy are used in the manufacture of one Toyota Corolla maintained by the book and driven 300,000 miles as compared to a Toyota Prius maintained by the book and driven the same mileage. This calculation would include all the energy used in the replacement parts as well.
And like the Model T, the Toyota Prius Hybrid is one incredibly
successful autmobile proven with superb reliability, extremely low frequency of repair and very low cost operation.
A commendable accomplishment for the automotive world indeed !
successful autmobile proven with superb reliability, extremely low frequency of repair and very low cost operation.
A commendable accomplishment for the automotive world indeed !
Originally Posted By: tig1
The only hybrid I would buy would be a Ford of some sort which I ain't gonna do. The extra cost isn't worth it to me to save a few MPGs. 10 over my Focus. 5 grand extra. Nope.
They are also really only worth it if you drive all city, which I never do. My driving is at least 80% highway. Hybrid makes no sense.
The only hybrid I would buy would be a Ford of some sort which I ain't gonna do. The extra cost isn't worth it to me to save a few MPGs. 10 over my Focus. 5 grand extra. Nope.
They are also really only worth it if you drive all city, which I never do. My driving is at least 80% highway. Hybrid makes no sense.
Originally Posted By: Doog
I would like to see a calculation as to exactly how many BTU' of energy are used in the manufacture of one Toyota Corolla maintained by the book and driven 300,000 miles as compared to a Toyota Prius maintained by the book and driven the same mileage. This calculation would include all the energy used in the replacement parts as well.
Why are you comparing prius to corolla? Prius is not hybrid corolla. Prius is one class above it.
I would like to see a calculation as to exactly how many BTU' of energy are used in the manufacture of one Toyota Corolla maintained by the book and driven 300,000 miles as compared to a Toyota Prius maintained by the book and driven the same mileage. This calculation would include all the energy used in the replacement parts as well.
Why are you comparing prius to corolla? Prius is not hybrid corolla. Prius is one class above it.
Originally Posted By: SLCraig
They are also really only worth it if you drive all city, which I never do. My driving is at least 80% highway. Hybrid makes no sense.
That, of course, isn't even close to being true. Even on just highway mileage the Prius C is significantly better than a Yaris 5 door. Even if you don't drive "all city", the real-world saving for most people are significant. Most people, even those who drive predominantly hwy miles, still have to get to the from the exit... If you look at the real world fuel economy numbers, hybrids do significantly better than their gas equivalent, in all driving conditions.
Yes, the advantage becomes more significant as city driving increased, but the advantage is always there; as far as whether or not it pencils out, the only real answer is "it depends".
They are also really only worth it if you drive all city, which I never do. My driving is at least 80% highway. Hybrid makes no sense.
That, of course, isn't even close to being true. Even on just highway mileage the Prius C is significantly better than a Yaris 5 door. Even if you don't drive "all city", the real-world saving for most people are significant. Most people, even those who drive predominantly hwy miles, still have to get to the from the exit... If you look at the real world fuel economy numbers, hybrids do significantly better than their gas equivalent, in all driving conditions.
Yes, the advantage becomes more significant as city driving increased, but the advantage is always there; as far as whether or not it pencils out, the only real answer is "it depends".
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
In no way is any of this Hybrid tech proven to me.
Funny, this almost exactly what the EPA bureaucrat said when he killed the USA hybrid car program in 1974: http://www.hybridcars.com/epa-numbers/hybrids-and-the-epa-fuel-economy-controversy.html
Quote:
Now retired from the EPA, Stork, 78, recalled in an interview for HybridCars.com, “Hybrids are just not a very practical technology for automotive. That’s why it’s going nowhere. It certainly wasn’t going anywhere then. Even today, it’s marginal.”
Edit: It just occurred to me that discussion about hybrid cars is just like religion or politics. Waste of time.
In no way is any of this Hybrid tech proven to me.
Funny, this almost exactly what the EPA bureaucrat said when he killed the USA hybrid car program in 1974: http://www.hybridcars.com/epa-numbers/hybrids-and-the-epa-fuel-economy-controversy.html
Quote:
Now retired from the EPA, Stork, 78, recalled in an interview for HybridCars.com, “Hybrids are just not a very practical technology for automotive. That’s why it’s going nowhere. It certainly wasn’t going anywhere then. Even today, it’s marginal.”
Edit: It just occurred to me that discussion about hybrid cars is just like religion or politics. Waste of time.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
In no way is any of this Hybrid tech proven to me.
Funny, this almost exactly what the EPA bureaucrat said when he killed the USA hybrid car program in 1974: http://www.hybridcars.com/epa-numbers/hybrids-and-the-epa-fuel-economy-controversy.html
Quote:
Now retired from the EPA, Stork, 78, recalled in an interview for HybridCars.com, “Hybrids are just not a very practical technology for automotive. That’s why it’s going nowhere. It certainly wasn’t going anywhere then. Even today, it’s marginal.”
Edit: It just occurred to me that discussion about hybrid cars is just like religion or politics. Waste of time.
it's simplistic, not necessarily stupid. Just because the names you called us didn't stick that's no reason to get all wadded up.
Actually it's quite marginal for someone who drives highway only, as many less complex cars get similar mileage. It's primary advantage is for city folks at lower speeds. Plus it has no cargo capacity, so I can't make money with it.
it's just like anything else, it's not for everyone. And it's not "the best", either.
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
In no way is any of this Hybrid tech proven to me.
Funny, this almost exactly what the EPA bureaucrat said when he killed the USA hybrid car program in 1974: http://www.hybridcars.com/epa-numbers/hybrids-and-the-epa-fuel-economy-controversy.html
Quote:
Now retired from the EPA, Stork, 78, recalled in an interview for HybridCars.com, “Hybrids are just not a very practical technology for automotive. That’s why it’s going nowhere. It certainly wasn’t going anywhere then. Even today, it’s marginal.”
Edit: It just occurred to me that discussion about hybrid cars is just like religion or politics. Waste of time.
it's simplistic, not necessarily stupid. Just because the names you called us didn't stick that's no reason to get all wadded up.
Actually it's quite marginal for someone who drives highway only, as many less complex cars get similar mileage. It's primary advantage is for city folks at lower speeds. Plus it has no cargo capacity, so I can't make money with it.
it's just like anything else, it's not for everyone. And it's not "the best", either.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Variable valve timing is steam engine era technology. Yet it didn't catch on until Honda started using it.
They aren't even remotely similar technologies, but you keep bringing it up.
Didn't say the TECHNOLOGY was similar, simply the CONCEPT of being able to control valve timing.
Quote:
Strictly speaking, the history of the search for a method of variable valve opening duration goes back to the age of steam engines when the valve opening duration was referred to as “steam cut-off”. Almost all steam engines had some form of variable cut-off. That they are not in wide use is a reflection that they are all lacking in some aspect of variable valve actuation.
The desirability of being able to vary the valve opening duration to match an engine’s rotational speed first became apparent in the 1920s when maximum allowable RPM limits were generally starting to rise. Until about this time an engine’s idle RPM and its operating RPM were very similar, meaning that there was little need for variable valve duration.
It was in the 1920s that the first patents for variable duration valve opening started appearing – for example United States patent U.S. Patent 1,527,456. A surprising fact is that from these first patents until the appearance of the helical camshaft there has never been a really practical and useful variable duration camshaft.
There is a great wiki on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_valve_timing
What is old is new. Taking an idea that applied to one thing and applying it to another is not an original concept. Look at direct injection in gasoline applications. Hardly a "new" technology to the diesel world
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Variable valve timing is steam engine era technology. Yet it didn't catch on until Honda started using it.
They aren't even remotely similar technologies, but you keep bringing it up.
Didn't say the TECHNOLOGY was similar, simply the CONCEPT of being able to control valve timing.
Quote:
Strictly speaking, the history of the search for a method of variable valve opening duration goes back to the age of steam engines when the valve opening duration was referred to as “steam cut-off”. Almost all steam engines had some form of variable cut-off. That they are not in wide use is a reflection that they are all lacking in some aspect of variable valve actuation.
The desirability of being able to vary the valve opening duration to match an engine’s rotational speed first became apparent in the 1920s when maximum allowable RPM limits were generally starting to rise. Until about this time an engine’s idle RPM and its operating RPM were very similar, meaning that there was little need for variable valve duration.
It was in the 1920s that the first patents for variable duration valve opening started appearing – for example United States patent U.S. Patent 1,527,456. A surprising fact is that from these first patents until the appearance of the helical camshaft there has never been a really practical and useful variable duration camshaft.
There is a great wiki on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_valve_timing
What is old is new. Taking an idea that applied to one thing and applying it to another is not an original concept. Look at direct injection in gasoline applications. Hardly a "new" technology to the diesel world
A steam engine takes a compressed gas and expands it in a cylinder.
The "Variable Valve Timing" in a steam engine controls the amount of compressed gas that is introduced into the cylinder, and then cuts it off to allow expansion.
Not even remotely close to the operation of an IC engine.
Hero's ideas didn't really take off until Renault put a turbo on an F1 engine is probably as good an analogy.
The "Variable Valve Timing" in a steam engine controls the amount of compressed gas that is introduced into the cylinder, and then cuts it off to allow expansion.
Not even remotely close to the operation of an IC engine.
Hero's ideas didn't really take off until Renault put a turbo on an F1 engine is probably as good an analogy.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted By: Shannow
A steam engine takes a compressed gas and expands it in a cylinder.
The "Variable Valve Timing" in a steam engine controls the amount of compressed gas that is introduced into the cylinder, and then cuts it off to allow expansion.
Not even remotely close to the operation of an IC engine.
Hero's ideas didn't really take off until Renault put a turbo on an F1 engine is probably as good an analogy.
I am aware of the fact that an IC engine and a steam engine do not operate the same, however to use your own explanation:
The variable valve timing in a steam engine controls the amount of compressed gas that is introduced into the cylinder, and then cuts it off to allow expansion.
Honda's use of variable valve timing in an IC engine allowed a more aggressive set of camshaft lobes that had (among other things) more duration to allow more air/fuel into the cylinder before cutting it off to allow compression, then combustion.
So while technically not "the same", the idea of varying valve timing to control how much of something is introduced into the cylinder (to borrow your term again) is common between the two. It is what is being introduced and for what purpose that varies here.
A steam engine takes a compressed gas and expands it in a cylinder.
The "Variable Valve Timing" in a steam engine controls the amount of compressed gas that is introduced into the cylinder, and then cuts it off to allow expansion.
Not even remotely close to the operation of an IC engine.
Hero's ideas didn't really take off until Renault put a turbo on an F1 engine is probably as good an analogy.
I am aware of the fact that an IC engine and a steam engine do not operate the same, however to use your own explanation:
The variable valve timing in a steam engine controls the amount of compressed gas that is introduced into the cylinder, and then cuts it off to allow expansion.
Honda's use of variable valve timing in an IC engine allowed a more aggressive set of camshaft lobes that had (among other things) more duration to allow more air/fuel into the cylinder before cutting it off to allow compression, then combustion.
So while technically not "the same", the idea of varying valve timing to control how much of something is introduced into the cylinder (to borrow your term again) is common between the two. It is what is being introduced and for what purpose that varies here.
- Status
