When you read things like this, you wonder how we (Homo sapiens) made it this far.
Such an inability to see how how the present affects the future no doubt leads to less of a future…
But I do like the roadside bulliten board; I want one to post somewhere around here…
http://www.oriononline.org/pages/oo/curmudgeon/index_curmudgeon.html
Jesus drove an SUV
Mohammad pumped his gas.
Reverend Moon had a big back yard
and Buddha mowed his grass.
Not being a millionaire is bad,
but being one is great.
Now if you really believe all this
I’ll sell you the Golden Gate!
(Sorry, these things just come up every now and then.) 
The auto industry is bizarre, but at the same time, I think the author of this column is only stating his point of view. I’ve read a few columns on this year’s auto shows that have come to the opposite conclusion – that most of the interest has been in hybrid vehicles.
The auto companies MAY be coming to their senses. Toyota built a new plant just to produce Priuses. DaimlerChrysler has ditched their plan to introduce the Smart to the US in the form of an SUV, which was possibly the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard in my life.
OTOH, one thing I don’t understand is the auto companies’ assertion that they can only make hybrids that are top-of-the-line vehicles. Their reasoning is that the technology is expensive and people will only pay for it in cars that have all the whistles and bells. So, people will only pay a couple thousand extra on top of a $19k Civic instead of a $14k Civic. This excludes a lot of the granola set, who I think should be a large part of the target audience. I would love a Highlander hybrid based on their 4-cylinder engine. But they seem to be going after performance rather than fuel economy, plus, of course, it’s all decked out in full regalia, with a bunch of stuff I don’t want, so it’s a bit more than I’m willing to pay for a vehicle that gets marginally better mileage than my current car.
Ah, rant mode off. Hope everybody had a good Earth Day.
The other thing to consider is that several companies are making conventional (non-hybrid) cars whose fuel economy is very close to that of the actual fuel economy reported by hybrid owners. Here in Canada you can get the Toyota Echo Hatchback (called the Yaris in Europe), which gets as good or better fuel economy than the Prius for half the price. And the Matrix gets around 45 mpg in the city; it’s about $10 grand less than the Prius. The standard Civic and several other models also get very good fuel economy for much less than you’d shell out for a hybrid.
So if you’re looking for a fuel-efficient car, don’t despair that you can’t afford a hybrid. And if you CAN afford a hybrid, you might consider buying one of these cheaper conventional cars and donating the difference in cost to an environmental group or the Democratic party…it might end up making a bigger difference for the environment in the long run.
Good point – the (US) EPA rates the Prius at 61 mpg in the city, whereas everything I’ve read indicates that the real mileage is around 45 in the city. I’ve never heard of a Matrix/Vibe getting 45 mpg, but I haven’t really investigated it. I was behind one today and thinking it might be my next car – practical, versatile, and economical.
Whence this figure?
My parents have a Matrix – and like it, it’s very functional – but they get a bit under 30 mpg (a bit over 30 on the freeway, a bit under in the city). The manufacturer specs for the 2005 model say the fuel economy is 30 city/36 freeway for the manual transmission, 26/31 for the automatic 4WD version.
It’s a nice car, though. I enjoyed driving it when I borrowed it for a few days; it’s got great space for hauling stuff aorund. Almost bought one myself.
Nice, Brad. I am already tired of the sanctimony surrounding hybrid ownership around here, especially when there are the ultra-thrifty internal combustion vehicles available. I guess paying the extra 6 to 8K entitles one to sneer at the filthy polluters. Yes, this did just happen to me yesterday. 
No, not herbi. He’s always been cool about it…
herbivore wrote:
“The manufacturer specs for the 2005 model say the fuel economy is 30 city/36 freeway for the manual transmission, 26/31 for the automatic 4WD version.”
Good gosh - my '98 Grand Am (V6) got 33mpg the last time I did a long highway trip! It probably gets only low 20’s in the city however.
And it’s long paid for!
I won’t talk about the milage our conversion van gets… 
Missy
Well, it was a bit less than $2000 difference between my car and the similar non-hybrid civic. But smug tree-huggers are as annoying as smug anybodies, aren’t they?
I’m glad I happen to make enough money to be able to afford supporting greener technologies. Folks sneering at others who, for reasons of finance or profession or whatever (including – gasp! – personal choice) drive a less-fuel-efficient car . . . that’s annoying. Tell them to go ride a bike. (Don’t get me started on the “animal rights” protester I saw in Chinatown in SF, who was protesting the conditions of the animals in the live-animal markets there while himself munching on a chicken leg from KFC. Ugh.)
Though I do have a thing about all the unnecessary quasi-HumVees lumbering around town here . . . Just seems sort of silly and almost cavalierly wasteful (or brazenly self-aggrandizing; annoying in the same way smirking hybrid owners are).
Plus I can’t see around them in my little Civic. Gawd they’re huge.
Maybe the Canadian version of the Matrix is different from the US version: the Canadian model (which is what I’m shopping for at the moment) is rated at 37 mpg city, 47 mpg highway. The Echo Hatchback is rated at 55 mpg highway, which is definitely better than most people can get from a Prius (though of course the Echo hatchback is pretty tiny compared with the Prius so we’re not comparing apples with apples).
Wow! Quite a difference.
Another reason for liberals to move north. I bet Weeks’d loan us all gas money to get up there, too. 
(I wonder how the Toyota webpage I got those numbers from knows whether I’m in the U.S. or not? Or perhaps they just don’t publicize the Canadian Matrix’s numbers for some reason. . . Odd.)
On the fuel estimates, be careful not to confuse your “real” (IE reported) and “nominal” (Ie EPA estimated) variables.
My civic hybrid gets 45-50 on the highway depending on which way the wind is blowing (Literally), more like 35 in town. I figure that’s an avg. of 5-10 MPH over what my '95 civic got. Enough to offset the cost? Probably not. But that wasn;t the point.
BUT - I knew going into it that it’s a losing proposition financially. Unless you drive an insane amount and gas prices hit $3.00 tomorrow, you lose money on a hybrid. I bought it because I wanted to create deamnd for truly fuel efficient vehicles, and this seemed like the most effective way to do it. (And. . . it’s just a fun car )
There’s a totally separate site for Toyota Canada (www.toyota.ca).
Oops, when I said the Matrix gets 45 mpg in the city, I meant 45 mpg in the highway. Wouldn’t it be nice to get 45 mpg in the city 
, that’s wishful thinking!
Yes, I know that the rated fuel economy is not the same as the actual, but the rated fuel economy for the Canadian Matrix is about 10 mpg better than the rated fuel economy of the US model. That could be due to real differences between the two or methodological differences between the US and Canadian governments’ fuel economy estimates.
http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/transportation/personal/pdfs/most-efficient-vehicles-2005.pdf
The Matrix sold here is actually made in Canada.
If I get one (which seems likely), I’ll monitor the actual fuel economy and see how it stacks up to the estimate. I’d really prefer to get the Echo hatchback instead, as it’s quite possibly the cutest car on the planet and it gets rave reviews, but I need a bit more cargo space. I fit into the Echo hatchback pretty well, which is surprising given that I’m 6’4."
60-mpg in the city and 66-mpg on the highway?
- The 2005 Honda Insight is a 2-door, 2-passenger family coupe, available in 3 trims, ranging from the 5-Spd MT to the CVT w/ AC. Upon introduction, the 5-Spd MT is equipped with a standard 1.0-liter, I3, 67-horsepower, hybrid engine that achieves 60-mpg in the city and 66-mpg on the highway. A 5-speed manual transmission with overdrive is standard. The CVT w/ AC is equipped with a standard 1.0-liter, I3, 65-horsepower, hybrid engine that achieves 57-mpg in the city and 56-mpg on the highway. A variable speed automatic transmission with overdrive is standard. The 2005 Honda Insight is a carryover from 2004. [u]source of information[/u]
One thing to keep in mind is that fuel mileage ratings are for easy driving with the AC off, slow acceleration, etc. Furthermore, if you typically drive with the AC on and often have to accelerate hard to merge with traffic and such that will have a much more drastic impact on the most fuel efficient cars than it will on other vehicles.
Not that I’m recommending gas-guzzlers or anything, but often a mid-sized vehicle with a V6 will get much better actual mileage in real-world driving than the same vehicle with a smaller four-cylinder engine. Never, ever, buy a mini-van with a small four-banger and an automatic transmission, except maybe one of the new ones with five or six speed automatics. The darn things won’t get out of their own way and if you have to drive them in real-world traffic you’ll find you get terrible mileage.
I used to travel quite a bit on business and always had to rent mini-vans for my tools and equipment. I’ve driven Chevy Astros that should have had an “on off switch” instead of a gas pedal. The only way to drive them in city traffic was to mash the accelerator to the floor and hold it there, praying all the while that the cars around you wouldn’t decide to “assist” you with a push. On the other hand, I often (as in, every time I had a choice) rented Dodge Grand Caravans with V6s that were larger and heavier, accelerated well, would cruize at 110MPH on the highway (don’t you love rental cars) and got better mileage in real-world driving than did the underpowered Astros.
Must be them Canadian miles.
Okay, okay, here is why else I am sore. Back in October, my beloved 89 Camry wagon was stolen from my house, trashed and totaled. I had to wait about 11 days for it to turn up. 11 days into my free 30-day rental car period. After it was recovered, it took another 10 days of haggling with AAA (no longer a great company) to get a settlement, which they promptly sat-on for two weeks before paying. So I was running out of time and felt under great pressure to get a car. I was still in debt, having only returned to work the previous June after being out of steady work for a year and a half and did not want to pay to rent a car.
I had planned on squeezing about six more months of life out of the Camry (it had issues) but in the meantime was enjoying decent mileage etc etc.
I spent a lot of time at car dealers, with Consumer Reports etc. I had the following needs:
A car with at least as much room as the Camry, preferably with a tougher suspension for going on the various camping and outings we do, including monthly trips to my dad’s ranch.
A car that would COMFORTABLY hold my 6’1" 15-year-old in the BACK seat, as well as the 12 yr old brother. Should the two get too close together, it’s hellish on your longer trips, so a pillow’s width between em for their line of death is preferable.
A car that had excellent service ratings because well, I insist on that, having once broken down on the Bay Bridge because of a 98-cent fuel filter (VW bug days). The Weekender keeps up the regular maintenance etc.
What I really wanted was another Camry dangit. But, they stopped making them in 98 or so. There were a scant few around of the late models, kinda ugly, but none for sale in a hurry. Same with the Accord wagons. People don’t give em up easily.
Other wagons considered: Volvo, couldn’t afford one. Passat, terrible service records and, NO diesel model allowed in California (which got high ratings at least for that aspect of mileage etc.). Saab, I didn’t even bother. Nor MBenz of course.
I came very close to getting a Subaru wagon but my kid was cramped in the back. They are very fine cars, I just wish they would increase the cabin size. I love their AWD feature, braking and engine design. They run about 3K more than what I got, new or used.
You may know where this is going. I ended up getting what replaced the Camry, namely a Toyota Highlander, which the sneerers refer to as an SUV!!! Even though its built on a Camry frame with beefed-up suspension its anathema to greenies, because its an evil SUV.
And guess what, it gets the exact same mileage as the six-cyl Subaru wagon that all the Lefties drive. But THOSE are okay, the killer Highlander is not.
I have had several encounters regarding the car with my socially conscious friends. As far as I can tell, they make no distinction between it and a Hummer. I might as well be Miwokhills mindless conservative, guzzlin’ fuel like a lawyer at Happy Hour.
I wished the mileage was better. Its about 26 highway as far as I can tell. They had a 4cyl model but I had to buy used (none were available at the time) and frankly, I was advised to steer clear of it considering the loads, the hills etc etc. But it suits my needs, seats my kid. I wish it was a bit bigger cargo wise frankly, but I just could not go the extra money and further lousier mileage of the truck-framed 4Runner or something else.
I really wanted a pickup with a humungo extra-cab, but talk about crummy mileage! The GMC hybrid truck gets 18/21! Such a deal.
It killed me to even go this low with the mileage, but when you have a family, you have to actually take them along on vacations and stuff.
They are coming out with some more hybrids, including the Highlander, but like some of the pickups, the mileage is not frankly going to be that great. We are definitely at a transition stage with this technology.
Like I said, I want a hydrogen car or something…
A few things here:
-
The Passat is actually the only Volkswagen on the market with above-average reliability ratings. The rest of them (Jetta, Beetle, Golf, etc.) routinely get the thumbs-down from Consumer Reports and other rating systems.
-
Diesel gets you good fuel economy but is a bad environmental choice because of the particulate emissions, which are downright dangerous. I read a study recently that attributed a pretty hefty portion of lung cancers in urban areas to diesel emissions, mainly from trucks and buses, but Volkswagens don’t help.
-
We all have different needs and criteria when choosing a car, and there’s no reason to try to rationalize a personal choice. For most people, the car we drive is more than just a means of getting from point A to point B, it’s a statement about who we are or who we yearn to be, or it’s a reflection of our personal aesthetics. For some, it’s a secondary sex characteristic. And often it’s just a compromise based on what’s available and what’s in your wallet. It’s okay to drive an SUV; ignore people who try to brand you as an eco-villain, and don’t try to rationalize it. I’ve heard environmentalists try to justify their SUV purchase by saying that they live in a rural area, but that’s silly: I spent 10 years living miles up steep dirt roads in Vermont and never needed an SUV; my Honda Civic (and later a Ford Focus) managed those roads just fine, even in winter and mud season when the ruts were more than axle-deep, and only a few of my neighbors had four-wheel drive. Your saying that you need a big car to take your family on vacations doesn’t really cut it: you can fit four people comfortably in a Matrix with enough gear for a two-week camping trip, no challenge. I’m 6’4" and I fit in the back of a Matrix with a bit of headroom and legroom to spare. Rationalizing just doesn’t work! You don’t have to justify your choice.
For me, fuel economy is the first- or second-most important factor when choosing a car, but I recognize that it’s far from the most important criterion for most drivers. That’s not going to change unless gasoline prices rise considerably or more people become concerned about the environmental effects of burning fossil fuels.
I can’t help but believe that we could escape the dependence on fossil fuels technically but it’s being held in check by oil money.
Back in the '80s, American cars were crap. The Japanese flooded the market with inexpensive, fuel effiecient quality cars and almost killed the auto industry. With any luck it will happen again. A non-american company will use the technology readily available to flood the market with cars that require a fraction of the fuel of today.
I don’t want to even get started on SUVs.
For some, it’s a secondary sex characteristic.
Where to begin…
The key, though, is that consumers have to demand those cars. People paint Big Oil and the automakers as the villains, but really they’re just providing people with what they want. Lots of people want big SUVs, people want more powerful and faster cars. I know people who buy their cars by the pound, figuring that heavier is safer (selfishly true for them, but at a heavy price of life and limb for those of us who choose to drive lighter cars).
Nobody’s going to make fuel-efficient cars unless there’s a demand for them. Higher gas prices have done a bit to push things in that direction, but gas would have to be double today’s prices to really make a difference for most people. The Prius is creating demand in part because a lot of people think it looks cool. If fuel-efficient cars can be made to appear sexy and desirable, that will create demand faster than anything else. And I think fuel efficiency by itself isn’t going to sell cars…it’s not sexy enough on its own. You need to create cars that are hot that also happen to be fuel-efficient.
There’s another problem with the Prius right now: they are so in demand that there’s a waiting list, and you will not be able to negotiate over the price. No sales, no deals, no year-end clearance events.
I guess that’s a good thing, because it means a lot of people want them, and Toyota will ramp up production. The more these cars are actually built, the more models you will eventually see, at lower prices. But right now, the car is a luxury due to demand alone.
BTW, my new car has a sticker labeling it as a “Partial Zero-Emission Vehicle,” which as far as I can tell means something like “50% of this Twinkie is 100% sugar-free.”
Caj