LeSabre versus Prius (You'll like this!)
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Personally, I feel hybrids, fuel cell, and electric cars are all but useless as alternatives to conventional powerplants. The idea behind them, while noble, is not cost effective or beneficial over modern combustion engines.
The General Motors LS1 V8 is a "Low Emissions" powerplant. That means it produces far less emissions than required by the government. Still not quite satisfied? Ford has a conventional internal combustion powerplant that is partial zero emissions and doesn't cost any more to produce than the standard engine, Ford Focus' PZEV:
http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/030103-4.htm
It makes no sense in creating these new exotic fuel cell, hybrid, or electric powerplants if the only people who buy them are wealthy people who want to make a statement or set an example. Until these types of engines are creating the power output, has the cruising range, & is as cheap & convenient to produce and operate as the internal combustion engine, it's not going to catch on, and is destine to fail.
Better alternatives are first, revising & standardizing the fuel we use. It's been proven that reformulated fuel reduces emissions. However, there are dozens or more of specific formulas. Make one standardized formula that burns cleanly. Better yet, revise internal combustion engines to run on other sources, such as alcohol, CNG, or hydrogen.
Secondly, instead of focusing attention on creating new stringent regulations or dumping cash down the exotic powerplant rathole, use the funds to create lower cost emissions systems. Here in California, something like the oldest 10% of automobiles create 2/3 of the states pollution from cars. Recognize that cleaning up pollution isn't going to come about instantly. Cars built since the mid 80s tend to last longer than they did previously. It's going to take time to filter those cars (save restorations & "hot rods") off the road. Make new "emissions free" cars more expensive, and people will buy used heavier emitting cars, and will keep those till they fall apart.
Finally, someone should call the "anti-car" lobby's bluff. This group is not after lower emission vehicles, and is not worried about global warming. It's a smoke screen for another level of attack on the automobile.
In the begining, it was the carnage cars create on the road. Then it was the pollution they create. Each time, the auto industry dealt with new regulations to answer those concerns. Today, a seat belted individual in a modern car with today's airbags, crumple zones, and roll over standards would have to drive their car over a cliff, be T-boned by a redlight runner, or suffer a high speed head-on to be killed today in an accident. Now, the only thing they can come up with is global warming and carbon dioxide levels. Last I checked, all living things that aren't green give off carbon dioxide, and the planet has gone through numerous global warming & ice age stages. All without the help of automobiles.
Sorry for the rant.
Bet you didn't expect to hear that from someone living in northern California.
The General Motors LS1 V8 is a "Low Emissions" powerplant. That means it produces far less emissions than required by the government. Still not quite satisfied? Ford has a conventional internal combustion powerplant that is partial zero emissions and doesn't cost any more to produce than the standard engine, Ford Focus' PZEV:
http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/030103-4.htm
It makes no sense in creating these new exotic fuel cell, hybrid, or electric powerplants if the only people who buy them are wealthy people who want to make a statement or set an example. Until these types of engines are creating the power output, has the cruising range, & is as cheap & convenient to produce and operate as the internal combustion engine, it's not going to catch on, and is destine to fail.
Better alternatives are first, revising & standardizing the fuel we use. It's been proven that reformulated fuel reduces emissions. However, there are dozens or more of specific formulas. Make one standardized formula that burns cleanly. Better yet, revise internal combustion engines to run on other sources, such as alcohol, CNG, or hydrogen.
Secondly, instead of focusing attention on creating new stringent regulations or dumping cash down the exotic powerplant rathole, use the funds to create lower cost emissions systems. Here in California, something like the oldest 10% of automobiles create 2/3 of the states pollution from cars. Recognize that cleaning up pollution isn't going to come about instantly. Cars built since the mid 80s tend to last longer than they did previously. It's going to take time to filter those cars (save restorations & "hot rods") off the road. Make new "emissions free" cars more expensive, and people will buy used heavier emitting cars, and will keep those till they fall apart.
Finally, someone should call the "anti-car" lobby's bluff. This group is not after lower emission vehicles, and is not worried about global warming. It's a smoke screen for another level of attack on the automobile.
In the begining, it was the carnage cars create on the road. Then it was the pollution they create. Each time, the auto industry dealt with new regulations to answer those concerns. Today, a seat belted individual in a modern car with today's airbags, crumple zones, and roll over standards would have to drive their car over a cliff, be T-boned by a redlight runner, or suffer a high speed head-on to be killed today in an accident. Now, the only thing they can come up with is global warming and carbon dioxide levels. Last I checked, all living things that aren't green give off carbon dioxide, and the planet has gone through numerous global warming & ice age stages. All without the help of automobiles.
Sorry for the rant.
Bet you didn't expect to hear that from someone living in northern California.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,472
From: South Bend, Indiana
So what are all these anti-car people trying to do? Just make it so we all have to ride bikes to work... Have their own cars taken away?
Its not a consipiracy or any one certain group of people always trying to screw people over... Its different people, whether they be left or right wing, doing what they feel is best, if they didn't bitch in the first place we'd be lucky if we had anymore gas right now (according to the fossil fuel theory)...so I don't really understand your point. Believe me, politicians don't want one of America's leading industries hit the dirt any more than us enthusiasts do.
I don't understand how many of you consider $28K out of anyones payment range when we're talking about a hybrid, but then you say $30K is considered affordable when it applies to any other car...
Its not a consipiracy or any one certain group of people always trying to screw people over... Its different people, whether they be left or right wing, doing what they feel is best, if they didn't bitch in the first place we'd be lucky if we had anymore gas right now (according to the fossil fuel theory)...so I don't really understand your point. Believe me, politicians don't want one of America's leading industries hit the dirt any more than us enthusiasts do.
I don't understand how many of you consider $28K out of anyones payment range when we're talking about a hybrid, but then you say $30K is considered affordable when it applies to any other car...
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,724
From: Hebron, KY
Originally posted by guionM
Secondly, instead of focusing attention on creating new stringent regulations or dumping cash down the exotic powerplant rathole, use the funds to create lower cost emissions systems. Here in California, something like the oldest 10% of automobiles create 2/3 of the states pollution from cars. Recognize that cleaning up pollution isn't going to come about instantly. Cars built since the mid 80s tend to last longer than they did previously. It's going to take time to filter those cars (save restorations & "hot rods") off the road. Make new "emissions free" cars more expensive, and people will buy used heavier emitting cars, and will keep those till they fall apart.
Finally, someone should call the "anti-car" lobby's bluff. This group is not after lower emission vehicles, and is not worried about global warming. It's a smoke screen for another level of attack on the automobile.
In the begining, it was the carnage cars create on the road. Then it was the pollution they create. Each time, the auto industry dealt with new regulations to answer those concerns. Today, a seat belted individual in a modern car with today's airbags, crumple zones, and roll over standards would have to drive their car over a cliff, be T-boned by a redlight runner, or suffer a high speed head-on to be killed today in an accident. Now, the only thing they can come up with is global warming and carbon dioxide levels. Last I checked, all living things that aren't green give off carbon dioxide, and the planet has gone through numerous global warming & ice age stages. All without the help of automobiles.
Secondly, instead of focusing attention on creating new stringent regulations or dumping cash down the exotic powerplant rathole, use the funds to create lower cost emissions systems. Here in California, something like the oldest 10% of automobiles create 2/3 of the states pollution from cars. Recognize that cleaning up pollution isn't going to come about instantly. Cars built since the mid 80s tend to last longer than they did previously. It's going to take time to filter those cars (save restorations & "hot rods") off the road. Make new "emissions free" cars more expensive, and people will buy used heavier emitting cars, and will keep those till they fall apart.
Finally, someone should call the "anti-car" lobby's bluff. This group is not after lower emission vehicles, and is not worried about global warming. It's a smoke screen for another level of attack on the automobile.
In the begining, it was the carnage cars create on the road. Then it was the pollution they create. Each time, the auto industry dealt with new regulations to answer those concerns. Today, a seat belted individual in a modern car with today's airbags, crumple zones, and roll over standards would have to drive their car over a cliff, be T-boned by a redlight runner, or suffer a high speed head-on to be killed today in an accident. Now, the only thing they can come up with is global warming and carbon dioxide levels. Last I checked, all living things that aren't green give off carbon dioxide, and the planet has gone through numerous global warming & ice age stages. All without the help of automobiles.
And no, people are likely, in fact 3-4 times more likely, to suffer fatal injuries in accidents driving their low emissions cars when they are struck by non-regulated, oversized trucks and SUVs (which also have high rollover rates).
Environmentalists have been picking on cars for a long time without paying much attention at all to the truck/SUV boom. There should actually be a cry for more regulations to make this segment safer, cleaner, and more collision compatible with cars and guard rails.
Originally posted by Meccadeth
Wrong, theres about 1 or 2 compacts on the market that produce next to no emissions. One is called a Focus, which (last I checked) is the cleanest burning car sold by an american manufacturer right now and its a PZEV (Partial Zero Emissions Vehicle). So the Prius is helping there to, also being a PZEV vehicle, I don't see why your holding that against it? How many midsize sedans do you see on the market right now that are PZEV? Virtually none besides the Prius...negligable? I don't think so...
Wrong, theres about 1 or 2 compacts on the market that produce next to no emissions. One is called a Focus, which (last I checked) is the cleanest burning car sold by an american manufacturer right now and its a PZEV (Partial Zero Emissions Vehicle). So the Prius is helping there to, also being a PZEV vehicle, I don't see why your holding that against it? How many midsize sedans do you see on the market right now that are PZEV? Virtually none besides the Prius...negligable? I don't think so...
No one is knocking technology or steps taken to make cars cleaner for the environment. In this particular application (more expensive, reduced volume econocars), the increased savings in gas is not going to offset the other drawbacks enough to make a big impact.
Everyone loves Toyota for doing it. Now, what about that 14/17mpg out of the 6000lb+ Sequoia and Tundra? Or 15/19mpg out of the 5700lb 4Runner? If you're blaming someone for buying a LeSabre over a Prius or even a regaular gas CIVIC over a hyrbird, you have got the blinders on big-time!
Registered User
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,801
From: Nashville, TN
Originally posted by guionM
Better alternatives are first, revising & standardizing the fuel we use. It's been proven that reformulated fuel reduces emissions. However, there are dozens or more of specific formulas. Make one standardized formula that burns cleanly. Better yet, revise internal combustion engines to run on other sources, such as alcohol, CNG, or hydrogen.
Better alternatives are first, revising & standardizing the fuel we use. It's been proven that reformulated fuel reduces emissions. However, there are dozens or more of specific formulas. Make one standardized formula that burns cleanly. Better yet, revise internal combustion engines to run on other sources, such as alcohol, CNG, or hydrogen.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Originally posted by jrp4uc
You're making a MAJOR oversight in these safety and emissions assumptions: PEOPLE ARE BUYING TRUCKS AND SUVS!!
And no, people are likely, in fact 3-4 times more likely, to suffer fatal injuries in accidents driving their low emissions cars when they are struck by non-regulated, oversized trucks and SUVs (which also have high rollover rates).
Environmentalists have been picking on cars for a long time without paying much attention at all to the truck/SUV boom. There should actually be a cry for more regulations to make this segment safer, cleaner, and more collision compatible with cars and guard rails.
You're making a MAJOR oversight in these safety and emissions assumptions: PEOPLE ARE BUYING TRUCKS AND SUVS!!
And no, people are likely, in fact 3-4 times more likely, to suffer fatal injuries in accidents driving their low emissions cars when they are struck by non-regulated, oversized trucks and SUVs (which also have high rollover rates).
Environmentalists have been picking on cars for a long time without paying much attention at all to the truck/SUV boom. There should actually be a cry for more regulations to make this segment safer, cleaner, and more collision compatible with cars and guard rails.
IMO, the reason the car lobby hasn't picked on trucks & suvs is because alot of THEM drive trucks & suvs.
You are also correct about the fatal crashes involving SUVs & cars. I should have made the distinction. Cars are still far safer today than even just 10 years ago, and the survival rate for the same type of accidents when compared with yesteryear is like night and day.
Accident rates have gone down veeeery sharply over the years. But today, because of the greater number of Trucks & SUVs on the road, they create a far greater percentage of fatal accidents than before.
As I stated previously on the topic of hybrids, compared to trucks/SUVs, low emission economy cars are already safe and clean (you want to argue over ratings of ULEV vs. PZEV, etc...?? Come on!). What level do you think the three SUVs parked around your Prius at the stop light are obtaining??
No one is knocking technology or steps taken to make cars cleaner for the environment. In this particular application (more expensive, reduced volume econocars), the increased savings in gas is not going to offset the other drawbacks enough to make a big impact.
Everyone loves Toyota for doing it. Now, what about that 14/17mpg out of the 6000lb+ Sequoia and Tundra? Or 15/19mpg out of the 5700lb 4Runner? If you're blaming someone for buying a LeSabre over a Prius or even a regaular gas CIVIC over a hyrbird, you have got the blinders on big-time!
No one is knocking technology or steps taken to make cars cleaner for the environment. In this particular application (more expensive, reduced volume econocars), the increased savings in gas is not going to offset the other drawbacks enough to make a big impact.
Everyone loves Toyota for doing it. Now, what about that 14/17mpg out of the 6000lb+ Sequoia and Tundra? Or 15/19mpg out of the 5700lb 4Runner? If you're blaming someone for buying a LeSabre over a Prius or even a regaular gas CIVIC over a hyrbird, you have got the blinders on big-time!
It is ironic that Toyota is getting great press and kudos for marketing the Prius Hybrid, yet GM has trucks & suvs that have higher mileage and lower emissions than smaller displacement Toyota trucks & suvs but no one even mentions this.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,801
From: Nashville, TN
Originally posted by guionM
Secondly, instead of focusing attention on creating new stringent regulations or dumping cash down the exotic powerplant rathole, use the funds to create lower cost emissions systems. Here in California, something like the oldest 10% of automobiles create 2/3 of the states pollution from cars. Recognize that cleaning up pollution isn't going to come about instantly. Cars built since the mid 80s tend to last longer than they did previously. It's going to take time to filter those cars (save restorations & "hot rods") off the road. Make new "emissions free" cars more expensive, and people will buy used heavier emitting cars, and will keep those till they fall apart.
Secondly, instead of focusing attention on creating new stringent regulations or dumping cash down the exotic powerplant rathole, use the funds to create lower cost emissions systems. Here in California, something like the oldest 10% of automobiles create 2/3 of the states pollution from cars. Recognize that cleaning up pollution isn't going to come about instantly. Cars built since the mid 80s tend to last longer than they did previously. It's going to take time to filter those cars (save restorations & "hot rods") off the road. Make new "emissions free" cars more expensive, and people will buy used heavier emitting cars, and will keep those till they fall apart.
Example: State of Florida eliminated their emissions testing statewide. Reason cited was that research showed the costs for the program going up each year and the benefit in terms of air quality was less and less each year, since new cars are cleaner and cleaner every model year. They decided to put that funding into other air quality efforts like industrial emissions.
I don't care for the clunker laws from an enthusiast standpoint...far too many classic vehicles getting crushed, but some kind of buyback program in theory should work better than testing brand new LEV cars every year or every other year.
Part of the issue is there is a whole industry in testing now, and a few people who own testing centers, etc. make a lot of money off every car having to be tested.
The other issue here is that older cars are owned by the working poor in general. Anything that attempts to remove these cars from the road must allow for affordable alternatives for these folks. Perhaps states could take emissions testing money and use it to issue new vehicle coupons that folks with polluting vehicles could use toward buying a newer, cleaner car or truck.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,472
From: South Bend, Indiana
Originally posted by jrp4uc
If you're blaming someone for buying a LeSabre over a Prius or even a regaular gas CIVIC over a hyrbird, you have got the blinders on big-time!
If you're blaming someone for buying a LeSabre over a Prius or even a regaular gas CIVIC over a hyrbird, you have got the blinders on big-time!
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,472
From: South Bend, Indiana
Originally posted by Beanboy
Toyota has a hybrid RX330 and Highlander out soon, will be faster than the regular models. First time I think a hybrid will outperform their normal gasoline counterparts.
-B
Toyota has a hybrid RX330 and Highlander out soon, will be faster than the regular models. First time I think a hybrid will outperform their normal gasoline counterparts.
-B
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 764
From: Crystal Falls, MI USA
Originally posted by Meccadeth
That was just for the sake of argument...somebody proposed a false argument and I had to correct it.
That was just for the sake of argument...somebody proposed a false argument and I had to correct it.
A comparison of values is in the eye of the beholder and not a straight-up comparo, to which I still feel the LeSabre still firmly kicks the Prius's ****.
If you still feel that spending thousands more for a cramped, powerless, spaceship with wheels all in the sake of saving a couple miles to the gallon that will take you years to make up, all the power to you.
But remember, in this "false argument" as you call it, my main question was why spend all that money on that car when you could have a large, loaded, powerful, fuel efficient, comfortable people hauling machine for thousands less than a compact hybrid? To most (if not all) on this board, they wouldn't.
And, by the way, few to no Prius have achieved this elusive 60mpg mark. Most not even close. Check around and you'll find out why. Don't go by those silly antiquated EPA estimates. Those ran their course long ago. In addition, this is especially true with hybrids.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,472
From: South Bend, Indiana
Originally posted by 1990 Turbo Grand Prix
A comparison of values is in the eye of the beholder and not a straight-up comparo, to which I still feel the LeSabre still firmly kicks the Prius's ****.
If you still feel that spending thousands more for a cramped, powerless, spaceship with wheels all in the sake of saving a couple miles to the gallon that will take you years to make up, all the power to you.
But remember, in this "false argument" as you call it, my main question was why spend all that money on that car when you could have a large, loaded, powerful, fuel efficient, comfortable people hauling machine for thousands less than a compact hybrid? To most (if not all) on this board, they wouldn't.
And, by the way, few to no Prius have achieved this elusive 60mpg mark. Most not even close. Check around and you'll find out why. Don't go by those silly antiquated EPA estimates. Those ran their course long ago. In addition, this is especially true with hybrids.
A comparison of values is in the eye of the beholder and not a straight-up comparo, to which I still feel the LeSabre still firmly kicks the Prius's ****.
If you still feel that spending thousands more for a cramped, powerless, spaceship with wheels all in the sake of saving a couple miles to the gallon that will take you years to make up, all the power to you.
But remember, in this "false argument" as you call it, my main question was why spend all that money on that car when you could have a large, loaded, powerful, fuel efficient, comfortable people hauling machine for thousands less than a compact hybrid? To most (if not all) on this board, they wouldn't.
And, by the way, few to no Prius have achieved this elusive 60mpg mark. Most not even close. Check around and you'll find out why. Don't go by those silly antiquated EPA estimates. Those ran their course long ago. In addition, this is especially true with hybrids.
20 MPG in the city is hardly "fuel efficient." 50ish in the city is definately "fuel efficient."
Also, if others are going to use bloated EPA fuel milage #'s on naturally aspired cars, I'm going to use them on hybrids. Apples to apples dude...
You might want to check out a few hybrid message boards before trying to tell me that "few to no Prius owners reach 60 MPG." You are sorely mistaken... 2 out of the 4 people that I converstae online with that own an '04 Prius are above the 60 MPG mark. The other two are in the high 50's and guess what....they do frequent highway commutes (the Prius's "weak" point").
So please...keep the comparo apples to apples or else your credibility will be garnished...
"If not all..." I for one, wouldn't. I don't consider 200 HP very "powerful" by todays standards. It might be more powerful than the current Prius, but thats why I have a sports car. Nobody is going to get a LeSabre based on power....nor will they based on gas milage. Will people buy a Prius based on gas milage? Certainly.
As far as a people hauler going....your comparing a freaking full-size to a mid-size. Of course the LaSabre is going to have more room (Not even THAT much more at that, I have been in the back seat of both).
Last edited by Meccadeth; Jul 15, 2004 at 06:28 PM.