Prius is an environmental nightmare

[jestal]

edit

 

[exskibum]

But, after all, people bought all the Yugos that could be pushed off the boat ramps, all the Gremlins that Levis could upholster, and all the Pintos and Vegas that Detroit could force through their collective sphincters, so who the **** knows.

OUCH!! Take it a little easy there, Rad -- that one really hurts, and probably always will. In '73, I traded in my '67 Mustang fastback (metallic copper, white hide of nauga and brushed aluminum interior, 289, C-4 tranny and custom wheels) with just about 70,000 miles for a brand new 1973 metallic lime green Pinto wagon. I believe the Pinto was around $2,300 out the door, and I got $500 for the Mustang. Undoubtedly the stupidest vehicle purchasing decision of my life. Really enjoyed watching the dwell meter bounce all over whenever I tried to tune that #$%ing Pinto after about 15,000 miles. Later discovered that the problem was a timing belt that stretched so much that 15,000 miles was about as far as it would go before you could NOT adjust the points to give you a consistent dwell setting. Still wish I had that Mustang, though.

 

[twowheelnut]

But, after all, people bought all the Yugos that could be pushed off the boat ramps, all the Gremlins that Levis could upholster, and all the Pintos and Vegas that Detroit could force through their collective sphincters, so who the **** knows.

OUCH!! Take it a little easy there, Rad -- that one really hurts, and probably always will. In '73, I traded in my '67 Mustang fastback (metallic copper, white hide of nauga and brushed aluminum interior, 289, C-4 tranny and custom wheels) with just about 70,000 miles for a brand new 1973 metallic lime green Pinto wagon. I believe the Pinto was around $2,300 out the door, and I got $500 for the Mustang. Undoubtedly the stupidest vehicle purchasing decision of my life. Really enjoyed watching the dwell meter bounce all over whenever I tried to tune that #$%ing Pinto after about 15,000 miles. Later discovered that the problem was a timing belt that stretched so much that 15,000 miles was about as far as it would go before you could NOT adjust the points to give you a consistent dwell setting. Still wish I had that Mustang, though.

Ditto, except for me it was the Vega -a wagon to be exact - painted in silver. I loved that thing, but not as much as the rust did. Now, if a Cosworth Vega (with its whopping 110 HP!) ever showed itself to me, it would prolly wind up in my garage... :wacko:

 

[Toecutter]

Now, if a Cosworth Vega (with its whopping 110 HP!) ever showed itself to me, it would prolly wind up in my garage... :wacko:

Click

Or, more ($$$) better, click

 

[FJRottie]

Go ethanol. You can use it in your car, eat it, drink it and use it again.

Ethanol powered FJR...YES!!

 

[jestal]

edit

 

[Ignacio]

The only way politicians would do that is if they further subsidize ethanol production and make the market artificially attractive to produce and use ethanol. Subsidy is a fancy word by the way for "tax one group to give it to another group". I wouldn't want my elected officials to do that.

I think it gets into the same type of discussion of total cost to produce that fuel and ethanol with current techologies and infrastructure costs more than petroleum recovery. The equation changes to $4 a gallon fuel and our fuel mix would likely change as ethanol BTUs become more competitive with other forms of BTUs.

And as an FJR rider there's this pesky little problem of BTU content. Your 6.6 gallons of gasoline suddenly has only about 6.2 gallons of range if it's 10% ethanol. You gotta stop more for gas and you use more volume.

 

[jestal]

edit

 

[Mike-H]

Up here in the Great White North they (some of the provinces) have already started with the 10% ethanol added to the fuel....Sunoco is the 1st that comes to mind....whether it be in the 89 octane (regular) or the 94 octane (super) & they have been doing it for a while now....(I think somewhere between 5-8 years) if not longer....just FYI..... :huh: .....

 

[Ignacio]

I might be one of those goofy people that doesn't see a problem with 125,000 BTUs costing $4 or $5. I think the market will probably sort itself out more efficiently than the do-good attempts by Federal legislators via subsidies. And I do tell them too. I talk regularly with my state officials one-on-one and at least twice a year with my Federal Rep and occasionaly with one of my Senators.

I just don't typically talk about it on this board because of our horrid track record on politics.

That said, I appreciate the dialogue with you in particular because it has largely remained about FJRs....or least motorcycles.

In fact, I think more expensive BTUs would be healthier for our nation in the long run because it will spur innovation. We're seeing a glimmer of that entrepeneurial innovation at $3 per 125,000 BTUs. I'd even be OK with temporary subsidies to spur it.......if they'd truly remain temporary. We seem to have a bad track record sticking to temporary though.

Meanwhile, an FJR tends to get about a mile every 3125 BTUs and is far more efficient than most vehicles on the road. We're a community already doing our part to reduce our carbon footprint.

 

[BugR]

Why do I keep thinking that enviromentally concerned riders would be better off with a scooter or a bicycle?

Chris

 

[evil_henchman]

I like hummers....

 

[skyway]

I wouldn't complain at all if fuel could hold up at $4 a gallon in the long term. The poor souls in the UK today are experiencing a national average for a gallon of premium gas for a bargain price of only $7.57 USD per gallon. :dribble: Granted that's due mainly to taxation for the many social programs that get handed out to all, but pay it they must for the privalege of driving an auto.

In 5 years, I'm estimating gas prices in the US will hit an average of at least $5-$6 a gallon. Fuel is a key factor in what everyone pays for products and services. If the prices continue to rise in a nation as large as the US, then lots of people are going to rethink how they spend their spare time with their disposable income. The travel industry, including RV's, hotels, airlines, restaurants who rely on tourism, the whole way Americans spend their free time will be changing.

The high price of gas will also take care of Americans insatiable appetite for large vehicles. I'm not sure where the breaking point will be for changes in the industry and mindset of consumers, but it's right around the corner IMO.

I don't know about you, but I never get a buzz from adding +$100 into the gas tank of my SUV. :glare: (if i had one that is)

 

[twowheelnut]

The high price of gas will also take care of Americans insatiable appetite for large vehicles.

No it won't. 22's look really lame on Corollas. And gawd forbid that mom should drive a Yaris to the soccer match.

I'm really enjoying the 55 - 60 MPG that the Strom is yielding as I zip by those road tanks.

 

[S_Palmer]

I saw a book a while back (sorry I can't remember the titile) where the author claimed that ethanol was a negative energy fuel.

He said it took more energy to grow and process ethanol than you were able to get back out of it. Any body know anything about this?

 

[TheAxeman]

An article in yesterdays NY Times was discussing how a used Prius with a California HOV sticker attached is now commanding $4000.00 more than those without.....

 

[Ignacio]

I saw a book a while back (sorry I can't remember the titile) where the author claimed that ethanol was a negative energy fuel.He said it took more energy to grow and process ethanol than you were able to get back out of it. Any body know anything about this?

Not just one author. I believe the term in Negative Fuel Engery Balance and related to the original question as to whether the total cost of something is less or more than expected.

Ethanol might be a negative return because whether you include costs like the fuel for the tractor that it took to plant the corn, the cost to make the fertilizer to grow the corn, the cost to haul the corn to a plant, etc. Then it gets more controvertial whether there's an environmental cost in the increased amount of CO2, how that might be offset by the corn scrubbing some CO2 as a plant, let alone setting a rational cost to them.

It's complicated and controvertial at a scientific level and usually only gets hazier if a political layers get added because they're not always serving the same purpose.

Personal education is always the key though.

 

[Rogue]

I might be one of those goofy people that doesn't see a problem with 125,000 BTUs costing $4 or $5......

Personally I would gladly pay $5-$6 a gallon if it got 10%-20% of the :asshat: cagers off the road!

 

[jestal]

edit

 

[jestal]

edit