More than you might think.

The fact of the matter is that (sadly) most antique cars aren't driven all that much any more by any standard. Trailering cars is the norm for many owners today. There's an entire forum here devoted to just tow vehicles. If and when there's a better way to get these cars to show fields it'll be to everyone's benefit to have been prepared for it by threads such as this one.

Also as we have seen there are still those who cling to the hope of miracle devices that promise to make all cars, including our antiques, more economical to drive. Hopefully someday one of these will be of some benefit. However unitl that day comes it's to everyone's benefit to have open discussions on these things so that their limitations and/or potential (such as it may be) are explored. I'd have hated to see some of my friends blow money (and probably a few voltage regulators) trying to fizz enough hydrogen out of a jar of water to run their cars/meaningfully boost their fuel mileage.

I didn't see the traffic thread, but the "state of the auto industry" thread was really more of a comment on American society. It (and the autoextremist.com rant it linked) barely even mentioned cars at all.

The Honda Civic GX is an excellent car for local city commuting. It's limited range (200 miles typically, 300 miles absolute maximum) and long fill-up times using the home device limit it's practicality to some extent. Countering that is a maintenance schedule that is miniscule compared to a gasoline car, due to the cleaner fuel's lessened impact on deposits, etc.

Also you have to live in a home with natural gas. In my neighborhood the pipeline ends one block over.

"Rusty,

So what were your expections?"

My expectation was that they would be half as good as the Greenies and Naderites claimed they would be. As usual, this was way too optomistic. As usual, the new wonder cure for the automobile was not as good as the cars we already have.

Don't believe me? In today's paper there was a story on JD Power's latest findings on the most efficient cars on the basis of running costs.

All the best picks were conventional economy cars. No hybrid even made the top ten.

In other words if they save any fuel at all which is questionable, they do so at such a high cost that it's pretty much a waste of resources.

Natural Gas+ Stupid People+ new technology- Ralph Nader= BOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMM!!!!!

There are no hybrid economy cars (yet).

When making charges against the economies of relative ownership, it's important to compare apples to apples. Comparing a Prius or Hybrid Civic to a Chevy Aveo is like saying that Wal Mart sells cheaper shirts than Macy's. Yeah, but what to do you get?

There are as many analyses on cost per mile as there are biases in those analyses (which means anyone who thinks I'm wrong has already tuned this discussion out). There are still putzes out there who insist that hybrids have higher depreciation, maintenance, and insurance costs despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary that exists today. These studies have to read with huge grains of salt.

And sometimes even the bias can't disguise the truth. For instance this study by Edmunds, whose entire pretense is that hybrids are a waste of money and whose assumptions on key points (like those above) aren't even mentioned, still lists the Hybrid Civic and Prius as among the top 10% in cheapest cars to drive per mile regardless of category.

While the Edmund's story curiously doesn't mention how it cam up with it's rankings, it does mention the ranking procedure used in this feature in Consumer Report's Auto Issue April 2008. In that one (you have to get a copy of the magazine to read the cost analyses), the Prius was nearly the equal of all "small cars" despite being mid-sized, and ran away with cost analyses for mid-size family cars (at least 10% cheaper to own than any other mid-size car). One thing not mentioned by Edmund's, the CR analyses was based on $3.00/gal gas, not $4.00 like theirs.

Hybrid technology, when fully implemented as in the Prius and Civic, results in a 25%-50% fuel savings over identically sized/equipped conventional cars with similar performance. Regardless of what fuel is used, you'll be driving a hybrid in 10 years whether you like it or not (unless you like feeding $9.00 gasoline to a V6).

9 bucks a gallon would be worth it to drive in luxury! But, seriously, what someone needs to figure out, is how to adapt CURRENT vehicles on the road and this means, any vehicle from 1905-2008 into a alt. fuel vehicle with some kind of minor modification. Because, as it is, families are not able to make ends meet, and they cannot afford a hybrid wheras they can afford a 10-15 yr. old car, also, there are not any good SUV hybrids which make a big difference. Because people need to haul stuff. The market might be saturated in 30-40 years with hybrids. The crazy thing is that my dad's avalanche has Flex Fuel, and yet we have never seen a corn gas station! Also, it wont be useful, until you can make a hybrid 18 wheeler! The influx of 200 million barrels a day or whatever from the Saudi's will run the price down. It happened in 1984 when we had a similiar situation, and in 1985 Oil crashed and we had low prices for 20 years.

Smoke & mirrors my friend...........

Dave,

Concur with your Civic GX comments with the following considerations...

While other areas vary widely, CNG is readily available here, although not on every street corner.

The home compressor recharge time is comparable to similar plug in electric recharge times.

Both of these limitations point out the value and flexibility of a hybrid, despite the increased cost.

JMC

Therein are the seeds of your disappointment. The pontifications of the environmental anarchists and the 'Lawyers' disciples are rich with exaggeration and deception.

JMC

...and easily confused with and/or lumped in with real data from accurate sources. Discriminating among people is bad, but among information it's a dire neccesity.

The person who tells you that a 25-50% reduction in fuel consumption is possible with a hybrid system isn't the same person who tells you that all cars should be banned from city streets. Likewise the person who tells you it'll take too long to make up the cost difference between a hybrid and non-hybrid SUV isn't the same person who advocates drilling every square inch of the earth, polar bears be damned.

I've never once thought that my Prius would do any better or worse than it has done over the last 3 years, either before I bought it or after. It took work to find the information to come to those conclusions and be so imformed prior to purchase. If I had trusted the information cherry-picked for me by Fox News's editors (good and bad), or cherry-picked for me by Mother Jones Magazine (good and bad), I'd have had a very different impression.

The reality is they are the best short-term solution to personal transportation, and are a certain component of any long-term one.

Well pardon me all to heck. I remember when electric cars were being touted as the solution to pollution (they aren't) and the solution to the energy shortage (they aren't that either).

Then the car companies actually built some. The next step was to promote the hybrid as having the advantages of the electric (high mileage) without the disadvantages.

Now it turns out they are no better than a conventional car.

It's the same old bushwa from the same old gang.

Now they are on about global warming. No one ever mentions that the climate today is colder than it was 1000 years ago.

True. In 1000 AD Vikings were farming on Greenland and picking grapes in Newfoundland.

There are a lot of reasons for the climate to change. Maybe 5% of it is man made, and the Kyoto Accord if fully implemented, might eliminate 3% of that. So, we are looking at destroying our standard of living to reduce temperatures a fraction of 1 degree.

Remember you read it here first.

Look, we could put controls on what cars we drive, and maybe even ban cars altogether, but it would make NO difference! There is China and India out there, almost one third of the worlds population! And have you seen their skyline lately?! They do not have smog checks, etc.

Lets see how the Prius holds up 10 years from now...

Smoke and mirrors? How? The same thing happened and it will happen again! Even Davemoon said a few posts back that the oil crashed in the mid 80's. The Saudis did the same thing, then Reagan deregulated the market. And instead of gas lines like the late 70's early 80's and high prices (as high as now not dollar amount but, if inflation is taken into acct). We had 20 years of good prices and easy access to fuel.

We've already covered this.


We've already covered this, too.


And this urban myth is simply not true. For instance: "The first recorded grapes were grown 2002, when a successful vineyard was established in Gambo, Newfoundland, 48°50'N., (Vinland page, Wikipedia).

Just like the real information on what a hybrid car is and is not capable of, the real information on climate change is out there. You can investigate the facts or just believe the first thing that makes you comfortable with your other beliefs. It's up to you.

I said what????

Oil Consumption (most recent) by country (2007 data)

Knowledge is power.

You said about the oil crashing in the mid 80's! Back in another one of our discussions about digging in West Texas!

But, the consumption of those countries is going up! And it has no where to go but up! As cars become easier to come by for poorer peoples. Maybe Toyota needs to make a Model 'T' and revolutionize the industry in China, India, and Japan!

Oh, and the point is pollution, let us not forget back in the early 70's here in L.A. The skyline was dark, like it is in China, so, even though we burn more oil, we have smog controls on vehicles.

This "Urban myth" was in the history textbooks I studied at school 40 years ago. I believe it has since been edited out.

Norse sagas describe winters in Vinland as being mild enough that cattle can winter over without stocks of hay or cut feed. And they also describe picking wild grapes in Vinland, that is where the country got its name.

The site of Norse settlement excavated by archaeologists at L'Anse Aux Meadows Newfoundland, establishes the location of Vinland beyond question.

Farley Mowat has discovered a report by a French botanist who described wild grapes growing in Newfoundland in the 17th century.

Most people today never heard of the Little Climactic Optimum from 600 AD to 1300 AD or the Little Ice Age that followed, from 1400 AD to 1850 AD.

Today's so called Global Warming is within the normal range of natural climate change and well within it.

I live in Canada and can tell you that there is no sign of unusually warm weather around here. There was a series of mild winters in the 90s but the last few years the winters have been much the same as when I was a boy in the 50s.

Most of the claims of the global warming alarmists won't stand up to much scrutiny. Al Gore has advised his closest associates that it will be necessary to pick their evidence and exaggerate in order to sell their agenda to the public.

Besides, according to the peak oil alarmists we are already running out of oil. From now on oil consumption will drop like a rock because there just isn't any more of it and in 50 or 100 years there will be none left at all. So what's to worry about?

I've never heard of "digging in west Texas".

Today's headlines........."ELECTRIC UTILITY SEEKS 21.7% RATE HIKE"
Well we're trying to save gas, now what? This is a plan. They are going to get us one way or the other. I hate to see how many house fires this coming winter......

Pretty much anybody's who's even informally looked at this stuff knows about the Little Climactic Optimum and the Little Ice Age. They'd also know that your statement here on global warming is totally out of whack with the facts.

I have a Master's Degree in the environmental sciences. I'm more than an informally interested person. That may be why people so misinformed upset me so.


Guess why.


Man, have you got some reading to do (even if this was supposed to be an ironic statement)!

Energy conservation is a fact of life now. It a matter of personal subsistence and the National interest, and will be from now on. It isn't just something people do to be politically correct, or because they have an interest in saving cute little fuzzy animals.

That's the different world I was talking about.