And "End of the Line" for GM, actually two of them

[Guest Kingoftheroad]

First, it is obvious that whoever is stating this has no clue about Lincolns. The car that had the biggest trunk and passenger cabin out of all the Lincolns in 1977 was the Continental/Town Car. It was also completely unchanged from 1975-79 except for the grille and minor trim changes. So explain to me this "since 1977" part.

Cubic feet would be a useful measurement if you are filling the car with water or sand, not people and luggage. I have been in a Prius, and 75-79 Town Cars. There is no way you can seat 6 people as comfortably in a Prius as you can in a Town Car regardless of whatever cubic feet statistics you come up with. The Town Car trunk is also cavernous. Even if there is a remote possibility you can fit the same amount of luggage in the Prius, I assume this means piled from floor to roof blocking all rear visability. Possibly even with rear seat folded down. This is not the same as locked out of the way, unseen, in a closed trunk with absolutely no loss of visabilty, and six adults riding in comfort in the passenger cabin.

Linc, don't forget the lack of power in the Prius. You load a Prius with 6 people & luggage loaded to the limit and that Prius is going NOWHERE FAST !

[Dave@Moon]

First, it is obvious that whoever is stating this has no clue about Lincolns. The car that had the biggest trunk and passenger cabin out of all the Lincolns in 1977 was the Continental/Town Car. It was also completely unchanged from 1975-79 except for the grille and minor trim changes. So explain to me this "since 1977" part.

That was me. "1977" was a typo. It should have said 1979.

1980 Lincoln Town Car: 21.0 cubic foot trunk.

2010 Toyota Prius: 21.6 cubic foot trunk.

The point is that both have a big trunk.

[Dave@Moon]

Linc, don't forget the lack of power in the Prius. You load a Prius with 6 people & luggage loaded to the limit and that Prius is going NOWHERE FAST !

Compare for yourself:

Lincoln 0-60 Times & Lincoln Quarter Mile Times | Lincoln Continental, Navigator, LS, MKS EcoBoost, 2011 MKZ 0-60, Mark and Lincoln Town Car 0 to 60 stats!

Toyota 0-60 Times & Toyota Quarter Mile Times | Toyota Avalon, 2011 Camry, 2012 Corolla, Supra 0-60, TRD Celica, New Tundra and Toyota MR2 0 to 60 stats!

Not much of a difference between the Town Car and the current Prius, is there?

You know, car guys used to be excited about new developments and innovations in the industry. Why are so many so afraid of them today?:confused:

You can bet there'll be more misinformation posted here. It won't end. When ever you hear that hybrids are bad for this or that, or diesels are, or biofuels are, or electrics are......, etc., just remember how many silly things you've already heard about them that turned out not to be true. Look up the real information for yourself. Otherwise you're setting yourself up to be played.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Dave@Moon (see edit history)

[LINC400]

It is the price everyone else has to pay for that kind of attitude (politically, environmentally, economically, security-wise, etc.) that has changed things, not the individual consumer preference.

If I want to spend my money eating out every night at expensive restaurants, drinking it all at a bar, buying expensive designer clothing or made in China or Korea electronic gadgets and racking up huge credit card bills I can never pay off, or losing it gambling at an ever increasing number of casinos, that is all fine. And the government has no control over that.

But if I don't do any of those things, and simply want to drive a large, stylish, fast car that uses more gas while I economize everywhere else, I am a terrible person that does not care about the environment or economy. And the government is increasing CAFE so that I can no longer buy the type of car I want. I do not ever want a Prius. I don't care if it gets 150 mpg. I do not like it. I think it is ugly. I hate 4 doors. I hate small cars. And I refuse to buy anything with the parent company headquartered outside the U.S. This does not mean I want a car identical to a Prius from Buick, Lincoln, Cadillac, or Chrysler.

Dave loves his Prius, and that is fine. He should be allowed to buy the type of car that he likes and best suits him. But I should also be allowed to buy the type of car that I like.

[60FlatTop]

I took a serious look at the 1998 + Lincoln Town Cars, actually 2006 to 2008 before I bought the '94 Impala SS. 4.6 Litres was still 280 cu. in. and overhead cams put the power band higher than my 63 year old foot thinks it should be.

I think the 350 TPI, 3.08 posi, and 21 miles per gallon is ........... Justified.

Bernie

[LINC400]

You haven't been in a Prius v. They aren't out yet.

No, but I am sure it is not as wide as a 1979 Town Car. I hate being shoved up against someone in a car.

[LINC400]

That was me. "1977" was a typo. It should have said 1979.

1980 Lincoln Town Car: 21.0 cubic foot trunk.

2010 Toyota Prius: 21.6 cubic foot trunk.

The point is that both have a big trunk.

1980 is downsized. And I assume the Prius is a hatchback loaded floor to roof as previously stated. That is not the same as locked in a trunk with no loss of visabilty or passenger space. I would not want to take cross country trip and not be able to see out of the back window the entire way.

[LINC400]

Compare for yourself:

Lincoln 0-60 Times & Lincoln Quarter Mile Times | Lincoln Continental, Navigator, LS, MKS EcoBoost, 2011 MKZ 0-60, Mark and Lincoln Town Car 0 to 60 stats!

Toyota 0-60 Times & Toyota Quarter Mile Times | Toyota Avalon, 2011 Camry, 2012 Corolla, Supra 0-60, TRD Celica, New Tundra and Toyota MR2 0 to 60 stats!

Not much of a difference between the Town Car and the current Prius, is there?

You know, car guys used to be excited about new developments and innovations in the industry. Why are so many so afraid of them today?:confused:

You can bet there'll be more misinformation posted here. It won't end. When ever you hear that hybrids are bad for this or that, or diesels are, or biofuels are, or electrics are......, etc., just remember how many silly things you've already heard about them that turned out not to be true. Look up the real information for yourself. Otherwise you're setting yourself up to be played.

If hybrid or any other technology allowed me to go out and buy a car that was large, stylish, fast, and got 40 mpg, I would be happy to go out and buy it. If I am supposed to buy a small, unattractive car that does not appeal to me in the least, I do not care what technology or wonderful gas mileage it has.

[Dave@Moon]

If hybrid or any other technology allowed me to go out and buy a car that was large, stylish, fast, and got 40 mpg, I would be happy to go out and buy it. If I am supposed to buy a small, unattractive car that does not appeal to me in the least, I do not care what technology or wonderful gas mileage it has.

Well, if a hybrid Cadillac Escalade isn't the right size maybe one of the 35 other available 2012 hybrids (so far) might satisfy you ( New Hybrid Cars - 2011 2012 Hybrid Car Prices, Reviews & Specs - Motor Trend Magazine ). Might I suggest the Lincoln MKZ Hybrid ( 2012 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid Sedan Prices - 2012 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid Pricing & Costs - Motor Trend Magazine ). It's notable as it is the first hybrid version of a conventional car that costs the same as the old-fashioned version. The hybrid drivetrain is essentially a no-cost option, and one of the best available as well.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Dave@Moon (see edit history)

[LINC400]

Well, if a hybrid Cadillac Escalade isn't the right size maybe one of the 35 other available 2012 hybrids (so far) might satisfy you ( New Hybrid Cars - 2011 2012 Hybrid Car Prices, Reviews & Specs - Motor Trend Magazine ). Might I suggest the Lincoln MKZ Hybrid ( 2012 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid Sedan Prices - 2012 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid Pricing & Costs - Motor Trend Magazine ). It's notable as it is the first hybrid version of a conventional car that costs the same as the old-fashioned version. The hybrid drivetrain is essentially a no-cost option, and one of the best available as well.

I do not want an SUV, and I do not like 4 doors. Those 2 simple requirements rule out every vehicle on the list (actually I believe no 4 doors alone does it).

If there was a hybrid Camaro, Challenger, or maybe even Mustang, I would look into it. I might even consider bending my 4 door rule for a hybrid Town Car (the last true Lincoln IMO). But not for an MKZ. I have zero interest in those regardless of hybrid or conventional. I even hate the name.

[Bleach]

Here are the specs for the 70-79 Continentals.1979 LINCOLN CONTINENTAL Town Car 400-2V specs and performance in automobile-catalog.com

It has some really spacious accommodations and capacities. Cars like these can still be bought for fairly cheap. Imagine how much gas you can buy for the price difference of one of these cars and a hybrid. You'd still have plenty of cash left over for the other amenities of life.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Bleach (see edit history)

[Guest]

Here are the specs for the 70-79 Continentals.1979 LINCOLN CONTINENTAL Town Car 400-2V specs and performance in automobile-catalog.com

It has some really spacious accommodations and capacities. Cars like these can still be bought for fairly cheap. Imagine how much gas you can buy for the price difference of one of these cars and a hybrid. You'd still have plenty of cash left over for the other amenities of life.

________________________________________________________________

Totally agree, or if you were looking for something new and gas only with good mileage you would be miles ( $$$ ) ahead of a hybrid. Why would anyone want to maintain two propulsion systems and still have to do the emission check thing?

D.

[Bleach]

I bought an '01 Crown Vic Police Interceptor last year for a spare car / family car. I needed a car with working A/C that would also be a comfortable car on a long trip. I bought the car for roughly what it have cost me to repair the A/C system myself on the Mercedes. The Crown Vic is in excellent condition and has had excellent maintenance. It's one of the models that more closely resembles a civilian version except that it has few bells and whistles. It is essentially equipped just the way I would prefer having a car. The interior is very roomy and trunk is enormous.

It regularly gets fuel economy in the low to mid 20's on the highway and has more than enough passing power when needed. What I also like is that people are very courteous to me on the road and have never cut me off or tried any other stupid moves.

[Guest Kingoftheroad]

Compare for yourself:

Lincoln 0-60 Times & Lincoln Quarter Mile Times | Lincoln Continental, Navigator, LS, MKS EcoBoost, 2011 MKZ 0-60, Mark and Lincoln Town Car 0 to 60 stats!

Toyota 0-60 Times & Toyota Quarter Mile Times | Toyota Avalon, 2011 Camry, 2012 Corolla, Supra 0-60, TRD Celica, New Tundra and Toyota MR2 0 to 60 stats!

Not much of a difference between the Town Car and the current Prius, is there?

You know, car guys used to be excited about new developments and innovations in the industry. Why are so many so afraid of them today?:confused:

You can bet there'll be more misinformation posted here. It won't end. When ever you hear that hybrids are bad for this or that, or diesels are, or biofuels are, or electrics are......, etc., just remember how many silly things you've already heard about them that turned out not to be true. Look up the real information for yourself. Otherwise you're setting yourself up to be played.

Were those times taken with six people & a car load of luggage ?? That what we were talking about. Load a Prius with 6 people and fill back with luggage, do the same with a full size Lincoln & post 1/8 mile, 1/4 mile, or even 0-60. Post those results.. I think you'll see a big difference.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Kingoftheroad (see edit history)

[Dave@Moon]

________________________________________________________________

Totally agree, or if you were looking for something new and gas only with good mileage you would be miles ( $$$ ) ahead of a hybrid. Why would anyone want to maintain two propulsion systems and still have to do the emission check thing?

D.

1. First, the EPA exempts hybrids over 50 mpg from emissions inspections, and therefore so do all state DMVs. Second, hybrid systems are essentially maintenance-free, and nearly never need repair of any kind. In turn, since they assume some of the burdon from the conventional gas/diesel engine and the braking system, the rest of the car needs less maintenance as well. For instance Priuses used in city driving generally get at least 125,000 miles to a set of brakes.

(Again, I don't mean to harp on Priuses. I just am more familiar with them having driven one for going on 7 years now. Everything said applies to all hybrid drivetrains from all manufacturers.

I should say that in those 7 years I did have to replace one taillight bulb, so hybrid cars are not completely repair-free. )

2. Using the calculator on the DOE web site ( Fuel Economy ), driving a 50 mpg car (i.e. 2011 Prius EPA rating) 15,000 miles on $3.58/gal. gas costs $1074.00. Driving a 10 mpg car (i.e. 1979 Lincoln Town Car 400 2V EPA rating) 15,000 miles on $3.58/gal gas (do Lincolns run on regular???) costs $5370.00. The difference? An EXTRA $4296.00 per year (!) for the average driver.

If that's "miles ($$$) ahead of a hybrid" I'm missing something. Apparently after the fifth year of use my Prius was free.:cool:

Edited August 30, 2011 by Dave@Moon
fixed link (see edit history)

[Guest Kingoftheroad]

1. First, the EPA exempts hybrids over 50 mpg from emissions inspections, and therefore so do all state DMVs. Second, hybrid systems are essentially maintenance-free, and nearly never need repair of any kind. In turn, since they assume some of the burdon from the conventional gas/diesel engine and the braking system, the rest of the car needs less maintenance as well. For instance Priuses used in city driving generally get at least 125,000 miles to a set of brakes.

(Again, I don't mean to harp on Priuses. I just am more familiar with them having driven one for going on 7 years now. Everything said applies to all hybrid drivetrains from all manufacturers.

I should say that in those 7 years I did have to replace one taillight bulb, so hybrid cars are not completely repair-free. )

2. Using the calculator on the DOE web site ( Fuel Economy ), driving a 50 mpg car (i.e. 2011 Prius EPA rating) 15,000 miles on $3.58/gal. gas costs $1074.00. Driving a 10 mpg car (i.e. 1979 Lincoln Town Car 400 2V EPA rating) 15,000 miles on $3.58/gal gas (do Lincolns run on regular???) costs $5370.00. The difference? An EXTRA $4296.00 per year (!) for the average driver.

If that's "miles ($$$) ahead of a hybrid" I'm missing something. Apparently after the fifth year of use my Prius was free.:cool:

Does that scenario include the car payments for a new hybrid compared to a guy with an old (paid for) Lincoln ?? How much are car payments on a new gas-mizer ??

[Sweepspear]

I agree with much of what has been said.

The marketing departments can't see the forest for the trees.

When the new Dodge Charger came out a few years ago, I read an interview with one of the people from Dodge. When asked about the criticism of it being a 4 door, and why it wasn't a 2 door, his reply was, "2 door cars don't sell"

To which I reply, of course they don't sell. You don't build them.

Maybe I am an exception. I am 50 years old, I have given serious thought as to what new US car I would buy if I had the opportunity. Excluding high end Cadillacs and the like. I'm talking affordable meat and potatoes here.

None. There isn't one US car on the market right now that piques my interest.

At the 1991 auto show, when I was 30, I saw a gorgeous Gold Buick Roadmaster up on a turntable. I loved it! I looked around, and saw that I was the only one if not the youngest person there drooling over it. So, yeah, maybe I am a freak.

I always thought the '91-'96 Park Ave would have made a great looking 2 door car, or even station wagon.

As far as the Ford Ranger goes, I just bought my 2nd one. Albeit a used '03 model.

Bought my first one back in '96. Brand new XLT 2wd, 4 cyl. Manual trans. I drove the truck for about 5 years. Life changed, needs changed, and I needed a more family friendly car. Bought a used '92 Park Ave. and sold the Ranger.

There wasn't a day that went by I didn't regret selling that Ranger.

I am happy to now own another.

Ford thinks the Ranger buyer will easily accept buying an F-150. Sorry, we like our Rangers because of the compact size mainly. I have no desire to buy a truck that is inflated in size to appeal to those male egos that need a little help in feeling manly. Especially when my Ranger is rated as a 1/2 ton truck just the same as that huge F-150.

Which brings up something I was thinking about recently. At work one day, I parked next to a new F-150 that another employee had recently purchased. It dwarfs my Ranger to the point it is comical.

I began to think back that at one time a standard full size Ford truck was not much bigger than a Ranger.

Ford let the Ranger wilt on the vine, sales suffered, and now the model will be no more in the US, and the plant that builds them here in the Twin Cities will be closed and over 900 people lose their jobs.

At least I can be assured that because of the durability and reliability of the Ford Ranger, there will still be plenty to choose from in the coming years when I am in the market for another.

[Bleach]

Maybe a better comparison would be to put the 2nd gen Lincoln Town Car against the Prius. It gets about twice the fuel economy over the 5th gen Continental and has similar passenger accommodations and trunk space. A nice one can be purchased for a around $2000. There are frequent examples of these cars running well past 300K miles. I have been hard pressed to find any Prius with over 150K. What about battery life? I've read reports of mediocre battery life since one of the problems is that the battery never achieves full charge in normal driving.

Regardless what, I would alway feel safer riding in a true full sized car over a tiny sardine can of a car.

[NTX5467]

That was me. "1977" was a typo. It should have said 1979.

1980 Lincoln Town Car: 21.0 cubic foot trunk.

2010 Toyota Prius: 21.6 cubic foot trunk.

The point is that both have a big trunk.

Well, it seems that although both might be rated at 21+ cubic feet of space, I highly suspect they are shaped very differently. I'd bet that the Lincoln's 21+cf would be far more useable for a typical owner of that car than if that same owner tried to use the 21+cf of the Prius.

As I recall, the Lincoln (and other hi-line USA vehicles of that time) had VERY nicely carpeted luggage compartments! Big and spacious and NOT hiding under the back window and behind the rear seat. With a proper "night light", too. I'd suspect the 1977 Lincoln Sedan's trunk is a little more than 21.0 cf, considering how tall it is from the bottom to the top. How many Pullman suitcases can a Prius' luggage compartment hold???

Not to sound too redneck, but how many 22" cut width lawnmowers can the Prius haul in its trunk, with the handles still attached? What about hauling 8' lumber and still closing the deck lid? Gotta have "Home Depot" capabilities, for those of us who don't ALSO own a Ford Ranger.

For the record, every GM W-car vehicle from about 1997 up to the current Impala, with the fold down rear seat, can haul 8' lumber with the deck lid closed. The newer Impalas with the flip-'n-fold rear seat package can haul a passel of 6' lumber in complete safety and security, plus air conditioned comfort, as if they were designed to do that . . . I have pictures to prove that, 'cept they're archived on my old phone which died.

Thanks for the lively discussion!

NTX5467

Edited August 31, 2011 by NTX5467 (see edit history)

[NTX5467]

(How many hybrid vehicles have the column shift/bench seat package availability??)

In some states, Hybrid and electric vehicles (WITH approved badging by the manufacturer) can use the HOV lanes on the freeway, without having to meet the vehicle occupancy requirements. I suspect that'll get those owners lots of "admiring looks".

I wonder what hybrid sales might be if the Federal government had never put tax allowances and rebates on these vehicles? The unknown fact is that there's a number-sold limit on some of these funds! Unless these monies are extended or reappropriated, they end, even on the state level. WOW! Tax rebates that have a defined end to them!

Enjoy!

NTX5467

[Guest]

1. First, the EPA exempts hybrids over 50 mpg from emissions inspections, and therefore so do all state DMVs. Second, hybrid systems are essentially maintenance-free, and nearly never need repair of any kind. In turn, since they assume some of the burdon from the conventional gas/diesel engine and the braking system, the rest of the car needs less maintenance as well. For instance Priuses used in city driving generally get at least 125,000 miles to a set of brakes.

(Again, I don't mean to harp on Priuses. I just am more familiar with them having driven one for going on 7 years now. Everything said applies to all hybrid drivetrains from all manufacturers.

I should say that in those 7 years I did have to replace one taillight bulb, so hybrid cars are not completely repair-free. )

2. Using the calculator on the DOE web site ( Fuel Economy ), driving a 50 mpg car (i.e. 2011 Prius EPA rating) 15,000 miles on $3.58/gal. gas costs $1074.00. Driving a 10 mpg car (i.e. 1979 Lincoln Town Car 400 2V EPA rating) 15,000 miles on $3.58/gal gas (do Lincolns run on regular???) costs $5370.00. The difference? An EXTRA $4296.00 per year (!) for the average driver.

If that's "miles ($$$) ahead of a hybrid" I'm missing something. Apparently after the fifth year of use my Prius was free.:cool:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I said something new, with good gas mileage, for example let's say Kia as they have four models that get better than 40mpg according to the advertisement I just saw on TV. Now these cars cost far less than Prius so how can you recoup the extra money in excess baggage you paid for in the Pirus?

I don't think you can.

Anyroad the beauty of this country so far is you can have your Prius to drive and LINC400 can have what he wants to drive. I only problem I see is when people who like their hybrid so much they want to make everyone drive a hybrid. If that is the case we might as well live in China.

As far as California emissions go ANY vehicle with a gasoline engine greater than 50 cu. inches must be tested. I just quoted that from the Ca. Smog Check inspection manual.

D.

[Dave@Moon]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as California emissions go ANY vehicle with a gasoline engine greater than 50 cu. inches must be tested. I just quoted that from the Ca. Smog Check inspection manual.

D.

Vehicle Emissions Testing in California | DMV

EXEMPTIONS

A vehicle is exempt from smog testing when:

1. It is a diesel vehicle.
   
2. It is an electric powered vehicle.
   
3. It is a gas powered vehicle which weighs more than 14,000 pounds.
   
4. A hybrid vehicle.
   
5. A motorcycle.
   
6. A trailer.
   
7. It is made in 1975 or before.
   

[Dave@Moon]

I wonder what hybrid sales might be if the Federal government had never put tax allowances and rebates on these vehicles? The unknown fact is that there's a number-sold limit on some of these funds! Unless these monies are extended or reappropriated, they end, even on the state level. WOW! Tax rebates that have a defined end to them!

Enjoy!

NTX5467

Hybrid car tax credits were phased out beginning in 2007, dramatically so after 2009, and ceased to exist as of April, 2010. ( Hybrid Car Tax Credits (United States): Incentives Fade into Memory | Hybrid Cars )

I bought my latest hybrid in May, 2010.

Edited August 31, 2011 by Dave@Moon (see edit history)

[Dave@Moon]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I said something new, with good gas mileage, for example let's say Kia as they have four models that get better than 40mpg according to the advertisement I just saw on TV. Now these cars cost far less than Prius so how can you recoup the extra money in excess baggage you paid for in the Pirus?

I don't know about a Kia, it's a bit like comparing a Dodge Avenger to a Buick Lucerne, but a comparable reliable car like the slightly smaller and less luxurious Toyota Corolla isn't out of the question.

A base 2012 Prius costs $21,000. As comparably equipped as possible, a Toyota Corolla (with the smallest/base engine) costs $18,600. Using the same DOE calculator with the same assumptions, the Corolla uses $779.00 more in gas per year. Therefore in 3.08 years the Prius pays for itself over the Corolla.

Using the Kia Forte as a comparison, the Prius pays for itself in 2.12 years. If you stuff yourself into the tiny Kia Rio, the Prius still pays for itself in 7.42 years.

Did I mention that buying a hybrid strictly for financial reasons is missing the point of the car?:confused: At least it seems it makes sense even on that rather crude level as well.

There are good reasons why these cars (hybrids) are taking over.:cool:

Edited August 31, 2011 by Dave@Moon
Added Kia Rio (see edit history)

[Guest]

Vehicle Emissions Testing in California | DMV

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess the DMV has some explaining to do because two of it's exemptions are incorrect. The other is they ARE testing diesels here too! Which also brings us to the subject of heavy equipment that has to be replaced in California. Not only is this very expensive for farmers and heavy equipment operators, it kills the poor guy who's just getting started in business. The small guy just getting started used to buy his equipment used and now he can't. Course all the old equipment goes to Mexico where the so called pollution drifts back to Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California and also the produce that would have been grown here too. Wait until cap & trade.

D.

[Guest]

I don't know about a Kia, it's a bit like comparing a Dodge Avenger to a Buick Lucerne, but a comparable reliable car like the slightly smaller and less luxurious Toyota Corolla isn't out of the question.

A base 2012 Prius costs $21,000. As comparably equipped as possible, a Toyota Corolla (with the smallest/base engine) costs $18,600. Using the same DOE calculator with the same assumptions, the Corolla uses $779.00 more in gas per year. Therefore in 3.08 years the Prius pays for itself over the Corolla.

Using the Kia Forte as a comparison, the Prius pays for itself in 2.12 years. If you stuff yourself into the tiny Kia Rio, the Prius still pays for itself in 7.42 years.

Did I mention that buying a hybrid strictly for financial reasons is missing the point of the car?:confused: At least it seems it makes sense even on that rather crude level as well.

There are good reasons why these cars (hybrids) are taking over.:cool:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope you factored in this over twenty years and battery replacement cost. My experience with L-Ion car batteries over ten years has been not very good results. Turning turtle in less than six. Hopefully there have been improvements since I retired five years ago.

D.

[Dave@Moon]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope you factored in this over twenty years and battery replacement cost. My experience with L-Ion car batteries over ten years has been not very good results. Turning turtle in less than six. Hopefully there have been improvements since I retired five years ago.

D.

Most hybrids still use NiMH batteries. They generally (99.99%) last the life of the car. As a hybrid owner you are much more likely to need a new engine block than a new NiMH hybrid drive battery. In the very remote case that you do need one, they're available used for around $400.00, and it's a 2 hour job to remove the old one and install the new. A set of tires is more money.

Like I said, the hybrid drive systems in these cars are essentially maintenance-free.

[NTX5467]

Seems that I recall some federal money being available, on a per vehicle basis, to apply to the purchase price of the Chevy Volt. Possibly even the Nissan Leaf? These funds are, as I understand it, separate and apart from the earlier hybrid "federal rebates" which were gradually phased out over the time of that program.

It appears that Dave's "payback" time for the additional expense of a Prius over other high-mpg vehicles takes into account a "cash, paid for" price rather than a financed price. Not all vehicles are eligible for "Zero Per Cent" financing, especially if they are financed through a commercial bank rather than the manufacturer's finance operation. This consideration of how real people usually purchase vehicles might lengthen the "payback" time?

What about current lease monthly payments on a Prius vs. other high-mpg vehicles? It might well be that the Prius' suspected higher residual at the end of the lease might offset the higher MSRP of the vehicle.

ONE other thing, which I saw in print the other day, regarding OEM tires used on vehicles such as the Prius. In order for these hybrids to get their higher "fuel economy", they ride on tires which have been designed with lower rolling resistance in mind. All of this sounds well and good, plus expected . . . to further exploit the virtues of the hybrid vehicle. These new tire designs are not tweaked in the area of how the tire's carcass is built and with what, BUT also in the ultimate rubber compound for the tread (which might well have a more mpg-optimized design). The tests (run by Tire Rack?) indicated that the vehicle with the same tires as the hybrids came with took about 30' longer to stop from highway speeds. The stated culprit was the rubber compound, which was "less grippy" than normal tires. Be that as it may.

Regards,

NTX5467

[Dave@Moon]

Not all vehicles are eligible for "Zero Per Cent" financing, especially if they are financed through a commercial bank rather than the manufacturer's finance operation. This consideration of how real people usually purchase vehicles might lengthen the "payback" time?

I had to limit the analysis to cash sales in order to simplify the comparison. There is no difference to financing a conventional car and a hybrid. Costs do not vary from one kind of car to another, except for special promotions which can vary.

When I bought my 2010 Prius gas was down and the economy was improving, so Toyota was offering reduced financing or a rebate on their hybrids. Right now they have incentives for almost every vehicle in the lineup except the Prius. Next week, who knows!?

ONE other thing, which I saw in print the other day, regarding OEM tires used on vehicles such as the Prius. In order for these hybrids to get their higher "fuel economy", they ride on tires which have been designed with lower rolling resistance in mind. All of this sounds well and good, plus expected . . . to further exploit the virtues of the hybrid vehicle. These new tire designs are not tweaked in the area of how the tire's carcass is built and with what, BUT also in the ultimate rubber compound for the tread (which might well have a more mpg-optimized design). The tests (run by Tire Rack?) indicated that the vehicle with the same tires as the hybrids came with took about 30' longer to stop from highway speeds. The stated culprit was the rubber compound, which was "less grippy" than normal tires. Be that as it may.

Regards,

NTX5467

Most tests of the Prius find at worst average braking distances (i.e. 2010 Toyota Prius Full Test and Video on Inside Line ).

I have noticed a huge difference in the 3 sets of tires I've had on my 2005 Prius. The original Good Years were O.K., except in the wet. The Coopers were terrible, especially in the wet. And the current Generals are the best tires I've ever had, especially in the wet. So far the original Bridgestones on the 2010 have been excellent, and they were the base model's tires. (Every model/option level of the Prius in 2010 came with a different tire.) I don't know if the Prius is more tire-sensitive than other cars, or if it just seems that way.

[Bleach]

I never saw any incentives on the Prius in our area. In fact I saw huge dealer mark ups on them and any of their "fuel efficient" models.

I wasn't shopping for one but was next to one of the "stealerships" so I decided to have a look.

[John_Maine]

Saw my first Volt in person tonight. Went to the supermarket and while waiting for the light to get our of the parking lot, I looked across the street to the GM dealer's lot and there it was. Naturally, I had to go look. Sticker was $41K and change with a $299 dealer prep fee. Car was black in and out. I really liked it. I'd be interested if they were less money as I only drive 4 miles a day at 30 mph or less. I'd almost never have to buy gas.

[NTX5467]

I have noticed a huge difference in the 3 sets of tires I've had on my 2005 Prius. The original Good Years were O.K., except in the wet. The Coopers were terrible, especially in the wet. And the current Generals are the best tires I've ever had, especially in the wet. So far the original Bridgestones on the 2010 have been excellent, and they were the base model's tires. (Every model/option level of the Prius in 2010 came with a different tire.) I don't know if the Prius is more tire-sensitive than other cars, or if it just seems that way.

It seems that the way modern suspensions and tires have evolved, from my observation, is that tires are now a key part of the vehicle's ride/drive "feel" and performance. First Camry I rented (from our rental fleet) had Goodyear Integritys (back then, Integrity was a so-so lower-line Goodyear tire, now they've been upgraded to OEM specs). It rode and handled like I would expect a Camry to act . . . soft ride, numb handling . . . UNTIL I happened to drive it "Not like a Camry" one afternoon as I was almost late to work. THEN the car had some very slick moves, which surprised me. Next one I rented had Bridgestones on it. MUCH nicer ride and better handling than the GYs, in a next model year Camry.

In many respects, the tire's construction AND rubber compound is an extension of the shock/strut valving characteristics. Used to be that if you had the same type of tire, they'd all act the same, other than for traction issues. Not that way now!

When I realized this was in the 1990s. The normal LeSabres had "normal" radial tires on them, usually Generals, as I recall. If you got the upgrade GranTouring suspension, then you got alloy wheels and Goodyear Eagle GTs . . with the same part number struts, and possibly a little stiffer spring. I started checking out other GM vehicles and found similar things . . . same struts no matter which suspension option the car had, BUT with different tires, maybe springs, and larger sway bar(s) on the upgrade option.

Back in the early 1980s, I discovered Pirelli P77s, which were an extension of their "Designed for American Cars" line of radials, starting with the P76 a few years earlier. As it had assymetrical tread, different compounds for the outer and inner halves, "low bounce" rubber compounds, an H speed rating, I wanted some for my '77 Camaro, to replace the normal OEM UniRoyals at that time. I found a place in Dallas that had some and took my wheels over there one Saturday for mounting.

I also had a set of KONI shocks on it, at that time, too. I had been through the adjustment procedures a few times, too, so I had them a few clicks past "full soft", toward "firm". When I put the Pirellis on there, it rode much smoother, handled more responsively, and had great traction. Then, as time progressed, I noticed that it had lost that gutsy feel it had with the Uniroyals. I tried to get it back by adjusting the shocks, but it didn't return, so I just lived with it. It rode more softly in normal freeway driving, almost too much so, no matter what. More like an F41 Caprice than a 108" wheelbase "sporty" car.

What I finally figured out was that the "low bounce" rubber was filtering out the minor things that would normally put the shock valving into "firm" mode rather than "soft", smoooth rode mode. Like most Pirellis I saw back then, other than the OEMs on Jaguars, they weather cracked the sidewalls pretty bad, even with ArmorAll on them. One day, I came out to go to lunch and saw some stainless steel wire bead shining back at me from a tread groove! In the mean time, Super Shops had come to the area and had BFG Radial TAs in stock, so I got some . . . AND the gutsy feel returned. That's what's been on it ever since! Previously, there hadn't been a BFG dealer in the area that I could buy from at a decent price, but I came to know the guys at SuperShops and they got things back to good for me.

In more recent times, like about 2 years ago, we had a Toyota Tacoma 5-spd, 4 cyl, single cab short bed pickup we used for short runs at work. It came with Firestones on it. They did OK, but not spectacular in any respect. When they got worn, I called the local tire dealer to see what our options were for that size. Seems he'd ordered a set of General RTs for our Toyota associates and they'd returned them. I'd read the reviews on Tire Rack and they looked good, so that's what we got for it. I was amazed at how much better it rode, other than the deeper (new) tread. Handling was much sharper, too. Traction was improved as it was harder to get the rear wheel(s) to lose traction, unlike with the Firestones. Other than the poor bench seat seating position, it made the truck much more fun to drive.

Regards,

NTX5467

Edited September 2, 2011 by NTX5467 (see edit history)

[Dave@Moon]

Saw my first Volt in person tonight. Went to the supermarket and while waiting for the light to get our of the parking lot, I looked across the street to the GM dealer's lot and there it was. Naturally, I had to go look. Sticker was $41K and change with a $299 dealer prep fee. Car was black in and out. I really liked it. I'd be interested if they were less money as I only drive 4 miles a day at 30 mph or less. I'd almost never have to buy gas.

The Volt is a great car in concept, but this is one aspect I've always worried about. Someone who uses one like you, primarily short commutes (plugging it in to run exclusively on battery charge) with only relatively rare/occasional longer drives, is going to take a long time between refuelings. Gasoline doesn't last that long any more. If an inexperienced owner fuels up their Volt for the first time, and by virtue of the way they use it takes a year to burn that gas, isn't it going to cause some serious problems for that engine?:confused::eek:

My wife's car (she uses the 2010 Prius) is used very similarly. She just got a new job, reducing her daily commute from 3 miles to 2. If I didn't insist on using that car whenever possible on weekends it would take 2 months for her to burn a tank. If it were a plug-in (like the Volt) she'd never use up a tank.

Many GM cars come with a "engine oil monitor" that tells the owner when the oil needs changing. Cars like the Volt and the coming plug-in Prius should have fuel monitors to tell the driver when the gas is beginning to degrade.

[NTX5467]

The Volt is a great car in concept, but this is one aspect I've always worried about. Someone who uses one like you, primarily short commutes (plugging it in to run exclusively on battery charge) with only relatively rare/occasional longer drives, is going to take a long time between refuelings. Gasoline doesn't last that long any more. If an inexperienced owner fuels up their Volt for the first time, and by virtue of the way they use it takes a year to burn that gas, isn't it going to cause some serious problems for that engine?:confused::eek:

My wife's car (she uses the 2010 Prius) is used very similarly. She just got a new job, reducing her daily commute from 3 miles to 2. If I didn't insist on using that car whenever possible on weekends it would take 2 months for her to burn a tank. If it were a plug-in (like the Volt) she'd never use up a tank.

Sounds more like she (or someone in a similar situation) might be better served with a Nissan Leaf.

BACK when I was in college, I had a junior-level marketing class. At that time, "programmed learning" (via watching "videos") was a new and innovative activity. The main theme was "competitive edge", which EVERY business MUST have is they desire to stay viable for the long term.

We watched commercials and determined what the particular "competitive edge" of the product was. The most effective were 1960s VW commercials! The one "What does the guy that drives the snowplow drive to work?" where you see a lone VW Beetle slip slidin' on the snow until it parks beside a shack in the middle of nowhere, then the driver gets out of the VW and into the snowplow.

The other one was set in a new suburban "middle class" (soon to be) neighborhood with "cookie cutter two story houses" (smaller ones). One neighbor shows up with a new American car (like an Oldsmobile). He's in the driveway washing it when the guy with the new Beetle comes home. They wave and smile. Then, the delivery truck from the appliance store follows the VW owner home. They unload a new washer and drier as the neighbor's wife walks out with their laundry on her trip to the new Coin-Op Laundromat. She glances at their new "BIG" car, her husband, and then at the new stuff being delivered next door.

NOW, in all of the product planning activities going on in the more recent times, even if they are being staffed with younger operatives or operatives from other countries, for products to be sold in the USA, with Ford Motor Company basically leaving all of their core Crown Vic/Grand Marquis/Lincoln Town Car customers "out there" and GM not having any more bench seat column shift cars any more, ONE might believe that IF GM would offer such a seating combination in a larger-than-a-2010+ LaCrosse car, it would give BUICK a COMPETITIVE EDGE, so much moreso if such a larger Buick was RWD!

In the product orientation and customer matrix which GM showed us during the fantastic audiovisual presentation during the banquet at the 1988 Flint BCA National Meet, Chrysler customers and Buick customers were side-by-side on the matrix. This basically means that a Chrysler customer and Buick customer could be the same person, in many respects.

Interesting thing is that Chrysler customers, as evidenced from many car blog postings, are still widely diverse as to age demographics. Nothing really new, from my observations. When Buick had more models and price points, even if they might have overlapped with Pontiac, Olds, or Cadillac, they had a widely-diverse age demographic of customer, too, especially during the muscle car era. This was also an era when cars usually came with column shifts, WIDE front bench seats, and door lock cylinders on each front door as a matter of course. Sports models came with bucket seats and such. To compare the front seat accomodations of a 1970 Buick Skylark to those of a current LaCrosse, with all due respect, might be surprising, measurement figures not included in this comparison. This was also back when "space" was a luxury item, too. Not to forget the really fancy interior designs and seat trims -- even if some of the seams might not line up perfectly between the top and cushion of the seat, you were dazzled enough by the colors and fabric patterns that you didn't notice.

SO, lets advocate that Buick get a more competitive edge in the marketplace by NOT alienating long-time Buick owners in the same way that Oldsmobile DID alienate loyal Delta 88 owners in the 1990s . . . by not offering a desired bench-type front seat and column gear shift. Some might counter that Chrysler Corp hasn't had a column shift in several years, which is accurate, BUT there are enough loyal Chrysler owners to whom the "youth" and "performance" image of the LHS, 300M, and current 300s can move the bucket seat/console issue to a lower level, usually. Some of the LX 300 Hemi owners remembered what the crossed flags meant, I suspect.

Personally, it looks so much better to have an instrument panel which goes "side to side" rather than having what is now termed "center stack" in the middle of things. As this is where all of the HVAC, radio, nav, etc. controls are housed, this can make it overly wide (as in the 2010 LaCrosse) which also can generally affect the total available front bucket seat width. All of this curvy design also takes away the space where the column shift would otherwise be. It almost looks like EVERYTHING in the vehicle is supposed to be accessible from the driver's location, including the passenger side door handle.

Looks like GM and Ford could be dis-owning a significant owner base, over the next few years, with this one marketing and design decision to not offer a column shift Buick (one model, not across the board) configuration. We saw it happen with Oldsmobile, big time. It was a dumb decision back then, but then this was just a part of the orchestrated demise of Oldsmobile that had been in operation for several years--delayed by John Rock.

Advantage, Chrysler??

Regards,

NTX5467

[TN2Lane]

If an inexperienced owner fuels up their Volt for the first time, and by virtue of the way they use it takes a year to burn that gas, isn't it going to cause some serious problems for that engine?:confused::eek:

My wife's car (she uses the 2010 Prius) is used very similarly. She just got a new job, reducing her daily commute from 3 miles to 2. If I didn't insist on using that car whenever possible on weekends it would take 2 months for her to burn a tank. If it were a plug-in (like the Volt) she'd never use up a tank.

Many GM cars come with a "engine oil monitor" that tells the owner when the oil needs changing. Cars like the Volt and the coming plug-in Prius should have fuel monitors to tell the driver when the gas is beginning to degrade.

The Volt has software that handles this:

How the Chevy Volt Deals With Gas and Rare Generator Use

The Prius probably does, too.

[Dave@Moon]

The Prius probably does, too.

I wish it did.

Good for GM!

[Guest Kingoftheroad]

I think IF I was getting a "Green-Eco" vehicle, I think I'd prefer an all electric car. I've got gas cars, don't need another reason to buy $3.50 a gallon gas. I'm not worried about long range, like I said, I have gas cars for that. A nice electric car would be nice for round town trips. JMO.... not bashing Prius or Volt..

Edited September 4, 2011 by Kingoftheroad (see edit history)

[Thriller]

Well, I didn't really have time to read all this, but I did. Good thing I took the week off.

I think the general thing is that the marketing types seem to be driving product development, in many cases forgetting that while they may be looking to statistics to design their vehicle for what the "average" or "common" buyer wants, they cause issues for anyone outside that part of the curve. Are they not taught about the Edsel? Built with everything that the survey results showed was wanted resulted in a sales flop.

My first vehicle was a used '91 Ranger extended cab with 6 cyl and 5-spd. I loved that truck and made a bad deal getting rid of it. The issue was that I'd gotten married and had a child and the rear jump seats didn't work for a child seat, so I needed to go to a full size pickup to get a rear bench. To know then what I know would have made for a much better deal...I guess that is what experience was for. I'll never forget though the time I had street racers jumping at the red light and with a cap and 500 lbs of humanity, I was able to beat a 5.0 Mustang convertible off the line to the speed limit. We laughed and the truck was dubbed "Mustang killer".

When we were married, Suzanne had a '91 Nissan Sentra. On the highway, that car got as high as 45 mpg (Imperial gallons, so about 37.5 for US gallons). That car treated us very well until child #3 came along and the rear seat was too narrow for boosters / child seats (sensing a theme yet?).

I'll ignore the minivans in the interim. We presently have the 2006 Rainier CXL AWD with 6 cylinder. We do like it, but are disappointed in fuel economy. As the Rainier is now off warranty, we have been having some discussions about what to do. Based on fuel burned, we'd like to get into something more fuel efficient. We rented two vehicles this summer. The first, at Logan, was a 2011 Lucerne. While overall a nice car, there were two items which put it into the "no way" category for us. First, the A pillar design is poor - it is large and at so low an angle to be able to hide a vehicle in the adjacent lane...it either needs to be more vertical, or half the size for visibility. The second issue is the rear seat. This all started off lamenting the loss of a bench seat in Buicks up front. Well, how about getting in the back of one? The middle place in the rear seat of most new sedans I have seen is no longer made for a person. It is not flat with a full seat back, therefore uncomfortable. As a result, for our second rental, we actually looked at the vehicles before renting and, without prior prejudice as to what brand, wound up renting a Ford SUV (Edge if I recall correctly) as it was the only vehicle Alamo had with a decent rear seat for the children. As a child myself, nobody wanted to sit in the middle because of the transmission / driveshaft tunnel...that was an inconvenience, but we lived with it. Now you can't even comfortably sit in the rear seat.

Now, even as I discuss the children, I recognize that having three makes us a larger family than average. That said, the 13 year old is now about 5'6" and we expect to see another 6" inches of growth for height. So, what are we to do? So called full-size or premium cars don't sit our family properly. We would like to improve our average fuel economy for the family. The reality we are now looking at is having to keep the Rainier to be a family mover and get Suzanne a relatively fuel efficient car. Since we have some brand loyalty, she wants to wait until Buick comes out with a hybrid. I'm less keen on that...if we can get comparable fuel economy with a traditional drivetrain, I'm comfortable with that. While Suzanne no longer carries all three to school at once, we still all go to church together and semi-regularly go to our country place or on other travels as a family.

There are still families out there with more children than we have. They are being relegated to minivans and SUVs with third row seating, or being forced into having two vehicles to move the family around. Why not offer station wagons again with third rows?

I guess it comes down to volume. Those making the decisions seem to want volume to be able to amortize tooling costs over a larger number of vehicles, but in so doing cater to a demographic while forgetting that there are outliers with money to spend.

Personally, I've been frustrated with the Buick line for a few years now. While the introduction of the Regal is great, there has been such a limited choice of vehicles of late. Want a 2 door? Forget it. Want a fairly compact car with Buick amenities? For a number of years, forget it. Oh, but we can set you up with an SUV. Tell you what...we've driven Enclaves and Suzanne finds them too bulky compared to the Rainier. They are nice, but don't suit particularly well.

I'm all for better fuel economy, but a vehicle has to meet my needs first in terms of passenger space. I'm not particularly fussy (although brown is out...meaning we get gray, which may limit exterior colours, but that's another rant), but comfort is important, as is space.

The other thing that burns my butt with GM is that Chevy gets everything. Enclave selling well? Well, then, I guess we need a Chevrolet version. The Corvette is a sacred cow. However, the main thing is that Chev has a full line of trucks, vans, SUVs, 2 doors, 4 doors, in all sorts of shapes and sizes while other divisions are starved for product. I have no interest in buying a Chevrolet. Nor am I interested in having a Cadillac. So, to stay in the GM stable, I am left with Buick and GMC. If Buick has no product offerings, how will they keep me as a customer? It really is that simple. With no variety, there will ultimately be no customers.

For what it is worth, Suzanne and I are both under 45, the children are 11, 13, and 15, and our family income is in the top 5%, if not 1% of Canadian families. We can buy whatever we like, and if GM doesn't shape up, it won't be long before whatever we like is not a GM product.

We have been driving the Reatta now for a few weeks. While it doesn't run perfectly, and there are some quirks / issues to work out, we are enjoying it, and the first tank of city driving showed a significant improvement in fuel consumption compared to the Rainier. If I recall, it was about 18 mpIg. If nothing else, with Suzanne driving it to work, she is getting used to the idea of driving without the ride height of an SUV, so getting her into a newer car may become easier.

[buick5563]

Stellar post D.

[Centurion]

Derek, there are a few upcoming Buicks for you to watch for.

As you've probably read, the 2012 Lacrosse will have "e-assist" as standard equipment. This is a mild hybrid set-up that boosts EPA fuel economy to something on the order of 25 city / 37 highway. The reviews have been extremely positive. (V6 will remain available.) The Lacrosse is reported to have excellent rear seat legroom, but the trunk is on the small side for a car of its size.

The e-assist engine will also be available (as an option) on the 2012 Regal.

The new Verano sedan (smaller than Regal) will go on sale before the end of 2011.

Within the next year, the Encore will be added to Buick's product offerings, and it's to be a crossover type vehicle that is significantly smaller than the Enclave.