Despite the Prius, environmentalists are turning on the carmaker for opposing new gas-mileage laws.
Comment: 2008 Presidential Candidate Weekly Poll
Comment: For those of you who bought into the BS of "Who Killed The Electric Car", you should know that Toyota has come out and said that the movie was essentially a slander campaign against GM and that they also could not sell or lease the mules in California. Better yet, the film's director agrees. (See "Electric Car Killer?" Detroit Free Press 12/20/06)
As for the rest of the article, it disgusts me when the some group like the Sierra Club, which has no understanding of the physics behind something as complicated as a car, can sway the opinions of masses of people using inane rhetoric. Will we get there with our fuel economy? Undoubtedly. Will it be with technology ready for mass consumption today? NO. Will it be on their imaginary time table? Probably not (for reference, read up on the legislation that forced the automakers to sell the unwanted EV's in the first place and the reason it was ultimately revoked.) In the end that won't matter because SC et al will just say 'I told you so' and 'they could have done this long ago' and everyone will believe it because this country prefers scandal to the boring reality of physics and manufacturing.
And for those of you that continue to beat the drum of EV's, go do some reasearch on power distribution. Perhaps even think back to California's rolling blackouts of a few years ago. Then come up with an intelligent argument that details how you think getting even 10% of the population into rechargable vehicles won't overload the system. Or how it doesn't contribute to the pollution problem when the majority of our electricity comes from-- tada!-- FOSSIL FUELS.
Comment: Where do these people live? Somewhere other than the Rocky Mountains. I would like to invite them to visit Colorado during a snowstorm similar to those last winter which at my house we received over three feet of snow. My husband is a hospital administrator and without our "gas guzzling" 4WD SUV, would not have been able to make it to work on the unplowed, snow packed roads. Many personnel who drive half-cars had to be retrieved from their homes by SUVs. Additionally, what do you think emergency personnel drive to work? Bicycles? NO, SUVs. How convenient for Dan Becker - but not those Emergency Rooms. We also use our 4WD vehicle to visit our mountain condo to go skiing, which boosts the local economy and we have it packed to the roof and the skis are on the roof. We???re also summer outdoorsmen. We require 4WD for our mountaineering. I???d love to own a Prius, but I???d have to own three cars. The last time I visited the grocery store, I came home with 18 bags of groceries, two teenagers, their two band instruments, and their sports equipment. Had I driven a half-car, I have had to drive two cars. That wouldn???t save much gas. So before you take away our "gas guzzling" SUV's, Dan, perhaps you should visit a few households with SUVs and look at this from all angles. And ps, Dan, we Colorado Natives were environmentally conscience before environmentalism was cool.
Comment: Everyone should see "Who Killed the Electric Car." A fully electric, zero-emissions car existed (in fact several), but big oil, the current administration, and the big car companies had them all destroyed. They have the technology to make this happen, they just choose not to.
Comment: Everyone should see "Who Killed the Electric Car." A fully electric, zero-emissions car existed (in fact several), but big oil, the current administration, and the big car companies had them all destroyed. They have the technology to make this happen, they just choose not to.
Comment: I think however, while any manufacturer should work to improve their mpg on their cars, the problem with the unprofitability of hybrids for manufacturers is the fact that the people buying cars are not buying hybrids because the consumers themselves are not "green" conscious. They aren't willing to fork over the extra money to buy a small hybrid when they can spend less or the same amount on a larger suv or truck. Only products that have managed to garner mass appeal have been able to alter the expensiveness of making them into a profitable enterprise. Trucks are historically one of the most popular types of vehicles - and one of the most likely kinds of vehicles to maintain their value - why? Because it's macho and cool to have one but also - it's useful and versatile. Cars like the prius are not. Maybe they need to make some truck hybrids instead of the suvs and small cars they have been focusing on.
Comment: It's a shame a compny like toyota it's not making their best in order to preserv the enironment. Whe can tell this because there are another carmakers that don't oppose to this new legislation. But indded, companys are not made to save the wolrd or even do the "good" to anybody. Most of the time companys say they want the best for their customer but they actually just want the money. We can't expect companys do good things, companys are mean to make money. This is really complicated because we all are part of the problem. The principle of demand and supply tell us that. Companys usually make wath people want. but so many time the needs are manipulated, there is a lot of interaction. Many times we don't really need something but we want to be like anybody else and then it turns into a need. In other hand this world it's manupulated for the people with the money. To realize that we just have to look around carfully. If we pay attention we can notice invention don't go at the same speed. If we compere cellphones, computers, sattelites, electronics etc, doesn't match with the progrees in cars. Cars still the same on the engine since 1900. Only more fancy staff on the interior and exterior but engines still about the same, actually same system. so it's imposible to believe that we went to the moon already 30 years ago and we are not able to find diferent kind of power than oil. Actually I understand countries like Brazil don't depend on oil already. In short, I believe technollogy has not being relase untill all the oil on earth is gone. There are politician and companys who don't want this to happend. Indded, why to kill the chiken of the eggs.
Comment: While penguin???s understanding of economic theory may be wrong, seeing a price increase with a drop in demand has precedence, in Cleveland Ohio the water rate has been increased to cover a %17 drop in consumption and revenue shortfalls. I think we should also remember who we're dealing with when it comes to oil. OPEC has moved to decrease supply whenever the target revenue drops, I don't think it would be inconceivable to think that OPEC would move to decrease supply even further if demand were to drop due to an increase in US CAFE standards. What penguin stated about prices going up with a drop in demand is incorrect only based on theory (supply being fixed). In actuality we could see a rise in prices with a drop in demand thanks to our buddies in the Middle East.
Comment: Yes, the principle of Supply and Demand holds only to the extent that there is a *free* market. It is worth clarifying that reducing demand does not guarantee that prices will fall. And yes, there are historical examples of markets where a single supplier can fix whatever price it wants. However, taken in the context of the overall discussion, this comment might be misconstrued. Why?
First, everything I read these days indicates that OPEC has become a paper tiger. There is infighting within the organization, and other producers have stepped up their output. Of course these things can change fast, and there is a lot of "closed door" information we may not know. But at least for the foreseeable future, the world oil market appears to be closer to free than not. As a result, if we are able to reduce demand somewhat soon, the most likely result is that gas prices will decrease. Maybe not by as much as they would in a totally free market, but they will tend down, not up.
Second, let's suppose some overwhelmingly powerful oil cartel emerges, or re-emerges, now, or in the near future. In that case, unless we kick our oil habit enough to be energy self-sufficient, or close to it, that cartel is going to have us completely by the balls no matter what we do. Not a good position to be in, so maybe we ought to take some precautions now. Either way - cartel or no cartel - isn't the average consumer *economically* better off if we can reduce gas consumption? It appears to me that the implication of penguine's original post was that we would not be, and I suspect that most other people will read it that way too.
I anticipate someone is going to say, "If a cartel emerges, we can just send in the Marines and *take* the oil." Please consider what that might do. The best the average consumer can hope for in that scenario is that we'll replace a greedy Arab cartel with a greedy American one. In the worst case, the whole world might turn against us and life will become really miserable.
The Cleveland story sounds like a really interesting case study of government controlled monopoly. Thank you for mentioning it; I'd like to learn more. It opens a whole new topic of conversation though (tax policy, etc.), so we shouldn't try to discuss it here.
Comment: While I agree with the principle of reducing oil dependency (no one in there right mind outside of the oil industries, oil producing nations, etc would argue with it) assuming prices will go down because of the reduction is not guaranteed.
The point i think penguine was trying to make is that oil prices aren't going to go down which I agree with(although it also seemed like penguine was taking the attitude of why bother which I don't agree with)
I don't know about OPEC being a paper tiger (in the future, they may be now), it seems from what I've read they're biggest point of contention (with regards to infighting) is by how much to reduce supply.
OPEC cutting supply in reply to a drop in demand (and they're revenue) is not a hypothetical situation, it has happened (numerous times, I reference just about every newspaper in the nation) and it has resulted in an increase in the price of oil.
A drop in demand (assuming US drop in demand is larger than increase in demand in India/China) will make oil producing nations more desperate to squeeze every penny out of there resources while there are still people willing to pay for it.
Even if oil producing nations act on there own and not as a cartel what do you think they will do? If you were an oil producing nation and saw a drop in revenue what would you do?
The Cleveland example is a very relevant one, basic econ theory would say an increase in price coupled with a drop in demand would result in driving the consumer out of the market. But we know that with oil (and in the Cleveland example water) what the heck are people going to do?
If nike decided today to charge $1000 for a pair of shoes you would just buy another brand (today) with oil moving to an alternative takes a lot of time and because of the time factor they (everyone involved with oil production) already have us by the balls.
The drop in US oil demand obviously won't be overnight even if we're all really motivated (and we should be) it is going to take time, and during that time it's going to be painful. The expression anything that doesn't kill you will only make you stronger will be put to the test (hopefully it doesn't kill us).
The belief that oil prices will never go down no matter what we do is what motivates a sophisticated person to do everything in their power to end there individual dependence on the substance (in practical terms, ridding yourself of all oil based products would be near impossible unless they invented a new substance to make plastic from)
Comment: yeah because all that manufacturing puts healthy clean oxygen into the air....
Bored? Check out my blog www.curiousread.com
Jon Boy
Comment: Why What already covered the economics lesson on Supply and Demand. Take a look at his response based on solid economic theory, and not useless ridicule. Explaining why Penguine's post was incorrect would be far more beneficial to the discussion than you mocking his theory.
Comment: Penguine, I'm intrigued by your comment. It seems as though you are saying that reduced demand results in increased prices. Where did you study to learn such novel business theory?
Comment: Whats the problem? I go to Germany all the time and I get cars of all sizes that get 35+ mpg! Last feb I rented a D50 Volvo station wagon and got 40 mpg while driving 120 mph (not kph). We in the US are getting ripped off big time!
Comment: I guess attacking the auto maker is easier than convincing everyone to buy fuel economy vehicles. The fact is, soon there won't be a market for gas guzzlers accept for comercial use hauling heavy loads and sorry "greeny" but that will pretty much always require burning lots of fuel. The laws of physics apply still. It's the soccer moms and dads with the "semi " size truck that they haul the kids around with that is wasting energy and polluting the enviroment for no reason. Don't worry gas is too expensive they'll sell it or the bank will forclose on there "mansion" size house.
Comment: I have developed a new device that can solve so many of these issues involving fuel economy, and emissions, I have laboratory tests proving its unprecedented results, and Imso sick and tired of getting people to listen to me, people I have the answer!!!!!!!! General Motors Idea department said they werent interested I even sent them the officially tested EPA aproved CARB certified laboratory printout showing a reduction in carbon monoxide of over 28%, hydrocarbons over 17% nox over 9% greenhouse gas 2% what does it take, how many more years, you would think that rather than wasting time fighting the law, they would spend time finding the solution, but I guess thats to hard especially when people send them the data they arent looking for
Comment: Patent the device - then provide all the pertinent data in multiple editorials to raise awareness. I would expect you to be approached either by a large or small investor to start marketing it. Can it be used on a vehicle that's already out? If it could be purchased separately to upgrade an existing vehicle, I think you'd have a better response.
Comment: I guess no one gets it yet. The oil field have peaked, meaning we are on the downward slope of the bell curve. Don't believe me but all the info I have gathered, read and heard indicates that there will be less and less fuel as time trudges on. So as I drive my 1994 Subaru Legacey wagon between 55-60 on the freeway so I get 30 miles to the gallon I see hundreds and I do mean hundreds of V8's that get 14 or so miles to the gallon going 75-80 mph. What gives, doesn't anyone get what is about to happen here? Gas will be over 4 dollars soon and there just isn't enough gas to go around. The Chinese and the Indians are starting to consume these products at an insaiable rate and as I said earlier gas won't be here too much sooner. 10 years from now gas will be hard to find. Last issue is the amount of people on this planet. The more people the more gets consumed. I never had children and subcribe to all natural green power.
Comment: I don't know where you get your info. Oil is in much bigger demand,but there is still alot of oil in the ground.
Many oil experts believe this. where do you get your information? How do you think the world will survive if we get off of oil? The energy must come from somewhere? How about nuclear(the french seem to have this down) NO, i don't get people that make up facts like you are doing.. People said the same thing about oil 30 years ago...incorreclty
No I don't get
Comment: I bought my first foreign car in 1973 -- a worn out 1969 Toyota Corolla that had a decent 1971 engine installed. The Corolla engine was famous for burning exhaust valves, and I replaced a few (thankfully, I'm a mechanic). However, when I sold the car, with 165,000 miles on it -- it was still running fine. Recall that in Spring of 1973, our oil prices first started to spike due to the first Arab Oil Embargo. I was furiouis at Detriot. If I "babied" my 1968 Impala, I could get 15 mpg @ 55mph. I _routinely_ got 40mpg with my old Corolla. Yes, that car was a "fly-weight," but engine and body technology have surely improved since 1971. No? Can't meet the 35 mpg standard by 2020? Pla-leeze...
Comment: I bought my first foreign car in 1973 -- a worn out 1969 Toyota Corolla that had a decent 1971 engine installed. The Corolla engine was famous for burning exhaust valves, and I replaced a few (thankfully, I'm a mechanic). However, when I sold the car, with 165,000 miles on it -- it was still running fine. Recall that in Spring of 1973, our oil prices first started to spike due to the first Arab Oil Embargo. I was furiouis at Detriot. If I "babied" my 1968 Impala, I could get 15 mpg @ 55mph. I _routinely_ got 40mpg with my old Corolla. Yes, that car was a "fly-weight," but engine and body technology have surely improved since 1971. No? Can't meet the 35 mpg standard by 2020? Pla-leeze...
Comment: think about this....if our cars are getting higher gas milages, what do you think is going to happen to the fuel prices across the board....common sense says it going to increas accordingly....people get a clue...and you say that fuel costs are too high now...just wait!
Comment: Actually, if cars were to get higher gas mileage, that would mean LESS demand for gas. When demand goes down relative to supply, prices DECREASE - just the opposite of what you say. Think about what happens to house prices when there are fewer buyers (they go DOWN). This is really basic, it's called the "Law of Supply and Demand."
So, penguine, since economic theory and history both say that your "common sense" on this point is dead wrong, maybe you should reconsider your claim (in previous post) that "Global warming is a farce and science has proven that!" Please, do some genuine research before you let your personal biases get in the way of the truth. Something isn't a fact just because you want to believe it is. That kind of thinking has already severely weakened this country; it needs to stop.
Comment: While penguin???s understanding of economic theory may be wrong, seeing a price increase with a drop in demand has precedence, in Cleveland Ohio the water rate has been increased to cover a %17 drop in consumption and revenue short falls. Lets not forgot we are takling about the oil industry. it should be noted that Opec has moved to decrease supply whenever their revenue drops below there target, I don't think it would be inconceivable to think that OPEC would move to decrease supply even further if demand were to drop due to an increase in US CAFE standards. What penguin stated about prices going up with a drop in demand is incorrect only based on theory (supply being fixed). In actuality we could see a rise in prices with a drop in demand thanks to our buddies in the Middle East.
Comment: Yes, the principle of Supply and Demand holds only to the extent that there is a *free* market. It is worth clarifying that reducing demand does not guarantee that prices will fall. And yes, there are historical examples of markets where a single supplier can fix whatever price it wants. However, taken in the context of the overall discussion, this comment might be misconstrued. Why?
First, everything I read these days indicates that OPEC has become a paper tiger. There is infighting within the organization, and other producers have stepped up their output. Of course these things can change fast, and there is a lot of "closed door" information we may not know. But at least for the foreseeable future, the world oil market appears to be closer to free than not. As a result, if we are able to reduce demand somewhat soon, the most likely result is that gas prices will decrease. Maybe not by as much as they would in a totally free market, but they will tend down, not up.
Second, let's suppose some overwhelmingly powerful oil cartel emerges, or re-emerges, now, or in the near future. In that case, unless we kick our oil habit enough to be energy self-sufficient, or close to it, that cartel is going to have us completely by the balls no matter what we do. Not a good position to be in, so maybe we ought to take some precautions now. Either way - cartel or no cartel - isn't the average consumer *economically* better off if we can reduce gas consumption? It appears to me that the implication of penguine's original post was that we would not be, and I suspect that most other people will read it that way too.
I anticipate someone is going to say, "If a cartel emerges, we can just send in the Marines and *take* the oil." Please consider what that might do. The best the average consumer can hope for in that scenario is that we'll replace a greedy Arab cartel with a greedy American one. In the worst case, the whole world might turn against us and life will become really miserable.
The Cleveland story sounds like a really interesting case study of government controlled monopoly. Thank you for mentioning it; I'd like to learn more. It opens a whole new topic of conversation though (tax policy, etc.), so we shouldn't try to discuss it here.
Comment: Global warming is a farce and science has proven that!
Our govt has withheld evidence that the warmest year ever recorded was 1934 and 5 of the top 10 were in the 30's...so what does this say...people are stupid not to question these hippy tree huggers...
Fossil fuels may not the best fuel source, but I enjoy getting 17mpg in my tacoma...at least I know its not made by "american" standards and that truck can last my the rest of my life.
So who is going to pay for carbon credits when Al Gore uses his jet to go across the world and has a house that consumes more power than the city it is nearest too....Who is the bigger hypocrit now...
I support toyota in their quest and lawsuit.
Now only if they made a motorcycle, I would be incomplete bliss.
My bumper sticker reads "hydro-carbon powered eco vehicle" and if you dont like it....walk!!!
Comment: Is anyone else offended by the Toyota add that shows the father excitedly telling the kids about the new treehouse and the kids are sitting in the van playing video games? They ask if it has bucket seats and some other nonsense then opt to sit in the car all day instead of enjoying the outdoors in their new treehouse! This is a company that claims to be "a part of the greening of America" ? Ok, let's send a message to kids that it's okay to sit in a vehicle, using up lots of energy I'm sure, to pass the time instead of getting outside and playing in a treehouse. I find it to be absolutely hypocritical and disappointing.
Comment: Is anyone else offended by the Toyota add that shows the father excitedly telling the kids about the new treehouse and the kids are sitting in the van playing video games? They ask if it has bucket seats and some other nonsense then opt to sit in the car all day instead of enjoying the outdoors in their new treehouse! This is a company that claims to be "a part of the greening of America" ? Ok, let's send a message to kids that it's okay to sit in a vehicle, using up lots of energy I'm sure, to pass the time instead of getting outside and playing in a treehouse. I find it to be absolutely hypocritical and disappointing.
Comment: Could it be possible that Toyota is just trying to keep their corner on the market? They are saying that it is not technologically feasible to produce cars that get 43 mpg by 2020, but the Prius proves that it is technologically feasible. However if all cars were required to get that kind of gas mileage then Toyota wouldn't have any advantage in the "green" market. Anyways that???s just a thought that came to my mind when I read this article.
Comment: Could it be possible that Toyota is just trying to keep their corner on the market? They are saying that it is not technologically feasible to produce cars that get 43 mpg by 2020, but the Prius proves that it is technologically feasible. However if all cars were required to get that kind of gas mileage then Toyota wouldn't have any advantage in the "green" market. Anyways that???s just a thought that came to my mind when I read this article.
Comment: Some people in this Forum just dont see the cause and effect of the fossil fuel issue cause they never experienced it in their life time so far. I accept your feelings thoughts and motivations for expressing yourselves in disbelief fashion. I was like you for many years and did my part to contribute negatively to the environment. I do not call or feel myself being green or part of that movement. I simply have experienced the changes to the environment and because of it have formed my own opinions and conclusions. I believe that in whats left of my lifetime, I will see people suffer and die as a result of the rampant dependency and fossil fuel use. I believe that Thousands of peolpe will die from heat, lack of water and food to support life because it doesnt rain where they are at. That will gradually expand year by year until a natural balance is struck. Remember the Dinosaurs? The community that studies them would have you believe they died from an asteroid crashing the Earth. That was one event! But they can??t explain the other disappearances that took place before that. I believe the dinosaurs disappeared because they depleted their food supply! There simply were too many of them eating everything in sight. Now is our turn! There are too many of us for our planet to support us. Then on top of that we are polluting our planet faster than the dinosaurs. Thats why a change is in the works by nature. Most of us will disappear and the ones that are left if we dont correct our mistakes, we will totally disappear like the dinosaurs. That is why I sit confortably reading forums like this one and watching the polluting violators expressed themselves as to why they are so rightous in their beliefs nothing is happening and there is nothing to worry about. I will do everything I can to contribute positively to ensuring I do not pollute the environment. I unlike some of you did get rid of all my vehicles! I use a bicycle or public transportation. I also recycle. Thats my contributions to a clean environment. If everyone followed my example, we could add years to humanity.
Comment: Thank you lightningmike. Your story gives some reason for hope. It is inspiring to hear about your conservation efforts - I hope others see you as an example.
I think the story of how you got to where you are is even more important. These days, people think they have to "stay the course" to protect their ego even when evidence says they are wrong. We need more people like you who aren't afraid to change their mind when presented with new evidence.
Comment: One of the ways Oil corporations convince Americans that oil is the best energy source available is by insisting that current technologies guarantee the safest, cleanest, and most secure means for drilling and transporting oil. The public relations machine run by oil companies is so smooth, it has been successful at staving off government investment in renewable energy technologies, auto industry investment in more efficient automobiles, and attempts to block drilling in America's most serene natural habitats. Again and again we are all duped by this enormously powerful industry that acts as the perpetual victim while reaping the world's largest revenues in history.
http://greenpieceblog.blogspot.com/2007/11/oil-spills-on-2-coasts.html
Comment: One of the ways Oil corporations convince Americans that oil is the best energy source available is by insisting that current technologies guarantee the safest, cleanest, and most secure means for drilling and transporting oil. The public relations machine run by oil companies is so smooth, it has been successful at staving off government investment in renewable energy technologies, auto industry investment in more efficient automobiles, and attempts to block drilling in America's most serene natural habitats. Again and again we are all duped by this enormously powerful industry that acts as the perpetual victim while reaping the world's largest revenues in history.
http://greenpieceblog.blogspot.com/2007/11/oil-spills-on-2-coasts.html
Comment: I WAS SO PLEASED THAT GREENMOM WASTHE FIRST ONE TO COME AND TELL THE TRUTH.yOU GOT A GOOD CLASS-ACTION SUIT IF YOU GET YOUR FELLOW OWNERS GET UP ENOUGH GUMPTON AND GET TOGETHER.BUT MOST OF THEM WILL NOT ADMIT THEY HAVE BEEN SUCKERED BY TOYOTA.dID YOU GET YOUR TAX DEDUCT FOR BUYING THE LAWN MOWER.eVEN THE U.S.ENERGY DEPT. WAS IN ON THE SCAM,FALSIFYING THE MILEAGE FOR YEARS.NEXT TIME BUY AMERICAN.LAST BUT NOT LEAST .WHEN THE FLASHLIGHT BATTERIES GO BAD.IT MIGHT COCT YOU $4500 TO REPLACE.MAKE THEM SPELL OUT THE WARRANTY,THAT WILL MAKE YOU CRINGE AND CRY AT THE SAME TIME...CAIO
Comment: In 1987 I drove a Nissan Sentra that got 42 miles to the gallon. Why, if it was possible to beat 35 MPG then, is it suddenly Impossible now? The only reason anyone is arguing that they can't meet new mileage standards 12 years from now is GREED! And, of course, Toyota is going to side with Detroit. How are they going to distinguish their Prius from the competition if everyone has cars that get at least 35 MPG? Toyota's not concerned about the environment, only about becoming #1.
Comment: OK I usually dont like to comment on other comments but feel I must in order to make a point with some writers here. We have a winter home in Central America. Part of the area in our location there is called by the locals, "El arco seco". The dry arch! A swath of land about the size of Massachusetts that experienced desert like conditions and less than moderate rain for decades. But the past 4 years a significant change began and what was a semi arrid place now experiences flooding for over 9 months per year. But according to some of you this is just island reflections and average change. Look, average change to me is something that gradually changes over a period of time. But continuos, cronic and mounting change is drastic and caused by cataclismic uncontrolled events like our excessive dependency and rampant use of fossil fuels. The problem is that some of you are not experiencing the changes and live in areas where the changes are marginal which causes you to believe they are normal. No sir! There is something terribly wrong here and the sooner we start listening to the messengers, the sooner we can begin to correct the problems before its too late. Maybe some uf you are waiting till there is nothing to eat from farmers that cant produce. Then all youll have is that oil drink to fill your bellies up.
Comment: I did the "green" thing, thinking it was the "right" thing. I purchased a 2006 Toyota Highlander Hybrid, preaching to my teenagers we should all take gas consumption and environmental impact seriously.
I am left holding the Toyota bag with Toyota getting the goods: I get no more than 24 miles per gallon no matter how "hybrid" I drive. I have studied hybrid driving, used forty plus years of good driving record to apply hybrid driving, talked with Toyota service about gas mileage improvement, downloaded fancy Toyota computer interface updates at the dealer, all to no avail. The Toyota Highlander Hybrid will simply not budge from that 24 mpg.
Once, waiting for a red light change, a fellow Toyota Highlander Hybrid driver honked, and yelled out "you getting good mileage on your Highlander?'. Guess I'm not alone on this one. I looked up the "lemon law" for my state, read about how hard it is to prove false advertising by Toyota, and took a pass. Just wish there was a class action suit...
I figure I'm out $6000.00. I figure my kids are out what could have been an excellent learning point on "doing the right green thing" when it comes to our choices in life, even if they cost more upfront.
Comment: Green enthusiasts dream of 100mpg vehicles. People in Hell want ice water. These people lack the knowledge to develop such a vehicle so they criticize a company that two years ago could do no wrong. Toyota is not saying they are against reaching those standards, they are saying you can't legislate a timetable for instituting technology that nobody has yet. I love this new way of arguing points. If you are against the war, you don't support the troops. If you vote against raising these standards on MPG, they you must want smog to envelop the globe.
Comment: Back on the mileage issue. Mileage can be increased to 100 MPG but its not in the oil producing companies intrest. Thats why the car manufacturers won??t do it. Because it will reduce consumption of fuels. This is bad for proffits! Since the late 50??s car manufacturers have had inventions of fuel system parts that will elevate mileage but have these stored away for perpetuity. Then there is the Hydrogen fuel issue. We could get rid of all the Middle East oil dependency problems in one single assembly line change to use alternative fuels to propel our vehicles and everything that is propelled by oil today. But no that would hurt the proffits and our interest abroad. Thats the bottom line. That is why I remain mostly silent on these issues. Why? Because I know that the human excesses in fossil fuel consumption days are coming to an end soon. Much sooner than anyone thinks. Then the changes to alternative fuels will be forced upon all of us. There will be no choice! Even the die hard car manufacturers will blink on this issue. But thanks to their negligence today, it will cost the world about a Billion and a half of its population as we choke to death in the heat and polluting smoke. Because someone always has to die in order to make believer out of the people that are oppressing the rest of us.
Comment: Inviromentalist, ar parasites, always looking for a "feel good" article to keep funds flowing in from ingorant people. Toyota and other Aisian auto makers have always been the most fuel ifficient and qaulity vehicles on the market.. Domestic vehicles can't compare to that quality are value.... The inviromentalist are a detrement to our Nation......
Comment: g
Comment: Yeah, a 100 gallon per mile carbureator, remember when they still used those things? I guess the car companys developed fuel injection to further elaborate a hoax that has been masterfully coordinated by automakers, oil companys, and our government. Oh, dont forget, all the foreign governments that have kept it a secret too, and all their car companys. It's one giant secret held by thousands worldwide that none of the rest of us have been able to crack. Where do they have their annual meeting? Or could it be possible that propelling a 2000-5000 pound vehicle requires x amount of "work" (work=force x distance) if the distance is equal to 100 miles the need force requires more than 1 gallon of gasoline, but then hey the laws of physics could be a giant conspiriacy theory to waste paper in high schools across america to keep the logging industry in business.... thanks for playing
Comment: I really don??t know what the fuss is all about when certain people mock the global warming issue. It doesn??t take you to be a rocket scientist to figure out whats happening all around us. We humans are creating more heat with emissions from car, factory etc. than the planet can dissipate. Most if not all is toxic! The planet is heating up! These changes must have an impact on the environment we live in. At the rate we are heating up the planet it will not take centuries for the effects to begin to materialize but a few decades. I firmly believe that these changes will begin to reduce human populations by small amounts first and then at an accelerated rate until nature reduces the heating trend by reducing the creators of the heat to acceptable levels. So for those of you who mock the messengers of today beware you could be the first ones to disappear from the planet first for not listening, observing and doing something about the problem. Cleaning up the planet and reducing emissions is everybodys problem not just the greens as you call them.
Comment: Not to dissuade you from your beliefs, but there is no conclusive evidence that the planet is heating up beyond normal trends. Upper atmospheric temperature data doesn't support your claim; there is huge debate about the supposed increase in ground temperatures - how much is from land use changes and heat island effects.
Now I agree that we should be actively engaged in conservation efforts. I prefer to live in a clean world and want my children and grand children to enjoy one as well. I ride my bike to work a couple of times a wekk. I drive a motorcycle which gets 60 mpg, and I car pool when opportunity presents. I think this whole debate over 35 mpg vs. 25 mpg is silly. Market forces will drive fuel economy. As gas prices rise, people will start to look for more fuel efficient cars. Car manufacturers will introduce new lines of cars that cater to those seeking fuel economy.
There will still be those who want to drive the V12 Camarros and V8 Mustangs (If I could afford it, I'd drive one around too, occasionally). I highly doubt that these people will be the first to disappear from the earth. In fact, as storms and flooding increase, and more of the earth turns to desert, as you predict, those driving big SUVs that can cross swollen rivers may be the only ones who survive. :)
Comment: As a communications engineer, I continue to be amazed at how the public continues to accept the lies of the car manufacturers, be foreign or domestic on their car mileage technical limitations explanations. It is no secret that by modifying fuel delivery systems, a 100 mile per gallon goal can be achieved. And that is with todays available technology.
Comment: HOORAY FOR TOYOTA!!
Someone is finally standing up to the GW alamrinst. Global warming is a hoax. recently, the founder of the Weather Channel condemed the media for portraying the alleged man-made climate as a catastrophe. In August of this year, NASA had to re-calculate thier numbers and found that the warmest year since 1885 was 1934.
If you really look for th information it is out there. All I can say is QUESTION AUTHORITY, especially if it is trying force you to lower your standard of living.
Comment: I''m an advocate for sustainable development and have committed my career to it, but fundamental environmentalists want corportions to "green" themselves immediately with no regard to the negative economic impacts. I can't wait to live in a carbon free society, but I understand that our economy would collapse if we closed all oil and coal companies today, which is what I think the Sierra Club would like to see. It has to be a gradual but aggressive change. I guarantee Toyota knows how to make this happen better than the Sierra Club or the Federal Government. If they think the proposed standards are too high for where we are economically and technologically speaking, they're probably right.
Comment: How are we ever going to have a car that gets over 45 mpg by 2020? With these gas prices now what will they be in 2020? The Government bought a patent for a carburater, that achieved over 75 mpg, where did that go. We have the technology, to achieve a vehical that would run on other sources besides gas, but it's all about the going green, making money, not about saving the earth. By 2020 if we did still use Gasoline, prices would be outragous. And we would still only see the same amount of mileage for what we pay now. No different then they are now in the amount of gas we pay for and drive. It's a lose lose situation. Inflation , scarcity of the product the demand for the product, the only thing thats turning green is George Bush's Pocketbook. Get the goverment to understand that what American's want is anything that will get us from point A to Point B as quickly as possible, and as cheap as possible, while being entertained. Use our other resources that we have and make them available to the public as soon as possible, why wait. Give us a option to make a change. If the only thing we are offered is gasoline cars at every dealer, then how are we going to ever stop buying products we are used to. Get the goverment out of the oil buisness, and maybe then will we see a change in the way we travel, and our economy.
Comment: HOORAY FOR TOYOTA!!!
They had the courage to stand up to the Global Warming Alarmists. Despite what Al Gore says, the debate is not over. Many hundreds of real scientist are looking at the science and facts and have concluded that GW is not man-caused. Look at the MSNBC message boards and you will find many scientific studies debunking Algaores claims. What the GW alarmists really want is to turn this country into a socialists utopia. The government under that guise of making us "carbon nuetral" will tax us for every thing Carbontaxes on out houses, on our food, on our recreation. There is afoot an effort to stop the mortgage tax write-off to force us to live in smaller houses, This is just a few of hundreds of restrictions planned to be put on us in the name of a theory that can't be proven.
Comment: I'm sure Toyota is shaking in their boots at the prospect of riling the likes of the Sierra Club. I am pretty sure that the effect on Toyota's bottom line will be in the range of 1/100 of 1%.
Now, as for me, proud owner of a gas guzzling SUV and a 1966 Mustang V8, I have long been an admirer of the Prius and plan to purchase the second generation model.
Go hug a tree.
Comment: Toyota actually sold a few hundred zero emission RAV4 EVs a few years ago; it crushed a thousand others, as five other major makers did with all of their electric vehicles.
Why not mass-produce and sell the RAV4 EV? Its nickel metal hydride batteries are holding up well, delivering over 100 miles per charge even after 100,000 miles. Used RAV4 EVs sell for almost the same price as they did new!
Comment: I am so mad at all these liying car companies about being able to have a car get good mileage...All the great mileage carburetors are bought up by the gas companies, and hidden from the World... I saw a 54 Caddy with a home made carb that got no less than 75 MPG in town, a gas Co. bought it from him for millions, and said not to talk about it, ever!
Comment: Toyota is only fighting tough mileage reg's because they don't want competition. If Detroit is forced to go green, they will no longer have the monopoly on good, affordable high MPG cars. It is the American people's fault for allowing corporations to run our government and push us around!
Comment: Toyota just wants to be the ONLY alternative to the gas-guzzling American cars. If Congress passes tough mileage reg's, Detroit will be forced to go green. Then Toyota will have competition...Get it?
Comment: I get 12 mpg on the hwy. I dont like it but what are you going to do??
Comment: I have a daily commute of 60 miles roundtrip. My previous vehicle was made by one of the big 3. This vehicle gave me an average of 12 miles to the tank. When gas prices last increased, I was paying $50-three times a week to fill up that truck.
With over $150 spent on gas a week, I figured I could buy a new car for less than $600 a month. I looked at the Prius, but this vehicle is very expensive in Texas, and the dealers will not budge on price.
I purchased another vehicle-a non-hybrid with better gas mileage. I figured a vehicle does not have to be a hybrid to decrease emissions into the atmosphere. My current vehicle gives me a weekly commute with one fillup a week costing about $30 a week.
I figure filling up less, not only saves my money but is good for the environment since I am burning less gasoline. There are other alternatives to Toyota!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Check out the following websites for green information.
www.treehugger.com
www.getnitrogen.com
www.begreennow.com
David
Comment: I get 12 mpg on the highway. I dont like it, but what are you going to do.
Comment: It is great to see that the mainstream media picks up this story. www.autoinsiderdaily.com and the other automobile websites have been reporting Toyota???s anti-fuel economy stance for months.
Comment: The Prius is not the greenmobile the environmentalists and Toyota would like you to believe. Battery production for the hybrids involves some of the most hazardous materials and invasive mining techniques in manufacturing. If you consider the total energy required to produce a Prius, it wipes out any benefit you might gain in driving the car. Battery recycling is also expensive, and battery life is still an unknown until a substantial number of these hybrids start to reach their anticipated battery replacement cycle.
A well tuned, efficient internal combustion engine, with an efficient powertrain, is still able to maximize the mileage traveled from the BTUs in a pound of fuel better than any other power source. Now if the auto makers would use supplemental flywheels to store regenerative braking energy, then we'd be getting somewhere. Until then, the newer direct injection diesels with their particulate traps, catalytic converters, and low sulphur fuels will provide the best mpg value.
Comment: Thank you for finally pointing this out. I have read some horror stories about how a lot of the metal recycling/extraction from electronic and battery recycling is polluting 3rd world centers and showing up in tox screens from the poor folks who are involved in the activity. It seems we just remove the problem from our area and ship it to where the laws are loose and the cost is cheap.
Buy a car that gets good gas mileage and properly maintain it. Dispose of the waste oil and tires properly and you will be doing far more for helping the envirement than you think.
Comment: build 2 cylinder engines with motors that run on nuclear fusion or electric lipo batterries if submarines in the ocean can withstand the kind of contrstraints and pressures they have in the deep ocean then they should come up with technology that can run on nuclear without making it unsafe and also for a terrorist to make a bomb out of
Comment: I purchased my '07 Prius just last June. I did this with the forethought that gasoline prices were only going to escalate, and after crunching numbers, realized that I would be saving $240 per month on $3.00 a gallon at the pump. My Prius averages 50 to 51 mpg (calculated the old fashioned way, not by what the on-board computer shows). I was born and raised a Chevrolet man, but many years ago when fiscal circumstances forced me to buy a second hand Toyota, I was converted after only driving it for two weeks. I couldn't ask for a more reliable vehicle, and every vehicle after that first Corolla has been a Toyota. I would love to buy an American automobile, but until the Big 3 can produce a comparable vehicle melding reliability with economy, my hard earned money will go to Toyota.
Comment: GENERAL MOTORS HAS 3 OF THE 10 TOP CARS FOR RELIABILITY ACCORDING TO J.D.POWERS THIS YEAR. THE BUICK WAS RANKED #1. SO DON'T TELL ME ABOUT TOYOTA. A JAP CAR. ALSO GM HAS THE BEST OVERALL MILEAGE OF ALL MANUFACTURERS. DO YOUR HOME WORK BEFORE YOU SPEAK,
Comment: American auto companies had better focus on the energy efficient development of their cars and less on lobbying or they all will go down. It is about time that the oil/auto pigs become a distant memory.
Comment: Snoofy wrote: Buy American, the job you save might be your own"
Yeah, sure. Award American corporations for moving production overseas, cutting middle class jobs and rewarding their bloated execs with mulitmillion dollar bonuses. No thanks.
Let's get Darwinian here. If the car companies can't produce high mileage/low pollution vehicles, then those dinosaurs they build deserve to go the way of the dinosaur...extinction.
Comment: 35MPG by 2020? what a joke. If we are still dependent on oil in 2020; the price of a gallon of gas by then;at the rate we are going, will be14-15 dollars a gallon, if we are luckey. If by 2020, we have not been able to free ourselves from dependence on oil/gas, then 35 MPG is a step beckwards from where we are in 2007
Comment: buy american the job you save might be your own.
Comment: I'm a Brit living here in the US for the last 12 years. I'm not sure how much Americans know about European cars but they have various styles in that commonly attain more than 50mpg. They have variants of high priced executive vehicles which use clean burn diesel and can easily achieve 40mpg. The Prius is a White Elephant in Europe, hence Toyota's re-design of the Prius because it can't match the clean burning diesels, where gas is now $8 a gallon. Ever seen a BMW 635 diesel? or an Audi A6 turbo diesel ? They can all achieve 35mpg. Honda and Mercedes are all making even cleaner versions of the current diesel platform. It's just a question of greed and mis-representation. This would be an opportune time for Detroit to strike and take the high ground. Check out the new Ford Modeo Turbo Diesel, this car cleans the clock of BMW and Toyota!!!!
Comment: You just cannot compare a diesel engine with a gas engine since diesel has a lot more LHV (Lower Heating Value). That means diesel has much more energy in a gallon than gas. 35 gpm should be no problem for a diesel. Also, who told you that burning diesel is clean? Not one diesel car that exists in Europe is clean enough for the tough regulation in the US. In order to meet the standard in the US, diesel engines would have to have at least 3 different catalysts which boosts the price up to a point where is not even marketable. Please refrain from making comparisons between gas a diesel engines as far as mpg because there are a lot of complications involved.
Comment: They can't sell that many cars because they are so expensive!
Comment: Talk about Nazis! We live in a different world today - population, pollution,consumption. If you think you have the freedom to do anything that you want your selfish stupidity is apparent. The US and other developed nations better think out their course of action because it will, ands has backfired on all of us.
Comment: I agree completely. I am still young, but have owned many cars. the two that stand out though are my previous 91 Honda Accord (28-30 mpg) and my current 04 Nissan Sentra (23-25 mpg). I really dont understand why my 13 year younger/smaller car gets such bad gas mileage. With all the new technology it should easily reach the 30mpg mark even with a bigger 2.5L engine. I should have kept my 2001 Pontiac Trans Am. It matched the Nissan Sentra's mileage (or better) and was a lot faster with the V8 and more fun to drive!
Comment: Hey EnviroNazis, get over it. Buy what you want and let others do the same. If the shoe was on the other foot, and someone was telling you what kind of car to drive, all of you would be whining about how YOUR individual rights were being abused. What a bunch of phonies.
Comment: I like you pagosa99 Our indidvidual rights are being abused now? If the Dems win, we will all be forced to live in communism-like 800sq ft condos next to a transportation center. They will use protecting us from GW as their excuse.
Comment: pagosa99....I can't buy the clean diesels that I want because they don't sell them in the US. So I am being told what kind of car to drive. Have you seen the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car?" I would have loved to own an EV until they were all destroyed needlessly. The shoe is on the other foot and OUR rights are being abused. If you wanted an EV you can't get one. So who is the phony?
Comment: I drive a '93 Honda Accord. On average, I get 30 MPG. How is it so hard to reach 35 with new technology? Shame on the Detroit Three and Toyota. The only thing green about them is their wallets.
Comment: It amazing that in Europe the majority of cars are burning clean diesel fuel. Here in New York you cannot buy a clean diesel Jeep Liberty, and for good reason - the clean fuel is not available for purchase.......
Comment: How is it that cars in Europe can get such good gas mileage using diesel motors and we can't seem to get it here? Gas will continue to get more expensive because we have an increasing demand for a shrinking supply as well as a weakening dollar to buy it with. Auto makers have fought every shift, whether it was for unleaded gasoline or catalytic converters. It's become their automatic reaction to fight change.
As long as we allow lobbyists and corporations influence in our government we will always have trouble getting things done.
Comment: Doesn't surprise me. If they were really concerned about the environment, they wouldn't build new factories--however "green" they claim they are--in cornfields, they would renovate old mill buildings in inner cities--but then, if they did that, they might have to deal with unions.
Comment: I remember the energy crisis in the mid 70's and in response my parents went from the big station wagon to a Datsun B-210 hatchback. Those cars got 35mpg back then, what's the big deal now? It shouldn't take any car manufacturer until 2022 to meet fuel efficiencies that we had 30 years ago!
Comment: If you also remember you had to get out and push it up the hills
Comment: I never had to push my B-210 up a hill. Maybe my old VW Beetle. Fuel economy targets can be met easily - get rid of the big engines except for real utility use. A Toyota Camry 4-cylinder easily has all the power and passing acceeleration one needs, gets much better fuel economy than the Camry 6-cylinder and has a big trunk. This is just an example. Or you can buy a boxy SUV one with 4-wheel-drive, whick few people need, let alone use. (I live in the great lakes snow belt and have never had 4-wheel-drive) and then complain about the cost of fuel. The American public needs to equate performance with reasonable fuel economy instead of with how fast a car will go or how big it is.
Comment: It is about economcs people. Supply and Demand. As long as the consumers are demanding big SUVs and willing to pay the high price of gas, the car companies are going to supply the products. When the demand curve shifts, then they will adjust their thinking. It is up to us as consumers to change our ways in order to send the proper message to all auto and oil companies.
Comment: I remember the gas shortage of the mid 70's and the Datsun B210 hatchback my folks bought in response to the energy crisis. Cars were getting 35mpg back then! What's the big deal now?
Comment: Where are the domestic manufacturers in all of this? Toyota has provided those same manufacturers with the powerplants (green) to be players in this 2020 green goal?
The way I see it. Toyota is more committed stateside than anyone and is responsible for the technology to even discuss a 35 average MPG car.
The real turncoats are the folks that aren't committed to sticking with Toyota while they "perfect" the technology in order for it to be beneficial to us..and them.
Comment: Boy everyone missed Toyota's real strategy. Of course they don't want new gas mileage laws because as the competition continues to roll out the guzzlers they continue to roll out the more economic models. If all the manufacturers were forced to produce higher mileage vehicles then Toyota will have greater competition.
Comment: Is there anyone out there that's knows the truth? I can remember back during the mid-70's, the Carter Administration and gas-rationing - there was so much talk that "...the technology already exists to produce a car that gets 75+ mpg...". I'm tired of hearing what Detroit can / can't do - what are the facts? I'd really like to hear a response from an independant veteran Automotive Engineer - not the EPA, some pollster / special interest group. What's it gonna' take? Is there some degree of economic feasibility here, or are we talking about a $20,000 fuel system? Thanx - Honest.
Comment: afsmike is correct. There is a ratio of air/fuel that must be maintained for the catalytic converter to properly function and convert most of the exhaust fumes into "harmless" CO2. The major problem with any combustion process is that it gives of exhaust. Through clever tricks, we can change the gasses into something we think is less harmful - trading acid rain for increased CO2 emissions for example. However, chemistry can't be denied.
If you really look at the big picture and remember that people have to drive, you need to start looking at pollution per energy produced. Flame me if you like, but I'm still of the opinion that we should build large scale nuclear reactors and run electric cars. Even large scale clean burning coal plants would produce less pollution per energy that could be used to charge electric cars. A well designed coal plant produces the equivalent pollution of a few hundred cars and could be used to power thousands of electric vehicles.
Comment: the major problem is actually counter-intutive, if you run a car lean enough, [lean is when you run the engine with less fuel and more air, which is 80% nitrogen], you get oxides of nitrogen, a regulated emission in the united states--not in the U.k. also, the particulate emissions in the U.K. are not regulated. the particulates in diesel and bio-diesel, are known carcinogens. the U.S. has the most stringent eemissions laws for vehicles anywhere
Comment: Why is it that in Europe, Asia and Australia the cars there are already getting 50-60mpg, but it is "impossible" for them to do it here???? The car makers already have higher standards there. We have the lowest mpg rate standard of ANY country in this world-including China!!!!! Why is it so hard for them to make the same cars here???
Comment: that answer is simple, everywhere else in the world most cars run on diesel, wich by the way is illegal in california, and in maine. maybe other places as well
Comment: you can get 35 mpg but you need to stop putting larger engines the cars when i started buying toyotas (camry) , the 1991 camry i had 4 cylnder got 42 mpg . every year i bought a new toyota they thought they had to increase engine power (so called public demand) i was very happy with my first toyotas preformance and dont need larger engines the speed limit is 55 dont need a 300 horse power engine to drive that speed
Comment: Drive a Prius for a week and you will applaud Toyota. The car is truly an innovation. At a lifetime mileage of 48.2 and 30,000 miles I saved $2250.00 in gas over my previous mini-van. I will not own a non-hybrid car again for savings and the environment. People make choices, the car companies try to build what people want. US consumers want heart throbbing acceleration and big SUV's. Consumers have a choice now!
Comment: If you want to save money operating an automobile, the 48 mpg Toyota Prius is not the way to go. Instead, you should buy a 33 mpg Toyota Corolla for $7000 less. Based on a gasoline cost of $4 per gallon and driving 15,000 miles per year, it would take the Prius more than twelve (12) years to make up the $7000 in mileage savings. If the extra $7000 investment in the Prius is also taken into consideration, earning 5% interest per year on the $7000 investment pushes the breakeven point for buying a Toyota Prius to thirty-two years!
I would buy at Toyota Prius if the price tag would decrease significantly. The solution to greatly reducing our use of gasoline is to make it cheaper to drive a high-mileage auto, hybrid or otherwise. I will not buy a costly high mileage car just because the Ayatollahs of the environmental movement say so.
One thing that the advocates of the 45 mpg auto seem to forget is that reducing automobile weight is the most direct route to increasing mileage to the 45 mpg figure. It is also the route to significantly higher accident fatalities, so, the route to a 45 mpg average fleet mileage is not as simple as the technically-challenged politicians such as Rep. Markey claim. Will the state and federal governments take responsibilities for enaction legislation that causes many more highway deaths? I doubt it. Toyota is correct: it would be difficult to reach the 45 mpg goal for itself or any other auto maker, including Honda. You people may not like it but it is true.
The solution to our dependence on foreign fossil fuels is not the hydrogen economy, the disasterous corn-ethanol swindle, biodiesel or lithium-ion batteries for electric cars. It lies in developing and converting our economy to the diesel engine getting 25-30% better economy than the best gasoline engine.
Comment: Well, one point you missed was the $3150 tax credit that was included in the purchase of the Prius. The Corolla would have been a good choice I was only considered saving money. I agree that was part of it, but the other part was the hybrid environment factor and the technology factor of the Prius. I'm a computer engineer and I'm amazed by the Prius. I glad
