Prius Outpollutes Hummer

So, one could possibly make a living by having nickels thrown at them.

they should get one of those super soakers and load it with dog **** mixed with water, to make a puree, and shoot that at slow cars.

That way, no one will try to get your nickels.

Could always downgrade to pennies, but they have less impact due to their light weight.

How's that Prius running slappy? Did you get the one with the gaydar detector?

Oh, it runs beautifully. And of course I had the gaydar installed, silly pants. The car looks great next to the Subaru Forester and Mazda Miata in the garage. Don't forget the pretty rainbow stickers.

observation from across "the northern" border (wouldn't anyone to think i'm living on the other side of the wrong border :wink: ) .

the max speed on ontario highways is posted at 100 km - about 65 miles , but the traffic usually moves along at about 120-130 hm .
the signs posting the fines for exceeding the speed limit actually start listing the fines for driving in excess of 120 km !
some ontario drivers crossing to NY state at the 1000 island bridge forget that they've arrived in foreign territory and keep zooming along at 120-130 km - BIG MISTAKE ! the NY state troopers like to hide behind the shrubbery along I-85 and make some easy collections !
so when we cross the border : nice and easy does it !
on occasion i have actually had a state trooper trailing me for a few miles and gradually increasing his speed and creeping up on my bumber - the temptation to speed up to shake him off has sometimes wanted me to step on it - but i find that after a few miles they usually either speed up and pass or "go into hiding" to wait for other customers .
we usually meet them again at noon when "friends and foes" are having lunch in adjacent booths at denny's in watertown :wink: .
now that it is getting warmer , it's time to go across again for a day .
hbg

Make sure to tell the border patrol you are coming to the U.S. to work.

cj wrote :



when we cross , we usually just say : "shopping in watertown (or syracuse) " , and we get a wave and a friendly : "enjoy your day ! ' .
in all the years crossing we have never had to open the trunk once - hope it stays that way !
coming back across the border into canada - now that's a different story !
hbg

The original article is an opinion piece for a small college newspaper. The whole article is garbage.

1. Regarding new EPA mileage estimates, Demorro claims the Chevy Aveo's mileage puts it within "spitting distance" of the Prius. The new EPA combined mileage put the Chevy Aveo at 26 mpg, the Toyota Prius at 46 mpg. So I guess 20 miles more per gallon is "spitting distance."

2. The "Dust-to-dust" study is from a marketing firm, not a science journal. It arrives at an artificially high cost for the Prius by assigning it an arbitrary lifespan of 100k miles, and a Hummer 300k miles. There's Prius being used as cabs that have 200k on them now: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8839690/

And, insofar as a car lasting, what car do you expect to repair less? A Toyota Prius or a GM Hummer? You can check Consumer Reports for the answer to that one. A good analysis of the flaws in dust-to-dust is available at:
http://www.truedelta.com/blog/?p=48

3. The Sudbury info is seriously outdated, and the comment about moon buggies (like, when did Nasa test moon buggies ?- early 1970's) ought to have given the author a clue. Sudbury was polluted by a century of mining (1870 on). In fact, some of Sudbury's nickel went into making the Statue of Liberty. Currently, the mine is owned by INCO (not Toyota), and produces 100,000 tons of nickel a year, of which Toyota buys 1% (1000 tons). Blaming Toyota for the pollution at Sudbury is ludicrous. Nickel, by the way, is primarily used to make stainless steel. The Mail on Sunday newspaper, which ran the story the college article is a thin re-write of (visible here http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=417227&in_page_id=1770 ), used a stock photo you can buy online taken in 1994 to illustrate the pollution (visible here http://www.photoboy.com/bin/Cklb?vmo=1173985067754 ). There were, of course, no Prius in existence or being manufactured in 1994.

Furthermore, Sudbury is no longer this polluted, as INCO and the city have planted over 8 million trees there since 1979. The best history online of the Sudbury devastation/reforestation comes from GM Canada -- that's GM, maker of the Hummer, ahem, writing about how Sudbury was polluted and how it has come back. Really, one should blame Chicago more than Toyota, as Sudbury's trees were all cut down in 1871 to help rebuild Chicago after the fire. GM provides telling photos of some of the reclamation from 1979 to present.
http://www.gmcanada.com/inm/gmcanada/english/about/MissionGreen/Daily/Sep22.html

Canadian news recently broadcast a show on Sudbury's regreening: http://www.cbc.ca/clips/rm-hi/mackinnon-sudbury070312.rm

How about a comparison between a Toyota Prius and the Honda Fit.

I suggest that the presumably better long term environmental and cost benefits of a Toyota Prius under these criteria are much less clear. In fact I have read Consumer Reports views that the long term environmental and cost benefits of a machine like the the Honda Fit makes it such that the Toyota Prius may not be a pragmatic choice.

how about the NIPPY three-wheeler , it should get even better gas-milage .




or if you have the money , consider the 600 cc diesel SWATCH (the baby mercedes) - we are seeing a few more of them now - sure gets great milage and is quite well styled .

...and less cold than a three wheeler. easy to park, too.

"autochannel" did a great test report on the 2005 "fourtwo" ...
48 mpg(u.s.) , 140 kph or about 85 mph - but they had to close the top :wink: !
it's a car for DINKS ! i read that the 2007 fourtwo is a considerable improvement over the tested 2005 .
it has more horsepower - 50 , hp than our first three VW's ! and certainly goes faster .
hbg



TEST REPORT : 2005 MERCEDES "FOURTWO"

Alternative fuel vehicle drivers drive more?
One thing I've noticed about drivers of alternative fuel vehicles (hybrids, solar-electric, biodiesel cars, etc.) is that sooner or later, I hear them rationalizing driving more because their cars use little or no petroleum.

They say things like, "It's ok to drive 60 miles to San Francisco--we'll take the greasel." Or, "I don't feel guilty about my commute anymore now that I've bought a Prius." Or, "Now that I've got a Prius, I can take that drive trip across the western US I always wanted to take."

Oops.

When we drive more miles, we create demand for more freeway lanes and parking spaces.

Not only is parking a huge land-gobbler, creating car-dependent sprawl (an average of 50% of land use in traditional suburbs is devoted to the driving and parking of cars, according to an article I read in an urban planning class ~1990--easily confirmed by aerial photography), but more parking and more freeway lanes facilitate more driving--and therefore, more petroleum demand by all those who have not already converted over to alternative fuel vehicles.

The big challenge in urban and transportation planning, including for energy conservation, is to decrease total vehicle miles traveled.

The most important factor in doing so is to not increase the amount of car infrastructure we have, by providing transit (in and between towns) and bike infrastructure (in town) INSTEAD of increasing freeway lanes and parking spaces.

Instead of more parking and freeway lanes, we need to solve gridlock with more transit and safe, in-town bike lanes.

This helps everyone: people who want to use alternatives; and those who cannot easily do so, because drivers will have less traffic and parking congestion to contend with, if there is more transit and there are fewer people driving as a result.

Transit, while costly, is much less expensive to provide than car infrastructure.

chai wrote



So without your car and enough fuel to put in it, you would starve?