'Car guy' takes green route, buys hybrid

I found this quote telling:

I took the initiative to look at the Toyota Prius hybrid in 2002 but just couldn't see myself driving it -- I needed real performance...

I believe that more people should take a careful look at what they think they "need." How many terrorists did this "car guy" have to outmaneuver in his daily commute on rugged interstate highways? What did 500 hp get him that 200 couldn't? Or 110, for that matter?

He's answered the question himself, perhaps, in discussing the automotive culture in which he was raised. The "need" was little more, I suspect, than something lacking elsewhere in his life, for which he could overcompensate by out-accelerating the occasional station wagon.

America is addicted to cars, and his admission, as far as it goes, I charming. But saving the planet? Buddy, the 27 mpg you get booming and zooming in your new Accord is not going to save much of anything. Unless you learn to drive sparingly, and to ease up on the gas pedal--which can net you 34+ mpg--don't congratulate yourself so loudly.

As long as you think of yourself as a "car guy," even as a professional moniker, you are still addicted.

 

I don't consider the Accord hybrid to be all that green. I guess "hybrid" is a new buzzword which for most people equals "green" regardless of what the car was designed to do.

 

compared to a Prius, the HAH is a step backwards. but its still a significant step forward for the author.

 

all things are relative, it's a lot more "Green" than what he WAS driving and I'd venture to say the improvement in MPG and emmissions, percentage wise was more of an improvement than most of the people in this forum.

 

Exactly. Unfortunately, this seems to be the point that is being lost on many. The HAH is not as good as the Prius. However, it IS a real step forward in reducing overall fuel consumption, and it's in a mass market, bread and butter car.

As for emissions, the conventional OBD II cars are 99.6% cleaner than pre emissions cars from the 60's. For all of the warm and fuzzy LEV, ULEV, SULEV, PZEV, etc. acronyms, theay are only dealing with that remaining .4%. While it's a step forward, it's minute at best as when you crunch the real numbers, it's taking care of fractions of a fraction.

 

Both the traditional & hybrid Accord get the same emission rating: ULEV

So the use of the word "green" is a good example of "greenwashing", where you are lead to believe it ranks among the truly clean vehicles. But in reality, it doesn't. All that is really does is reduce CO2, as a direct result of the improved efficiency.

There is no attempt to actually improve smog-related emissions (NOx, HC, CO), though you'd never realize that without a proper identifier, like SULEV.

 

We were not comparing it to the Standard Accord, we were comparing it to a 500HP gas guzzling 2004 Mercedes E55. The Accord Hybrid is an improvement accross the board compared to THAT car.

 

Not quite. Gallon for gallon of fuel burned, the HAH, and the standard Accord produce the same amount of emissions. In this regard, you are absolutely correct - there is no reduction of emissions for fuel burned. However, you are ignoring the fact that every gallon of fuel NOT consumed, resuts in a 100% reduction of emissions. In this manner, the HAH is cleaner than its conventional sibling, as it uses less fuel. As for ULEV versus SULEV, I have no problem with the ratings. Both ratings barely register on the emissions equipment.

 

No. Focus is on what it takes to travel a certain distance, which is what the emission ratings state.

ULEV quantifies an overall emission amount for 100,000 miles.

SULEV quantifies an overall emission amount for 120,000 miles.

Multiplied times 60,000,000 is quite significant.

That's how many new vehicles are sold worldwide each year.

 

500 horsepower car??? sorry but he didnt mention that economy car... he did mention a 1400 hp car.

in the grand scheme of things, the Prius isnt the answer either. but lets face it. no one has the answer even in their fantasies (insert GM's H car here). But the Prius is a great step towards alleviating the problem. the HAH is a much smaller step but lets face it, at least you can get one of those. and the car provides a whole host of other considerations besides power. its in a completely different price range for one. it takes a good cheap economical family sedan and puts it in a class that much fewer people can afford. it might as well try to compete with a Lexus. its not far from that price range now

 

Not really. I'm going to oversimplify this a bit just to help make my point. The OBD II emissions level car is 99.6% cleaner than pre emissions.

The "acronym" emissions cars benchmark is the OBDII cars, not the pre emissions.

Say for example, ULEV cars are 50% cleaner than OBD II. This means that they are only 99.8% cleaner than pre emissions cars, vs. The original 99.6% stat. So, lets take your 100k, vs. 120k numbers - about a 20% improvement over ULEV - what equates to .04% or 99.86% better than pre emissions. Irregardless of the acronym, you are still going to have that brown cloud over your major city. The primary source of pollution nowadays is in power generation, and industrial sources - not the automobile.

IIRC, many homes up in your part of the country use #2 home heating oil, AKA untaxed diesel fuel. I highly doubt that there is a single scrubber on any of these homes, and burning HHO, under low pressure is far dirtier than what any diesel engine puts out of their tailpipe.

IMO, it would be far more productive to chase down the stationary pollution points, than to get hung up on getting rid of those tiny remaining fractions. The only way to elinimate what's left in a car, is to get rid of the gasoline engine altogether - something that isn't in the near future.

 

not true everywhere. here in the hydroelectric rich Pacific Northwest, 58% of polution comes from autos and that percentage grows daily. here power generation provides less than 25 % of the polution. other industrial sources provide the rest.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DaveinOlyWA\";p=\"92193)</div>

not true everywhere. here in the hydroelectric rich Pacific Northwest, 58% of polution comes from autos and that percentage grows daily. here power generation provides less than 25 % of the polution. other industrial sources provide the rest.[/b][/quote]

You guys are lucky up there. The terrain allows for hydroelectric power generation. Most of the country relies on coal and gas plants. Where John lives, there is still alot of home heating oil used in residential applications. You guys don't have the heavy industry of the northern midwest, and northeast either. Tech makes up alot more of the employment sector instead. Washington, and Oregon don't make the news on their air quality either. Down where I live, we are now heading into our pollution season. The heat out here, along with the lax winds of the summer, team up to turn the air all kinds of nasty.

 

we are lucky in some sense, but lack of response in key areas is killing us. for the density and size of the Puget Sound area, we rank dead last for mass transit options. we have a light rail system we are putting in place that doesnt even address a tenth of mass transit needs and will cost us billions of dollars and will be obsolete 2 full years BEFORE its completed.

what that means is grid lock. a big part of my impressive gas mileage stats despite using E10 is because a good portion of my freeway miles is done at 25 mph.

although we have made lots of progress in some areas for reducing polution, we have failed miserably in others. unregulated wood stoves still plague us and what industry we do have polutes way more than its share.

things we have done right is that a mandate a few years back (imho, motivated by the viability of the Prius as reliable and cheap every day transportation) requires all state vehicles to use alternative fuel (including hybrids and other reduced emission vehicle) vehicles whenever possible.

p.s. we are not immune to coal fired plants either. although its only a peak demand plant (as are most coal plants here) and provides less than 5% on average, we have one just down the road from us. unfortunately, most were built when air was great and were built with relaxed standards. although the one near me was upgraded immediately, many others in Western Wa have still not implemented the required emission reducing upgrades