Hybrids going out of style

Prius sales are at a record level. How does that compute with "going out of syle"?

 

my gasoline purchases are at a record level.

record LOW level.
i haven't paid this little for weekly fuel expenditures, for, oh, 10-15 years.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tideland Prius @ Apr 1 2007, 08:01 PM) [snapback]416179[/snapback]</div>

Who cares how they are classified for tax purposes? Anybody by looking at Outback will tell it is a wagon. No one it sane mind is going to tell that Outback is same thing as Explorer. If Legacy is a sedan, then Outback is wagon. Or perhaps Legacy is also an SUV? Pick three random people around, ask them what is Outback and see what they are going to tell you.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(LazyBear @ Apr 1 2007, 06:33 PM) [snapback]416215[/snapback]</div>

It's not just for "tax purposes". There are 3 fleets for CAFE purposes: import passenger cars, domestic passenger cars and "light trucks". "Light trucks" are held to a lower CAFE mileage standard. Classifying vehicles that look like cars as light trucks lets manufacturers artificially boost the mileage of the light truck fleet, potentially helping them avoid fines (if they end up not meeting standards). Also, light trucks aren't held the same safety standards and light trucks are exempt from the gas guzzler tax. See http://suvs.about.com/od/fueleconomy/a/jf_gasguzzler.htm and http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/info.shtml#guzzler.

See http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/overview.htm for info on CAFE.

You can lookup the "light truck"/SUV classified vehicles that look like cars at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(cwerdna @ Apr 1 2007, 10:11 PM) [snapback]416222[/snapback]</div>

I am not sure what are you trying to prove here. That Subaru is hiding Outback SUV and pretending it is a wagon or is it the other way around? Or perhaps something else?

Outback 2.5 mpg: 22/28 - not bad by regular car standard, sameOr as Audi A6 Avant and Volvo V70 (which are wagons, right? Or perhaps Avant is also an SUV? Or do you mean you reject the car simple because it is classified as an SUV without actually checking car specifications?

My point was: someone said there was no Japanese wagons. I disagreed. Subary looks like a wagon, drives like a wagon, consumers fuel like a typical wagon, then it is a wagon.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tideland Prius @ Apr 1 2007, 08:01 PM) [snapback]416179[/snapback]</div>

Outback frontal and side crash tests are 5 stars while our beloved one only got 4. So much for unsafe Outback SUV. Audi sells all over the world, US is not the only contry that performs crash testing.

Car companies classify car as SUVs in order to avoid US government fines. Which are stupid fines, btw, because car company either classifies car as truck (which makes those fines and the entire CAFE double stupid since it allows this kind of acrobatics) or simply passes fine to the customer by rolling fine into the price.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(LazyBear @ Apr 1 2007, 07:53 PM) [snapback]416248[/snapback]</div>

I personally don't care THAT much about how a vehicle is classified, but it does call into question an automaker's motives (e.g. artificially inflating their light truck CAFE #s to avoid fines). Another example of a "light truck" that's a little controversial is the Chevy HHR. It's classified as an SUV (EPA rated 23/30 for an automatic w/2.2L engine) yet it's based on the Cobalt which is classified as a subcompact car. Do you think this is an effort by GM to boost their light truck CAFE #s? The Outback wagon is an SUV hiding as a wagon in my book.

I don't reject/include vehicles based on their govt classification.

By safety standards, I am not specifically referring to crash test results. All cars/light trucks sold in the US have to meet a minimum crash test standard. I wish I could find specific documents easily, but there are loopholes in the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Regulations for light trucks. Examples include: light trucks don't have to have rear bumpers (passenger cars do), I believe light trucks don't even have to have bumpers that withstand 2.5 mph collisions (cars do). This light truck exemption was definitely true in the mid 80s (when the 1st gen Dodge Caravan/Plymouth Voyager were reviewed). Also, according to http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev...ate/809247.html, head restraints weren't required on front outboard positions for light trucks until Sept 91 vs. 1969 on cars.

http://www.automedia.com/Bumper/Safety/ccr20040701bs/1 is something I dug up about bumper standards.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(cwerdna @ Apr 1 2007, 11:12 PM) [snapback]416256[/snapback]</div>

This may be relevant to GM cars, but most probably not much relevant to Audi, Volvo or Subaru since they sell cars all over the world and that CAFE thing and "light truck" loophole is US specific. Therefore, I am sure A, V and S pass all car standards in multiple countries. And the DO have bumpers and most probably safe bumpers since they also must pass European pedestrian bumper requirement.


Why GM classifies relatively high mpg car as truck I have no idea. It would be better for them to classify it as a car and improve fleet CAFE ratings. I guess there is more to it, maybe it is about safety ratings - but then again, HHR is not sold outside NA, isn't it?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(LazyBear @ Apr 1 2007, 08:46 PM) [snapback]416277[/snapback]</div>

I can't speak for the above 3 vehicles, but an example of a vehicle w/no rear bumper is the Toyota RAV4. My dad has one. Because of this, if you back into a pole, you'll damage the rear door, the spare tire cover, probably the spare tire and most likely break the rear window too.

As what you're suggesting GM do w/the HHR, why would they do that? As far as I can tell, the overall fleet mpg for an automaker isn't a problem. There are separate calculations for import passenger cars, domestic passenger cars, and light trucks. The light truck fleet needs help when they're selling vehicles like the 4WD Chevy Suburban which gets EPA 15/20 (this is after the fudging down). The passenger car fleets also don't seem to be a problem for GM per http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/d...y-Pref-2004.pdf.

CAFE #s are calculated from unadjusted EPA dyno tests btw. Per http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/F.../2003/index.htm "The city test value is lowered 10 percent and the highway test value is reduced 22 percent. Thus, the city and highway fuel economy estimates used to calculate CAFE differ from the numbers in the Fuel Economy Guide and on the new car and light truck window labels."

 

Subaru raised the height of the Outback so they could avoid CAFE fuel economy and emissions requirements. They made it a 'technical' Light Truck as a cynical move to game the system.

As such, if they want to call it a Light Truck and have it conserve less and pollute more in order to make a couple of extra bucks, so be it.

But, don't expect to have it both ways and don't expect people to overlook the hypocrisy.

Some background:

NY Times

"One concern among critics is that an automaker could slightly enlarge some vehicles to move them into a less demanding category. For instance, if the length and width of the Subaru Outback were increased by a fraction of an inch, it could move from a category with a fuel target of 28.7 miles a gallon in 2011 to a category requiring 27.1 miles a gallon.

Such gaming characterizes the current system; Subaru recently raised the Outback higher off the ground and made other technical design modifications to change its classification from a passenger car to the less-demanding status of light truck. "

Even the Subaru Fan Sites recognize it

EPA CALLS OUTBACK A TRUCK

As before, the 2005 Subaru Outback is equipped with a four-wheel-independent suspension, MacPherson struts up front and a multi-link arrangement in back, complete with a one-inch stretch between the wheels on each axle. In addition to the wider track, Subaru also boosted ground clearance, angles of approach and departure, and the break-over angle to improve off-roading capability. But don’t go thinking Subaru altruistically improved the Outback’s rock-hopping performance; the suspension modifications also prompted the EPA to classify the Outback as a truck rather than a car, with attendant benefits of such classification when it comes to Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. By making the Outback a truck, its fuel consumption numbers for the turbocharged four and the 3.0-liter six won’t hurt Subaru’s CAFE average on the car side of the business. And also don’t go thinking that the 2005 Outback is now a true off-roader, because it’s not.

 

I don't believe there is any automobile manufacturer that makes one model for the entire world. Every company is going to legally cut whatever corners it can to make a buck, euro, or yen. From my reading here there seem to be at least 3 different Prius standards.

US--only one with bladder. No DRL. No side marker lights.
Canada mandates DRL.
European has side marker lights.

Cars for England and a few other countries have to be built to accomodate driving on the left side of the road.

Why didn't Toyota put every feature in all the cars? Why pay for a bladder if you can meet emissions standards elsewhere without it? How long do you think it would take to remove airbags & seatbelts if federal law changed?

Ford & GM sell many cars only outside of the US partly because they won't meet federal standards.

Like it or not the Big 3 created the SUV to get people out of cars and into trucks to avoid the stricter requirements.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JimN @ Apr 2 2007, 10:46 PM) [snapback]416790[/snapback]</div>

I had these on my Mini they were standard and I liked having them for various reason. I would want them on any car to tell the truth.

 

I think the Prius is entirely going out of style in Orange County, and everywhere I go.

Driving to work today (a rare day when I'm not taking the train), I had to wade through 3-6 Prius in traffic in one spot. Went to a local museum over the weekend, and had to walk past at least 3 Prius parked in the lot, and more just driving by on the road.

Parking at home, a white Prius follows me and makes a u-turn behind me to park back up the street, and another time twiddling the fingers waiting for some shiny black Prius to carve that right quicker. Man, there's even a gun-grey 2007 TE Prius at the far end of the parking lot at work where some BMW used to be, and surrounded by all the previous BMW/Mercedes->Prius conversions already there for the last couple years.

It's insane! The multitude of ugly looking Prius in a variety of years, badging, colors, and bad sticker placement, following me around and surrounding me! Argh! h34r:

It's just not stylish and cool anymore!

 

To the OP, be sure to send this to your dumbass friend.
http://www.autospectator.com/modules/news/...hp?storyid=8890.

"The Toyota Prius hybrid gas-electric mid-size sedan posted all-time best-ever monthly sales for the second consecutive month with 19,156 units sold, an increase of 133.2 percent...

TMS calendar-year-to-date hybrid sales totaled 61,635 units, an increase of 68 percent over the same period last year, while cumulative hybrid sales to-date surpassed the 500,000 sales mark. In March, TMS posted sales of 28,453 hybrid vehicles, up 105 percent. Toyota Division posted sales of 26,801 hybrids, up 137 percent over the same period last year, while the Lexus Division posted sales of 1,652 hybrids."

 

Now, don't confuse Sales Numbers with 'Style'

People who worry about style wouldn't be caught dead in a mass-market car. I'm sure that's what they mean. The Prius is just becoming too common to have any style.

 

So this would be the official definition of a "hijacked thread"?

 

Heard it all before...was a bunch of soldiers laughing at me., when we (son and I) got back to Hood, they got in their F-350 diesel crew cab, and WE got into my Prius... One day we met again at the gas station..they had their pump at $106.00 and me I had $22.63 (about $2.49/gal for gas and $2.41/diesel) they had 321 miles on their odo,. me I broke the 400 mile barrier and got 421 on that tank (41.3 the gizmo said). Needless to say I was the one laughing..NCO's always know best!

 

cwerdna, very nice to read your informed posts. You didn't leave much out

Sure, CAFE is being gamed. That much should be obvious to even the casual observer. This is why I went from being a CAFE supporter to considering it irrelevant about 5 years ago.

IMO, the *only* thing to do is tax fuel at ever increasing rates. Then people will make the effort to conserve, and manufacturers will supply desired product, or go out of business.

We will also find that people's "needs" miraculously change.