Quote, originally posted by Seabird »

Oh, man... What started off as a simple ass pounding for Toyota is now turning into a full blown ATM gangbang.

Try harder.

1987 Audi 5000 CS Quattro (turbo) wagon -- FOR SALE $500

LMAO

Very nice, and I fully agree.

Quote, originally posted by Juniper Monkeys »

This is the internet, it's not like we're here for self-improvement

Ford, your a bunch of idiots. Along with california.

so Ford may be getting screwed, but ALL hybrids are reporting an unrealistic MPG....

-in search of a cool sig-

HOV lanes are supposed to get people to conserve freeway space, as opposed to conserving fuel or reducing pollution. So letting SOVs in HOV lanes goes against the original purpose (note that this is already being done with electric and natural gas vehicles).

Also, if SOV are to be allowed in HOV lanes as a reward for conserving fuel and/or lowering emissions, then the standards should simply be based on fuel economy and/or emissions limits, not hybridness. Hybrid is a tool to achieve good fuel economy and low emissions, not an end in and of itself.

But Ford should really try harder on the fuel economy front.

I don't know that the EPA needs a new test methodology for just Hybrids, especially if the current one is based on a typical US drive cycle.

I also don't think Ford is getting "screwed" with this. Hey, just because Ford wants to let its customers have it both ways and sell a heavy SUV with decent gas mileage doesn't mean they have a car that is as fuel efficient as a compact hybrid or diesel. BFD! And that "buy Japanese" crap bugs me in light of the fact they license the Escape's hybrid drive from TOYOTA.

Ford, WTF are you bothering with this for? Stop focusing your engineers on making 7000lb SUVs more stable, and get them to work on your own hybrid technology, then stuff it into a goddam Focus. THEN whine about being excluded from California's SUV lanes.

1987 Audi 5000 CS Quattro (turbo) wagon -- FOR SALE $500

Not exactly. Ford's hybrid system was developed totally in-house AFAIK, but some of the concepts were similar enough to Toyota's system that they had to either pay up or face legal action.

Quote, originally posted by Seabird »

Oh, man... What started off as a simple ass pounding for Toyota is now turning into a full blown ATM gangbang.

1987 Audi 5000 CS Quattro (turbo) wagon -- FOR SALE $500

http://www.usatoday.com/money/...x.htm

Quote »

Similarities between Ford and Toyota systems has led to derisive charges that Ford adopted Toyota's instead of developing its own. Wrong, says Ford CEO Bill Ford: "There isn't a single Toyota part in the (Escape Hybrid). The system we have is totally proprietary. "We licensed about 21 of their (Toyota's) patents, and they licensed about the same number of ours," he says. "The only reason we licensed it at all was so we didn't end up in court over who did what to whom. We didn't want to get into a gray area with Toyota. So we said, 'OK, we'll license them.' "

Quote, originally posted by Seabird »

Oh, man... What started off as a simple ass pounding for Toyota is now turning into a full blown ATM gangbang.

Probably never. Ford already canceled the diesel Focus for the US. The Focus is apparently for people who want a cheap car, as opposed to a good car (even though it is a good car). Cheap car buyers won't pay extra for diesel or hybrid (even if the option price will be paid for in fuel savings over the life of the car).

You know, if CAFE was still in full effect it'd make sense for them to stick turbodiesels into the base Focus and boost their corporate average. But far be it from me to tell anyone how to vote...

Mea culpa on the insinuation that Ford didn't develop their own Hybrid drive. It's an idea that's hard to shake, though, when everyone knows they did license it after all. Even I drew that conclusion.

Modified by PseudoEnthusiast at 2:23 PM 8-25-2004

1987 Audi 5000 CS Quattro (turbo) wagon -- FOR SALE $500

But I think the bill is a horrible idea regardless. Saving gas and lessening emissions were only side benifits from carpools and HOV lanes...it''s over looking the big idea behind it that was trying get people to carpool by giving an incentive, and thus reducing the number of vehicles using the roadway.

This bill basically laughs in the face of that, saying that select group of Hybrid owners ( and not even all hybrids at that) have carte' blanche to drive in the HOV lanes and laugh in the face of ride sharing programs.

What happens when down the road more and more vehciles quailify to do that too? What about the car's get get the same mileage and maybe emissions, but aren't hybrids? Or hybrids that don't qualify?

CARB and the state of California are trying to fuss with things...trying desperately to make hybrids "desireable" by doing everything short of handing them out of giving free bj's to get people into them...now figuring out their fascist emission regulations aren't stopping people from buying the cars or SUV they desire and into more efficent, and green vehicles. And maybe they're getting a clue that ZEV's are for the most part just an evironmental pipe dream. Or wet dream I suppose.

Anyway,I do support opposition tot he bill. I just wish Ford had stated different reasons for it's opposition.

1987 Audi 5000 CS Quattro (turbo) wagon -- FOR SALE $500

Let's hope we have a good alternative to Schwarzenegger next time around.

The New World Order is REAL and tyranny is upon us. Time is short. Visit infowars.com.

END THE FEDERAL RESERVE

Our Republic is Falling

Yes, that is ironic, and another reason why supporting such a bill is idiotic.

BTW, see here:

Prius Emissions - How much is really just due to the EPA test??

Modified by RogueTDI at 1:22 PM 8-25-2004

The New World Order is REAL and tyranny is upon us. Time is short. Visit infowars.com.

END THE FEDERAL RESERVE

Our Republic is Falling

OT-The DC area already does this with hybrids. I see this as an incentive for wider adoption of the technology, which for a place like LA would go to reduce smog and such greatly.

The thinking is that if the mass populous used hybrid cars, the overall air quality would improve, which would lead to other systemic benefits such as better health, resulting in lower health costs. Fuel consumption would lessen, of course.

This doesn't unfairly benefit Japanese companies. This is an example of the marketplace changing. A good company would respond to the change by providing it the product to suit it. Ford needs to shutup and build the right product for the market.

They need a new testing methodology for ALL cars - their current tests are outdated.

And as for hybrids, yes, the tests apparently misrepresent hybrid economy. I'd suggest the tests would either need to be longer to account for the switching time between all-battery and battery/IC operation, or simply do one long test that combines city and highway driving to give an overall long-term mileage.

The New World Order is REAL and tyranny is upon us. Time is short. Visit infowars.com.

END THE FEDERAL RESERVE

Our Republic is Falling

That makes no sense whatsoever. They either have genuine proprietary technology, or they "accidently" copied Toyota's tech sufficiently to warrant licensure. They wouldnt voluntarily pay licensing fees to Toyota just to "be nice" and/or avoid "potential" problems.

Could someone explain this please?

Modified by RogueTDI at 12:13 PM 8-25-2004

The New World Order is REAL and tyranny is upon us. Time is short. Visit infowars.com.

END THE FEDERAL RESERVE

Our Republic is Falling

If incentives are given with the aim of lower fuel use and/or lower emissions, then the incentives should directly specify fuel usage and/or emissions threshholds, rather than specifying hybrid or other technologies.

1st: They developed a hybrid system totally in house.

2nd: They licensed Toyotas patents.

3rd: The Prius is built in Japan.

After all this effort, they dont get to reap the fruits of their labor? Id be pissed.

Modified by autoxist at 8:33 PM 8-25-2004

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. First we need to gets some things straight.

You can't make an arguement that "well if everyone bought hybrids, the world, the air, would be much cleaner."

Bull****.

But why?

First I'd like to start at emissions. New cars have emission standards well below something that was built as little as 15 or 20 years ago, and yes hybrids as is meet and beat those standardsl. But the thing is, when you're talking the actual amount of emissions put out, an new ordinary car just meeting the emission standard isn't terribly more dirty than the golden boy hybrid is. A jump to hybrid cars from a new car isn't going to amount to much cleaner air.

And then, of course, there are older cars to contend with. Older cars that are still out on the road, older cars that may not quite, or drastically don't have the same emission as a new car would. And they are only expected to meet the standard that was set at the time they were made. There's no real way of changing that short all out banning their use out right, and then frankly, there would be some real hell to pay there. Even if you could do it, it's not something you could hope to implement over night, or even in a few years. It could easily take a decade for that sort of switch over, if not more..and subsequently longer to see any benefits.

And yet in the end, the hybrid for now, still uses gas.
And sure diesel hybrids may be viable sooner or later, but of course California doesn't allow the diesel passenger cars to be sold...so that's just another hoop to jump through.

You also have to consider the many other sources of air pollution, industry, infrastructure,and etc. in addition. The chain desolves, it's more like a network, a web, things tangled upon things, things link not one or two but to multiple things. A chain recation in multiple tangents isn't so easy to predict or control or even to force change through.

And in all of this, you're ignoring the fact that similar thought, reducing pollution reducing traffic was the idea behind carpooling and HOV lanes. This just spits all over that idea just in the sake of marketing a more trendy idea.

Modified by 13minutes at 3:35 PM 8-25-2004

So WHOA yourself bub.

Secondly one can easily make the argument that hybrids, if used by everyone, would result in better air quality, just as if everyone used Ford's Focus with the rating PZEV, air quality would improve. It doesn't take a genius to point out that wide adoption of vehicles with zero or near zero emisions improves air quality. But for you I'll break it down....

Less emissions=Cleaner air

I'll add that I never implied the banning of older cars. California is more concerned with new cars and future cars. Old cars will remove themselve from operation as they breakdown and/or are replaced.

As for the topic at hand, HOV lanes don't reduce traffic. Any benefit they have is negated by the increasing numbers of cars on the road. Reducing the emissions of those cars will do far more good than stand alone HOV lanes have done, for pollution.

Cali's greenhouse plan

yeah we wouldnt want to undermine the intention of something which doesnt work

im sure if it was a measure for diesel only lanes you'd be all over it.

NO ****. But there is more than one thing that has to be changed before you're going to see any quantifiable results.

Quote »

I'll add that I never implied the banning of older cars. California is more concerned with new cars and future cars. Old cars will remove themselve from operation as they breakdown and/or are replaced.

But you're never goin to get your perfect air unless you get rid of the dirtiest of cars. You could sell a half million a year, but it's not goign to amount compared to the tens of millions of cars already on the road.

Quote »

As for the topic at hand, HOV lanes don't reduce traffic. Any benefit they have is negated by the increasing numbers of cars on the road. Reducing the emissions of those cars will do far more good than stand alone HOV lanes have done, for pollution.

Inherently, HOV lanes down't reduce traffic. Car pooling to a degree would, and the sense in an HOV lane was ggiving incentive for people to carpool by giving them a theortetically traffic free place to travel in as a reward. IN theory,it makes sens, I will admit in practice it deos not work out so cleanly. But is making exceptions any more helpful?

And no one's yet answered my question about what to do with the cars for would nearly qualify but for ever small reason, do not? Or what happens when more and more hybrids qualify for the exception? At some point it's going to make HOV lanes pointless, and even the benifit of the exception pointless. Then what are you going to do?

And yes reducing overall emission is good thing, but liek I said there are still m any other things contributing tot he air pollution also. I don't think it's a very relavant point in this arguement; it's too far reaching a problem that even going to be solved ieven in part by this bill, or any conceivable proliferation of hybrid intersest it could create in the immediate future.

Modified by 13minutes at 4:23 PM 8-25-2004

And this bill is not meant to be the sole tool for cleaning the air. It's simply one component of a greater plan.

I'm just about being consistent. If he came out and said HOV lanes dont serve their intended purpose, I wouldnt care that he wanted to find another use for them.

Of course, the usefullness of such a bill will disappear as soon as more than a handful of people buy hybrid cars.

California lawmakers are overpayed and have too much time on their hands.

The New World Order is REAL and tyranny is upon us. Time is short. Visit infowars.com.

END THE FEDERAL RESERVE

Our Republic is Falling