On 2/26/04 1:24 AM, "Dyna Sluyter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's already a bunch of hybrid owners doing a class action suit in > response to the poor battery life. As for CR, they don't rate battery > life. Can you back this statement up? If there's a class action suit, surely there's information available online that you can refer us to. If Consumer Reports doesn't impress you, how about Motor Trend naming the Prius their 2004 car of the year? http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/alternative/112_031120_coy/ Or is Dyna Sluyter smarter than all those folks, too? >> Even if there were a rare occurrence of such a thing, the >> Prius' hybrid-related components, including the battery are covered >> for 8 >> years/100,000 miles by a special extended warranty that goes beyond the >> basic 3 years/36,000 miles for Toyota vehicles. Honda's is 8 >> years/80,000 >> miles. So someone could just get the failed battery replaced if it >> actually >> became a problem. > > Minneapolis city cars tend to put on low miles so we need to keep them > at least 10 years. The $5,000 computer is only covered for 3 years, and > an 8 year old Prius will be worth less than the price of a new battery > pack or computer. If the battery dies at 9 years it costs way more than > the Prius is worth, and we have a scrap Prius. Also, what happens if > the computer on a 5 year old Prius smokes and takes the battery pack > with it? We then have a Prius with a resale value of maybe $7,000 that > needs $10,000 in parts alone. If a battery fails before 8 years, Toyota has to replace it under warranty, regardless of what causes the failure. I'm not sure why Dyna think the computer in a Prius would be so prone to failure within 3 years when the Prius has been available in the US since 2000 and in Japan since 1997. Again, if these problems Dyna imagines are so prevalent, they would be a major news item. So where are the references? >> What lemon law buybacks? I challenge Dyna to provide real examples >> that this >> is occurring since I would think this would be a pretty major news >> item if >> it were actually true. > > There's whole web sites on the subject. BTW, the manufacturer will > only replace your battery pack if it's completely dead, and much of the > battery problems the hybrids are having is with batteries that hold > some charge but not enough to be of much usefulness. OK - post links to any of these web sites you claim exist. I've managed to figure out how to do it to back up my claims. >> From what I've read, if there even are a lot of >> year-old Prii (not Priuses) on dealer lots, it's because people have >> been >> trading in for the new 2004 model that's even better than the initial >> one. > > I noted the multitude of year old Priuses on dealer lots before the > 2004 was even announced. But you cannot back up this statement with any kind of reference, can you? So why should we believe that all these problems reportedly exist but you seem to be the only person who knows anything about them? >> As for Dyna's silly assertion about giveaways, the reality is that >> sales of >> the Prius have been increasing substantially every year and there is >> currently a shortage of the 2004 model at the dealerships because >> there's so >> much interest. > > In the industry it's pretty much taken for a fact that the Prius is a > PR exercise, with Toyota taking a loss on every one sold. As far as a > shortage, Toyota dealers have been feeding that lie to customers for > years. That's why you could buy a Chevy Prism for a couple thousand > dollars less than the near identical Toyota Corolla. The Prius started out as a loss for Toyota. They've since improved the manufacturing process efficiency to the point where they now make a profit on each one sold. As for the shortage, it's quite real. The production plan for the 2004 model is 36,000 units. There were advance or pre-orders for over 9,000 of them. Unlike Dyna, I can cite a reference for this assertion: "The current production plan of 36,000 vehicles for 2004 calendar year is up from a high of 21,000 units in 2002. Toyota dealers have received more than 3,000 pre-orders. Additionally, an estimated 4,000 advance orders have been received for public and private fleets, and more than 1,200 orders for TRAC, Toyota's rental car operation. More than 1,200 additional orders have been received from a special "Prius Pioneers" early-buyer internet program." http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/030925-3.htm >> My hope is that Minneapolis will continue to add hybrids to its' >> fleet. They >> save a lot of taxpayer dollars on fuel use > > To be honest we can't afford them. Toyota will practically give us a > Prius provided the mayor will be seen in it, but if you want a hundred > or so for plain old city employees I doubt they'd even submit a bid. > The Prius with the mandatory option packages and all the dealer markup, > etc. goes for at least $24,000. We can buy two comparable cars > (Cavalier, Focus, Neon, etc.) for that kind of money! The real world > fuel mileage in Minneapolis frigid climate is little better than these > conventional cars, about mid 30s for the Prius vs. mid 20s for the > conventional cars. Given that most city cars do less than 10,000 miles > a year and we buy tax free fuel in bulk so the Prius would only save > about $100 a year in fuel, but cost about $1000 a year more in > depreciation. Again, cite anything to back this up. I know MPCA sure hasn't noticed a drop-off in gas mileage like this for the Prius in their fleet. And they recommend the Prius among their list of "green" vehicles: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/mvpollution.html#reduce (Click on "Buying a Cleaner Car") >> and even more on reducing urban emissions. > > Again, the difference is zilch. But you again cite nothing to back this up. Since you seem to be struggling so much with this concept, here's how debating works: You make an assertion and then you cite supporting references and/or examples to support your assertion. If you can't or don't support your assertion, why should anyone believe it? But a big point you miss about how a Prius reduces urban emissions is that a significant part of the emissions reductions come from the fact that a Prius essentially shuts down during situations when other cars would sit idling, which is ironic since it was our mayor's little problem with that feature that led to this discussion. No engine running = no emissions. So every stop light, every long wait on a parking ramp, every traffic jam, etc. = no emissions. Look at the difference between city and freeway mileage on any other car and you can see how that adds up pretty fast. > In conclusion, the hybrid car is pretty much a fad that is running > it's course. The hybrids get little better mileage than there > conventional equivelents and cost twice as much. In fact, the VW > diesels get better real world mileage than the hybrids, but at $17,000 > aren't cost effective for low mileage applications like Minneapolis'. > The costs of diesel cars will drop when Daimler Chrysler and Ford bring > their's to market in a couple years. In the meantime a conventional > compact car is the best deal for Minneapolis taxpayers. According to the article from Canadian Driver that I cited above, production plans for the Prius has increased by 70% since 2002. So much for the argument that hybrids are a fad running their course. Conventional diesel engines emit far more soot and other particulates than any gasoline engine, regardless of mileage. And while biodiesel would help with that problem, not even the bulk purchasing agreement that Hennepin County has would help a lot with overcoming the current high costs for anything above a 20% blend of biodiesel in petroleum diesel. Not to mention that there's that nasty tendency for biodiesel to gel in cold weather unless you use it with a mostly-petroleum diesel blend. Somehow, that doesn't seem compatible with the frigid climate of Minneapolis. Don't get me wrong, I like biodiesel, but there are a lot more hurdles there right now than with hybrids. As for the best deal for Minneapolis taxpayers, it would help to look at all the costs associated with maintaining a fleet. Dyna overlooks the societal costs associated with the pollution from vehicles. And despite her unsupported claims, there is a significant difference between a hybrid and a conventional compact. In the metro area, problems with VOC and nitrogen oxide emissions are making us run the risk of violating federal air quality standards for smog. The plans to convert Riverside and High Bridge from coal to natural gas will help, but both are still several years off as far as actual implementation. Besides, about half our air pollution comes from motor vehicles. That's why fleet management (as well as consumers placing a higher priority on fuel efficiency when choosing a vehicle) matters. If we do end up violating the standards, it's been estimated that the costs to get back into compliance could run as high as $250 million for businesses and citizens. See details at http://www.cleanairminnesota.org/ If it comes to this, perhaps we can figure out a way to bill ourselves for this cost and then maybe folks will take it a little more seriously. And this isn't just a summertime thing, as some would like to believe. The last air quality alert from MPCA came about a week or so ago. And our air quality is only moderate right now. http://aqi.pca.state.mn.us/hourly/ Mark Snyder Windom Park REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
