Hyundai Genesis: Rear-wheel drive? What!?

Of course there are other things I do less frequently, but those are my
"big 3", so to speak. There's nothing I do that involves burning fuel
other than as transportation. Most of my cycling involves riding from
home, so there's no driving involved.

What's your point? Do you have one or are you just trying to insinuate
that I'm hiding something (which I'm not)?

 

I think your car is a gas hog. That is the point. There are cars that
get 50 MPG so you are wasting nearly twice as much gas as you need to!

Yes, you drive a gas hog and just don't want to admit it. You'd rather
blame other people and their vehicles.

Matt

 

My point is that you have drawn some self-appointed line in the sand as
to what is a gas hog and what isn't. My point is also that your line is
no better than mine. You think that 30 MPG constitutes not driving a
gas hog and I say the line is 20. My line is just as good as yours.

Matt

 

Once again, you're not even close. The only car I own is my Elantra.

 

Fair enough, but hopefully if/when the gubermint decides to draw a line
again, it will be closer to mine than yours. As much as I dislike
government interference in my life, if people won't do the right thing
on their own, sometimes there's little other choice.

 

Which is still a gas hog. There are many cars that get better mileage.


Matt

 

Do you just enjoy making a fool out of yourself or something? I hope so,
as you're doing a good job of it.

 

I don't think exposing hypocrites is foolish.

Matt

 

Maybe you should go find one, then.

 

So, I don't mean to feed trolls but if Matt says your car is such a
"gas hog" and there are ALL THESE CARS THAT GET OVER 50 MPG...well,
Matt, put your money where you mouth is. And be sure to put it with
the updated EPA standards as well. he ain't a hypocrite. I think he
just reinforced the fact that since you have no evidence to support
your claim, you're like a Republican debating a Democrat: all blame
and no game.

- Thee Chicago Wolf

 

The Civic and Prius both get 50 or better.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/hybrid_sbs_cars.shtml

Matt

 

So, I don't mean to feed trolls but if Matt says your car is such a

I guess the irony here is that: 1) BOTH are Hybrids, 2) BOTH are
front-wheel drive. Those number assume people do 45% HWY driving and
55% city. I don't speak for most people in this group but I'd say my
ratio is closer to 75% CITY and 25% HWY. While on paper those numbers
may be true, in ideal condition, you know the old saying: "Actual
Experience May Vary."

Honda Civic Hybrid:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/comp...Honda&model=Civic Hybrid&hiddenField=Findacar

Toyota Prius:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/compx2005f.jsp?year=2007&make=Toyota&model=Prius&hiddenField=Findacar

- Thee Chicago Wolf

 

On May 1, 6:11 pm, Matt Whiting

So did the 1980s-vintage Chevy Sprint and the 1970s-vintage VW Rabbit
Diesel. And all without the hundreds of pounds of expensive, chemical-
laden batteries and overly-complex Rube Goldberg-esque drivetrain. I
fully expect most hybrids will be rusting away in the junkyards
shortly after the warranty on the battery pack expires.

My own daily driver gets about 15 miles per gallon, and I have no
problem with that. (No, it's not a Hyundai. I check into this
newsgroup periodically because the wife drives a Sonata.)

 

So did the 1980s-vintage Chevy Sprint and the 1970s-vintage VW Rabbit

You're joking right?Are you referring to the 1.6L 55HP model? Gee,
it's no surprise it got great gas mileage with those specs. It's 2007.
Maybe we should all go back to carburetors too? Look, the fact is that
the Energy Tax Act of 1978 exempts SUVs and trucks from being required
to have good fuel economy. So long as people can afford them and have
gobs of money to spend on high fuel prices, their vehicles will always
use MORE of existing fuel than if their vehicles had to comply with
fuel-economy standards. Since that loophole has yet to be closed, it
affect the rest of us directly, not indirectly. It no longer has
anything to do with the "it's a person's choice to drive whatever they
want to" argument. People with money don't care how high fuel prices
go so long as they can drive what they want no matter how inefficient
it is. Close the loophole for trucks and SUVs, and I do believe gas
prices will come down some. That is a solid cause and effect argument,
take it with a grain of salt, but the supply and demand side of it is
air-tight. You do the math.

Battery packs, to the best of my knowledge, are rated 10 years.

- Thee Chicago Wolf

 

I do not see what relevance the year has.

The fact is that even with decades-old technology it was possible to
get 50 miles per gallon in a small car without all the drawbacks of
hybrids.

My own car has a carburetor. Works just fine, and is simple to repair
if something goes wrong.

Look, the fact is that government has no business dictating gas
mileage. That is a job for the free market.

That is very short-term thinking. (It is also unlikely any batteries
currently in production will actually last that long.) Hybrids just
don't make any sense as far as I'm concerned. When we went new-car
shopping for the wife last year we did not even consider them.

 

I appreciate your response but your facts are not right.

All it takes for the rest of the people to get screwed by Luddite
mentalities is to sit idly on their hands and do nothing. Sorry but a
"good-enough" mentality just isn't good enough today. Maybe you have
too much money too spend on $3.50 gas prices so you don't care. The
rest of us are bleeding dry. Average Americans are getting more
financially strapped since gas prices have essentially doubled in the
last 4 years. I realize that Americans have nothing to complain about
with respect to gas prices elsewhere (hello Europe) but "elsewhere"
have fuel economy standards that are much higher than ours. You apathy
is very disconcerting. As long as thing's don't affect YOU, who cares
right? What about the rest of us? What about future generations? Poor
decisions now affect all generations down the line.

It'll tell you why the year has complete relevance. If you'd rather
revert back to an era when cars were inefficient, had no safety
regulations, no airbags, no anti-lock brakes, no vehicle stability
control, or other amenities we take for granted now, that's fine.
Don't drag the rest of us who want progress, change, and improvements
along with you. If you fear change, that's your problem, not anyone
else's. There are benefits to not wasting and it's disappointing to
see that you cannot concede that waste is bad. Maybe it is easier to
fix a carburetor but that technology suffers from so many other
problems than modern injector technology doesn't. I'm sorry if you
don't like the fact that computers and technology controls and more
optimally runs a vehicle than a grease-monkey can. Is it more costly
to fix when it breaks. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Thankfully,
technology does this wonderful thing of becoming cheaper as the years
progress. If it were not true, we'd all still be paying $500 for a DVD
player. If it weren't for progress and rules, we'd all still be using
leaded gas. It all ties in together. You don't agree?

Right now, the batteries are a large part of the price tag of hybrid
car, but the battery tech they're using is pretty old-tech as well.
After all, Hybrids have only been around for a few years. It is in its
infancy. They are progressing towards LiOn and newer technologies but
those batteries are, currently, much much more expensive to implement.
Given a few more years and R&D, it'll be old news.

Short-term thinking is thinking it will never get better. After all,
all of the amenities in cars today, only a few years ago, were only
for people with lots of money to spend on high-end models. As
production costs continue to decrease and adoption rates increase,
"optional" suddenly became standard. Funny that, huh?

Another funny thing about the free market model: who control the
market? In my opinion, not the consumers. Since the auto boys are
making gobs of cash off of expensive SUVs, it is no longer in their
best interest to improve upon sedans and smaller cars because they
make less profit on smaller cars. So if you think that free market
determines cost and trends, what would happen if all the auto makers
decided they want to make more money by making less smaller cars and
sedans and only focused on their big money makers? After all, free
market or not, if your options are limited to what auto-makers think
customers want, how free is it exactly? Fact is, the Oil boys have
gotten hip over the past few years the de facto business model for the
21st century: Make less, charge more. Artificial supply and demand
manipulation. I don't think there's any conspiracy, OPEC, or other
excuse behind it. It's just business.

Last month, Bob Lutz of GM backtracked on a high-performance
rear-wheel drive V8 saying it couldn't be done efficiently. Apparently
now it may happen but with a V6. Guess why: Energy Tax Act of 1978.
Thankfully there are at least SOME basic standards that exist in this
country, too bad they are horribly outdated compared to other
countries.

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/0...ive-programs-back-on-track-now-with-more-mpg/

- Thee Chicago Wolf

 

TCW-

I just finished reading the post with your comments on the MPG and vehicle
exemptions. Lost of good stuff there.

Fuel goes up, Oil CEOs get richer, pay offs to the big 3 get larger, more of
America's disposable income goes overseas, etc. I recently came back from
Las Vegas and followed a 2006 H3, painted pink and driven by what seemed
like an 18 year old beauty with personalized plates (and of course on the
cell, all over the road!). I knew right off the bat Daddy paid for this
thing.

Does an 18 year old girl really need an H3 that gets horrible mileage? What
is the sole purpose of this? Is there really a NEED for it? I know it's a
"status thing". My daughter drives a 93 Ford Tempo that gets 25 MPG. Now,
that's a reasonable vehicle decision! There's only so much fossil fuel to go
around. Every vehicle in my home gets 25 MPG or better. We coordinate trips
into town, etc. It's not about being cheap, but a conscientious decision of
our environment and the fattening someone else's wallet.

In this day and age, not EVERYONE needs and SUV or Pickup that gets poor
economy. Granted, it's a choice issue, but unless we get away from this type
of mentality we're heading for trouble. Granted, the govt should have
limited power over this issue, but I do believe that it needs to be
addressed and they should intervene.


Steve in AZ

 

I just finished reading the post with your comments on the MPG and vehicle

Thanks for taking the time to read the thread and posts. I apologize
if some of it comes off preachy but it's just something I believe in
very strongly and should be on every person's mind. I'm sure daddy's
girl driving the H3 had a bumper sticker of Save The Whales on there
too eh?

My fellow co-worker informed me that there is an H4 squarely on the
way that's smaller and, gaffaw, more fuel efficient than the H3. No
one really needs a Hummer 'cept maybe the construction crowd. The rest
just look cool driving down the street letting everyone know they pay
$100+ a fill-up to look cool. For the average person, it's about as
utilitarian a vehicle as driving a Howitzer. A Howitzer probably gets
better mileage (note sarcasm).

You're right regarding the limit of fossil fuels though. Anyone who
thinks there will be some supply out there that hasn't been discovered
is crazy. What do you think the Oil boys have been up to the last 34
years since the Arab Oil Embargo? There are cadres of companies out
there constantly looking. Last I heard, they found some GIANT field
200 miles off the cost of Texas. Problem is it's a few THOUSAND feet
below the water. The engineering and technology doesn't exist yet to
get it out but they're thinking of ways to get at it. I don't know
about you but every movie I've seen where humans go way the hell down
to the bottom of the ocean, some major fit hits the shan. I can just
see something going wrong then all this oil comes pouring to the
surface a la Exxon / Valdez.

Here's the article in case you're interested:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/06/b...n=aedad2b99f228e40&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc

All the fist-pounders who are agreeing with Bush that we have to get
away from "foreign" oil (well, let's call a duck a duck, Arab oil)
just need to revert back to a mentality that is what they did in the
old-school: waste not, want not.

All the senior citizens on my block who drive tell me they're getting
slammed with these gas prices. I can sympathize because they're on
fixed incomes since they're retired. The cost of living for them has
gone through the roof in just the past 5 years. Honestly, I don't see
as many seniors driving the big boats as I used to. But I'll tell you
what an 18-year old need: a job.

If you missed the news on an interesting fuel-efficiency tweak that a
college student from the Netherlands was doing for his Ph.D., check
out this link: http://www.physorg.com/news91883879.html

Thanks for being conscious of MPG and doing your part. I wish my
Sonata did better in that department but I do what I can to stretch my
fuel dollars too.

- Thee Chicago Wolf

 

You just refuted your own argument. I believe that your claim was that
a mandated higher mileage standard would reduce demand and thus reduce
the price per gallon of gasoline. Since Europe has much lower demand
than the USA, by your logic they should pay LESS for gas than we do
rather than more. I think you just shot down your own argument. Don't
you just hate it when that happens?

I know a big part of the reason that Europe pays much more for fuel than
the USA, and that fact also shoots down your argument.


Matt

 

I'm still waiting for your apology since I posted the data that you
claimed I did not have.

Matt