i apologize for my emotional outburst, Shining...
"I have been thinking that if car manufacturers offered small supercharged engines in their luxury cars, people would buy them, as people would both be getting a big luxury car and better fuel economy. "
kind of set it off..

now, why, again would they offer them?

ps.
it was cathartic, though, even with your down-the-nose analysis for me.
================================================== =====

and BWilson... check this out!
http://www.caranddriver.com/carnews/...ni-cooper.html
a 640-hp, electric motor drive Mini.... really!

now, back to our thread... take just two of those bad boys, and HECK, replace the rear shoes of the Camry or Prius with even 75-hp versions (smaller, lighter, less juice...), lose the spare and some of that mystery storage, replace 'em with run-flat tires, which will probably be standard in a few years anyway... add the newest battery technology, and PLEASE, Toyota, why can't you make a replacement module for the older hybrids, keeping the same voltage at higher energy densities / lower weight, reprogram the power controllers for appropriate charge/discharge levels, and woo-hoo!

 

People will buy them with the knowledge that they are helping to lessen the United States' dependence on foreign oil and at the same time, spend less money on gasoline because they want to be both patriotic and frugal.

 

between greenhybrid and priuschat.com, we've been all over this one...

people have tons of reasons for buying cars, trucks, hybrids, hummers and whatever.

some will buy for the reasons you list. some won't. ask ten people you know why they bought the car they did and then try to find a pattern in their answers [assuming you're not asking all hybrid owners you know.. that's called "salting the data."]

then pose the question here or search priuschat for answers. we here [and on that site, too,] are a self-preselected group, so i'd suggest you don't even try to generalize THOSE answers into a conclusion.

and i've posted some of my theories and ideas here and on that site, too. check them out.

or, of course, you can list all of the reasons and then make a generalization that covers all of them...


and, hey, by the way... where do you live and what do you drive?

 

I disagree whole-heartedly. The best way to shove down people's throats what they don't want is to brainwash them into wanting things they don't need.

People didn't ask for SUV's...they were subtly forced upon us. Who in there right mind is sitting at home thinking...mmmm I hope GM comes out with a 7000lb, 8 passenger POS quality barge so I can pick up my kid in it and get 15 MPG at best.

THere's been a huge campaign by oil companies and automakers to push the "cheap oil" agenda...live it up! Life is cheap...you can lease a big SUV for less than you could a decent sedan...it's marketed that way to sway people by the power of economics alone.

And since people are uttering ignorant about the environment because Shell, Exxon and whoever else make ads on TV showing dolphins running around oil rigs with happy faces, we think it's OK. Most people haven't a clue about what's going on because they're too busy watching the Shock and Awe fireworks show and think it's cool.

 

But if the trailer was designed to shift some of the weight off of the car onto the trailer, you could increase the available traction. You could develop a hydraulic system that could even lift the rear tires of the car off the ground and effectivle increase the wheel base giving you a better ride as well. The only problem I see with that is traction control, where to car will think the rear tires have lost traction and will start doing some odd things. I guess lifting the rear enough to just keep the rear tires on the ground would be best. Then when turning, the rear could be lowered, and the trailer wheels lifted to prevent the understeer a pusher would create.

 

ok, i guess you win... the american people are, on average, so gullible and/or stupid as to believe what they see in ads and read in the public media that they're incapable of making anything resembling an informed decision. can't argue that, on the average, given the statistics of the cars sold today. yep.

now, other than the subscribers to hybrid forums like these, why are those people so stupid/ignorant/uninformed?

what can we do about it? write books? write letters to editors arguing against the stupid ads? try to inform those stupid and/or gullible people as to the errors of their ways?

rip me all you want, but i haven't heard any suggestions here about how to change those directions.

i believe that people aren't that stupid and ARE making decisions to buy things that they want. how many Escalade owners would agree with any assertion that they're "conspicuous consumers" and that that's their purpose in life? a large percentage? do you know any? have you talked with any?

labeling people and looking down your nose at them will not change their minds or get them to think about the ecology or economics of their car purchases. as one of the old sayings goes, "if you have to ask what the gas mileage is, you can't afford the car anyway." people who bought big suvs and now complain about the gas mileage are basically insulting their own lack of intelligence and vision for not having thought what might happen to their personal finances if the price of gasoline [omigawd!] didn't stay constant for the life of their car!

as in, Duh!

so now they're a little more educated and some of them can't afford to sell the old gas hog 'cause few buyers want them now. so they're stuck. it's part of life, called the "school of hard knocks."

want to help them directly? buy their suvs and take them to scrap dealers and have them crushed. not willing or able to do that? suggest other solutions.


or would you prefer to have the government set all of the standards in order to reach the goals you find so near and dear?

let's see:
maximum car weight...
maximum horsepower...
maximum acceleration capability...
maximum weight of "luxury accessories"...
hmmm... maximum number of power-robbing accessories?

yep, that would solve the problems, and darned quickly, too.

want the "cheap oil" mentality to go away quickly? put an end to "oil depletion allowances," which essentially compensate petroleum producers for the fact that the supply underground isn't infinite. you're subsidizing them and paying them too much for the oil they're selling you. without the "allowances" they'd have to charge the REAL price for discovery production and delivery.


write your congressperson and ask them to offer those sets of rules and regulations up as bills for a vote.

and people tell me to go get a grip on reality???

ROTFLOL!

 

I'm not in this debate to win or loose...just debating. All angles are welcome even if we disagree on certain points.

Hybrid owners OR people who are interested in hybrids are a minority by and large. People who are aware of environmental issues and crisis we're in are a minority, by and large. And that's how the oil firms, auto firms, etc want to have it as. People may not be stupid...but ignorance and apathy are just as dangerous if not more so. It takes effort to educate oneself and takes a certain level of intelligence to decipher what you are trying to learn...would you not agree?

What can we do? That's a great question. The reason why the majority of us do not consider the option of doing anything is because it's difficult. It's difficult to change people, it's difficult and time consuming to get organized, it's difficult and time consuming to become an activist. It takes energy, it takes will power, strength, learning, etc...things that are very draining for most people because they'd rather be watching reruns of Everybody loves Raymond instead.

However, we can get more involved for sure. I'm guilty of it but I am taking an very active role now to try and change that about myself. We need to mobilize as a group...we need to educate and drill into people's heads the options we could have, etc....even if it means embarrassing people into changing their minds...it works for the big corporations so why not for grass-roots folks?

To a certain extent yes they are...but only if they have the proper information to make those decisions. When Jay Leno goes around the streets of Los Angeles with a map of the world and asks people randomly where Iraq is...and people point at France, Italy, Germany, etc...what does that tell you? And these are adults...forget about the kids..they're in even worse shape.

For the second part of your question, I'm glad you brought that up because yes I have. Most (not all) of the SUV drivers I've come across (both in person, online, etc) are rather egocentric (it's been my personal experience). They buy these cars because they feel safe, because they want to feel bigger and "badder" than the next person...want to sit higher, feel more in command. The thinking process for many of these folks completely shuts down. Never mind that they are sitting there twice as long as me when filling up their tanks every 3 days AND paying 3 times as much...that doesn't click with them. What clicks with them is that they're leasing a car 3 times as large as your Civic for $50-100 less per month.

It's not a matter of looking down and up at people....environmental issues know no ego boundaries...these issues hurt us all. The egos that do get in the way are the little children holding office in our governments and corporations that are causing the problems. Those are the people we need to look hard at to make changes and make people aware what they are doing? Would you agree?

I can't feel sorry or sympathetic for a suburban mother driving an SUV that gets 15 MPG, they live in a nice suburban home, etc...and still feel it's their "right" to **** away resources. I'm sorry...that's not hard-knocks...that's just selfishness, ignorance, and ego wrapped into one big wet role.

There would be no point in that...since the automakers are not going to give up their most profitable items...the SUV's and trucks.

That would not happen until the government system of buying out officials through lobbying and giving what the automakers want stops happening. Even with all the ignorance flying around, I doubt most people sit here and say...I hope my next car uses more fuel so I can spend more at the pump everytime I'm there....right? So why are automakers making less efficient cars? Not more? Would you be willing to pay an extra $1000 for your Escalade over the $50K you already paid to get 30MPG instead of 15MPG, for example?

That's a very good idea and one that should be enforced along with an array of others.

I have....3 times already.

 

My Vette gets high twenties on the highway using nothing more than aerodynamics and tall gearing. No cylinder de-act, no auto stop, no fancy tires, no complex hybrid drivetrain, nothing fancy what so ever.

Any car (I'm not talking trucks or SUVs) that can't get mid twenties is a disgrace IMHO.

 

i'm with you, Lakedude... i thought the 'vette didn't use any cylinder deactivation tricks, but i haven't kept up with its technology very closely for many years so i didn't want to dig a hole by making an assumption.

my 427/390hp '69 averaged 12 mpg all-around, but the one time i was stuck in a line of cars doing 45 mph on a LONG winding road (no passing zones at all) for an hour or two, it averaged something like 17 or 18 for that one tank. i had the 3.08 rear, which was one of the tallest you could get that year.

another trick, which works if your drive train doesn't have really tall gearing, is to keep your shift points low. i had a '73 mazda rx2, which had a lovely 7000 rpm redline and loved to run up there. only problem was: it was hard to beat maybe 16-18 mpg... i tried something with that car during the FIRST Oil Crunch of 73-74: i never shifted above 2500 rpm. the engine didn't mind it; it didn't know what preignition was so long as the plugs were clean, and you could lug it down to a full stall and it would hardly complain either.

shifting up at low rpms essentially forces wider throttle openings and low rpms, and the wider throttle raises the intake manifold pressure, killing the manifold vacuum against which the pistons work during the intake strokes. (i'm saying this for the folks that don't yet know that... ).

this lowers the "pumping losses" of the ICE and just as in the diesel engine, raises efficiency. diesel engines have no throttle plate and essentially no engine vacuum or vacuum pumping losses. that's one of the reasons they're so efficient!

back on thread, my mazda picked up about 2-3 mpg with that technique and no other changes! and that's about 10-15% better gas mileage! back then, when gas was few and far between (and i can tell some other stories about that, too...) it was a great interim solution (until i got my next car...)

 

It looks like they are working on "DoD" (cylinder-deact) for the future:

"The bottom line is, DOD on more cars could mean more--and better--choices for enthusiasts. As an example, an early prototype C6 Corvette with an LS2 running DOD provided equal power and acceleration to an LS2 without DOD, but produced 35 mpg instead of 30 mpg. When applied over a large volume of vehicles, GM could have the choice to pocket the improvement in economy and reduce the need to import small outside-sourced cars, or it could build a larger V-8 with more power (say a 6.5L V-8 with 430hp) and keep the same 30 mpg. In the end, for reasons not entirely understood by us but conceivably related to exhaust packaging, DOD technology did not make it into the C6 Corvette, GTO, CTSv or any other performance application as we had hoped."

From:

http://www.superchevy.com/technical/.../0405sc_gmdod/