LOL! I'm with you man. :)

I do not own a metro, no, but i would gladly own a nice German diesel.

The problem as I see it is that the hybrids are selling at a $12k premium around here lately and the mileage on comparable conventional cars is almost as good (difference in MSRP is almost $8k and they are marking up the hybrids big time).
Take a civic hybrid. Expensive. Close to $28,000 in so Cal. A regular civic with the same trim level is closer to $16k.
A regular hybrid is much cheaper, will hold it's resale almost as well and still gets good mileage.
If a regular civic is getting 35 mpg and a hybrid is getting 45 mpg, you have to burn up allot of gas to justify the $12k difference in purchase price.
Break-even point is probably long after the car is gone unless you drive a crapload of miles every year.

If ther hybrid was a $2500 option it'd be a no brainer but for the serious bank they are asking for one, a hybrid doesn't make sense to me at all.

If I werer that worried about gas mileage I'd buy one of those new toyota yaris sedans for $13k and get 30 mpg before I'd spend $28k on a new prius.

Well, Sammy, if you've got a "Premium Sound System" in any of your cars I'VE GOT A DEAL FOR YOU!!!!!!

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1215472095.jpg


I guess all you guys whining about the markup on the solar option have NEVER, EVER, EVER - bought a car before. It is what it is, just like premium sound or that $500 "Undercarriage Protectant." Don't pretend it's some new kind of "greenie" scam. It's not a "Greenie" scam, it's a CAR scam, like it has been for the past - oh, I don't know, CENTURY.

I don't disagree w/ some of this.

I would not pay above MSRP for a Prius or any other hybrid - or any car for that matter.

I would not pay the difference between a Civic hybrid and a Civic non-hybrid, the Civic hybrid is not that good a car. I am skeptical of the standard cars that have had "hybrid" slapped on them, rather than being designed that way from the ground up.

But comparing a Prius to a Yaris is misguided. People who don't know much about the Prius do that. People who do know the car realize they are in a different class.

The Prius MSRP starts at $23.7K, it is more comparable to a Honda Accord MSRP starting at $20.3K.

P.S. Funny, every time we discuss this someone says "I'd never buy a Prius - if I really cared about MPG I'd buy a Yaris/Accent/etc." But no-one here ever does end up buying a Yaris/etc. So logically, EITHER no-one cares about MPG (as some have boasted, though not as many are bragging about their $100 fill-ups lately) OR the Yaris/etc are in fact not appealing cars. Ha ha. Its like saying "I'd never eat that - if I really cared about eating healthy, I'd eat rice cakes all day" - something usually uttered by fat people.

There is a difference between a car that is space efficient, and a big car (for minimizing intrusion in a crash.)
Interior volume does not make a big car. . .just look at the Smart (seats 4).

fwiw:
Prius Length x Width; 175x67.9"
1966 Ford Galaxy: 210x79

On a figure-eight track, which car would you want to be driving?

I urge anybody who absolutely hates the Prius go to the dealership and take a test drive as a joke like I did. I hated the Prius more than anybody I know. Every time I saw one I would give a thumbs up and say "THAAAAAANNNNKSSS!" just like Stan's dad on South Park. My opinion has now changed.

Speedy:)

For overall safety, you'd want to drive a modern mid-sized or compact car w/ anti-lock brakes, stability control, engineered crumple zones, full airbags, three-point belts, padded interior, head rests, etc.

Much safer than the 66 Galaxy. I don't think the Galaxy even had a collapsing steering column.

Excellent! You bring your prius, and I'll find a decades old Galaxy, and we'll meet at the figure-eight track. yeAH!!!

...remember, airbags work for only a fraction of a second, and .. . once. ;)

I'm not sure what a "figure-eight track" is.

You mean some kind of demolition derby, where you crash old junker cars into each other over and over again until they won't run anymore?

In that case, I could care less what's driven there.

Point being, even a decades old (with no modern safety devices) peice of American iron, you would NOT want to take one on in a tin-box prius.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PKnGans-JD0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PKnGans-JD0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

People have to realise that small and safe are not mutually exclusive.
Small, lightweight vehicles have several advantages that may help them to avoid an accident all together. Consider also that in a collision the best thing to do is absorb and dissipate the energy over as long a time period as possible. A big, heavy, solid car is going to have more energy going into a collision and will not dissipate it slowly.

Check this out.

http://www.gordonmurraydesign.com/LN_T25.html

Thanks for that. Gordon Murray is an incredible designer. I loved some of his Brabham designs back in the 80's.

Unfortunately he clearly dosn't know what he's talking about when it comes to small cars

I can't believe I just said that.

He did have some great designs.

I think he is right on target for the car. No doubt some compromises will creep in along the way. It will be interesting to see the final product.

I'll bet you a nice bottle of Scotch and a toast at the Dragon that the car is successful (if it reaches production - the hardest part).

I wouldn't want to bet against you on this issue :D,

but I'll still bring the Scotch to the Dragon!

I do think Murray has the right idea. As I posted earlier, I am convinced that the future of car design is going to head towards lightweight with small efficient engines so that you can have the performance without guzzling gallons of gas.

look at the above video. The big heavy sled dissipates it's energy slowly by pushing and crunching the prius.

In a light car (of typical design) you are the ping-pong ball, and the big stuff is the paddle.

Now, I certainly agree that small cars have some merit for avoiding some scenarios, but don't go thinking a prius is going to win an argument with a big old American pair of I-beams. --and that is somewhat what Chris was getting at. A Prius is not all that, for a number of metrics that we can compare to old designs.

fwiw, If I had to buy a hybrid, it would be a Honda. --and I would de-badge it. The Pious just isn't for me.

esp w/ pious people like this (taken a few hours ago in seattle)

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1215492229.jpg

That's a more complicated issue than you'd think just from comparing the mass and size of the cars.

Old American cars are tanks, true, so you may not be crushed by the crumpling car. But you are at great risk of being killed as you decelerate from 50 MPH to 0 MPH against the dashboard, ricochet around the interior, or fly out into the street.

Look at crash test films of 1960s American cars, for example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=siT-SIfOnQw (compliation of GM 1968 tests)

The dummies are practically unrestrained. They fly across the cabin, smash into roofs and pillars, punch their heads through shattering glass, are ejected and dragged, are crushed by collapsing seat backs, and in the last clip, are about to be incinerated.

Modern cars are lighter and smaller, but they are engineered to absorb energy and keep the passenger compartment intact. They are also designed to restrain the occupants in the seats, place airbags between head/torso and the impact, and not burn up.

Here are some Prius crash tests.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAAGeCG_TAU (Prius offset frontal vs SUV)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wg45haoZDg (Prius offset frontal barrier - a barrier is a very severe test, since it doesn't give)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKnGans-JD0 (Prius side impact w/ side airbags; note the interior films - the occupants would survive)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkJ109Z3iOg (Prius offset frontal barrier, side sled, and side pole; good clear slow-motion film)

The dummies are well restrained. Airbags protect their heads and torsos. No-one is ejected, no faces punch through windshields, none of the cars catch fire. Notice this is the case even in the Prius-SUV crash, which might approximate a Prius-'66 Galaxy crash.

If you sent me into a car crash and offered me a '66 Galaxy with a full roll cage, bolted down racing seat, five-point belts, and fire suppression system, I'd take it over the Prius. If you offered me a stock '66 Galaxy, I'd take the Prius, no question. Even if the oncoming car was going to be another '66 Galaxy. (For "Prius", you can substitute almost any compact or larger modern car with airbags.)

Add to that, the dynamic safety of a modern car that helps you avoid accidents (vastly better handling, braking, etc). And there's no contest.

I spent years representing Ford in product liability cases and worked on lots of accidents, mostly involving cars from the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. I worked with the accident reconstruction and biomechanics experts, inspected the wrecks, talked with the witnesses, reviewed the autopsies and interviewed the coroners. Cars may have been bigger back in the 60s, but they were definitely not safer.

So now you know how I think? ....and that I must be lacking an understanding of this topic? :rolleyes:
Not from hitting a prious at a closing speed of 50mph (25 each). "Ricochet" will be the Prius stopped and reversed, while the big boy keeps its forward motion.

Hitting a cement wall, or a another big American car sure would suck. But that is a different topic.

Understand, a prius hitting a wall is just the weight of the car. . . .When hit by a car with an extra ~1500_lbs, well that is going to not just stop the pious, but send if backwards. Furthermore, the old cars were not soft - think battering ram. I think that if you went to some demo-derbies you would have some appreciation for what survives, and how.

"Simply making cars lighter would provide all of the benefits with increased reliability and less cost."

Easy to say, hard to do. The reason aircraft and spacecraft are expensive is the cost of designing and making them light and reliable.

There are a lot of small, incremental changes in design that appear to be "gimmicks" but a 1/2 percent here and 2 per cent there, etc. changes do add up.

The American car industry was financially (and in some technical areas) so far ahead of it's competitors in the 1950's and they wasted away all their advantage in the past 60 years. GM, Chrysler and probably Ford too now deserve to fold; it's time their obsolete corporate cultures go extinct.

Hey, I merely spent years working on severe car crashes. You've watched demo derbies, so I guess you know everything . . .