Quote:
|
Originally Posted by blinkard
I'm far more upset about the Camry Hybrid having a .27 coefficient of drag, while my HCH2 has .28. It's not fair. Sure, my frontal area is probably a bit lower, so my total drag may be less, but it's the principle of the matter.
But back to the topic...the Camry costs $1700 more than the HCH2, so a $500 credit doesn't really bother me, assuming the credit was intended to offset the "hybrid premium," rather than to induce people to buy more efficient cars.
It's thinking like that that worries me about Bush's request that he be allowed to set economy standards for each weight class separately. It does nothing to push people to moving into a lower weight class.
|
The drag issue has probably as much to do with the fact that the Camry is 1 year younger (in design terms) and has greater surface area to work with to acheive a Cd of .27 vs. the Civic's .28. When you can stretch the skin further, you can lower the Cd. Look at the infiniti G35, not only did they manage a 0.27-0.28 Cd, but with the optional (and functional) ground effects, you can get the car to 0 lift-a rather amazing feat for a car of its size, weight and ground clearance.
Now getting back to Bush-agreed. But also take the other side of the argument-there are people and businesses that need an SUV (think family of five with 3 teenagers or a local contractor or salesman with lots of samples). For those that actually have the need, I'd rather have them get an Escape or Marnier Hybrid or Toyota Highlander Hybrid or Lexus R400h than the equivalent non-Hybrid version. They should get some incentive.
But you can see how it is clearly biased to the Toyota line; of course if Honda would get off their kiesters and get a CR-V, Pilot, Ridgeline, Acura MDX or RDX Hybrid on the market, I'd be first in line!!
Michael