Re: Toyota's New Expensive Hybrid
 

I don't mean to over-generalize, and absolutely pro-environment folks come in all income brackets. However I'm not going to get too excited over someone with a $60K car that gets a whopping 26 MPG (over say, 20 in non-hybrid trim) lecturing anyone about what a stand they're taking for the environment. I'd be much more impressed with the same person who could buy a car like that but drove an Insight. That's a statement.

In the very grand scheme of things, any hybrid is a good hybrid. I'd smile and say "good for you" to anyone who bought one (and I'd mean it). But lets not pretend that being green is why hybrid technology is in a car like that. It's there to make a better/faster sports car.

Re: Yes, This is Far-Fetched
 

Hybrid Busses?
What is our common purpose, to promote hybrids or save fuel?

I have observed bids for hybrid busses in our region that were almost twice as expensive as comperable busses. So wouldn't it make a lot more sense to buy two busses instead of one? Would save a lot more fuel.

Re: Yes, This is Far-Fetched
 

Like anything else, the price will go down as it's mass-produced - just like the car hybrids.

Re: Toyota's New Expensive Hybrid
 

The next Lexus will be LS600h, maybe LS600Lh.

Ken@Japan

Re: Toyota's New Expensive Hybrid
 

I agree its unimpressive from a straight environmental maximation standpoint. I also applaud any move to get hybrids into the main stream. If it takes power focus, especially at first, then I'm for it. It really makes a lot of sense. Bring 'em in with a carrot instead of a stick. :)

Re: Toyota's New Expensive Hybrid
 

If I could get 50MPG in a Hummer, I'd buy one.

Re: Toyota's New Expensive Hybrid
 

Ballpark (and I'm being kind to the Hummer...) Civics and Prius' go at least five times farther on a tank of gas - about 50mpg. So if a Hummer could get 50mpg, wouldn't you like a Prius or HCH that gets 250mpg? :shade:

Re: Toyota's New Expensive Hybrid
 

I was reading up on 2007 and 2008 hybrid offerings. About all of the truck-sized hybrids coming out are claiming about a 10-15% increase in FE. That means they go from say 18 (being generous) to 20-21. I gave this a lot of thought over the weekend (maybe too much :confused: ). This kind of improvement, while "OK" and clearly better than a standard vehicle, does very little in the grand scheme of things. I bet most truck/SUV drivers could get a 1-2 MPG bump just by changing driving habits like most of us have.

I think change really needs to happen in folks attitudes relative to the kind of vehicle they need to own. I'm talking now to the crowd that own larger vehicles than necessary, based on their lifestyle. Some clearly need them - don't get me wrong. I own a Pilot myself - and we use it. However my wife has a 1 mile commute. Mine is 50, hence the hybrid. I pass lots of driveways with multiple SUVs in them - or an SUV and a truck. IMO, going from a 18 MPG SUV to a 21 MPG hybrid SUV is....OK. However the ground is really gained when that SUV owner figures out they really don't need it (or don't need 2 of them), and swaps out for a Prius/Civic, or even the FEH. So instead of a meager 10-15% improvement by buying in the same class of vehicle, you can get a 100-200% increase by daring to use a smaller hybrid.

Anyone else alarmed / anoyed that the FIT seems to be the only new small-hybrid offering on the horizon?

Re: Toyota's New Expensive Hybrid
 

Over the past few months, I've tried to say just that, yet a few manage to take offense anyway. My response is: "If you're conscious is clear - why are you so defensive?". Guilty dogs yelp, as the expression goes. If I took their arguments at face value, I'd conclude that all we can do about our oil addiction is to hybridize and/or dieselize the land barges and pump more oil....maybe I should reinvest my entire retirement in GM stock, too.

Re: Toyota's New Expensive Hybrid
 

Well, I'll be the one to "swat the hornets nest" so to speak...

I'll get into trouble because I think we've all been lured into thinking we need more vehicle than we actually do, and I also include super-expensive cars (like this $60K Lexus) squarely in the "own because I can, not because I need" category. I went through this exercise with my Civic. Sure, a slightly used BMW 3-series, Audi A4, Acura TL would have been my preference. They'd be on the very upper limit of my price range, and would probably need a very long loan to get them. However when I ran all the numbers of cost of ownership (loan, insurance, gas, maintenance), the Civic was so far below I couldn't help but pick it. So I'm not exactly rolling in style, but it's getting the job done, and $100's less per month than the alternatives. I was surprised, however, how hard it was to wrench the "want" from the equation, and stick with the "need". Having done it, I wouldn't trade my Civic for any of them.

I think if we can get out of this, "my car is bigger than your car" mode, folks might be surprised at how happy they would be with a more efficient alternative.