Originally Posted by Blacdout96 (Post 736065)

This isnt ****ing college, I'm not giving an exam and you have to decipher it, I'm just making an example, holy ****ing ****, just take the example and stop picking it apart, admin or not your being a ****ing douche about it..

Originally Posted by sweetbmxrider (Post 736058)

they use less fuel which creates less by-product (emissions)

if a hybrid uses 10 gallons and emits 2 lbs of by-product, a non-hybrid will use 10 gallons and emit 5 lbs of by-product. its emitting more no matter how you look at it. simple emissions testing has proven this time and time again.

Originally Posted by Blacdout96 (Post 736071)

You must be a fan of George Carlin or something, cause thats a pretty good joke right there

if a hybrid uses 10 gallons of gas, it will emit 190lbs. of Co2, if a non hybrid uses 10 gallons of gas, it'll use....ready?....190lbs. of Co2.

Originally Posted by BonzoHansen (Post 736068)

I agree with needing to let it develop, we absolutely do. We killed R&D on nukes and now we are decades behind where we could be because of it. And the environmental and NIMBYs killed that. And they already have with wind & solar projects.

Originally Posted by WildBillyT (Post 736073)

I have always found it interesting how many hybrid drivers bought one because they drive so many highway miles to work.

Originally Posted by WildBillyT (Post 736073)

I have always found it interesting how many hybrid drivers bought one because they drive so many highway miles to work.

Originally Posted by Blacdout96 (Post 736076)

the funny thing is they get better mileage in the city than Highway :rofl: and are they really savign gas when they zip by you at 80mph/ ( I dont know if that happened to any of you northerners, but down here, man they fly like no tomorrow down the parkway)

Originally Posted by Blacdout96 (Post 736071)

You must be a fan of George Carlin or something, cause thats a pretty good joke right there

if a hybrid uses 10 gallons of gas, it will emit 190lbs. of Co2, if a non hybrid uses 10 gallons of gas, it'll use....ready?....190lbs. of Co2.

Originally Posted by sweetbmxrider (Post 736080)

no dude, they are low emissions vehicles and the like that actually emit LESS EMISSIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!!!1

go tailpipe a car from 1980 and go grab a civic or something from a dealer and do the same. report your findings here.

Originally Posted by sweetbmxrider (Post 736080)

no dude, they are low emissions vehicles and the like that actually emit LESS EMISSIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!!!1

go tailpipe a car from 1980 and go grab a civic or something from a dealer and do the same. report your findings here.

Originally Posted by BonzoHansen (Post 736083)

you have brought another variable into the discussion. I believe BO is talking about carbon.

Originally Posted by BonzoHansen (Post 736083)

while you have brought all the other fun gasses into the mix. Where I sit the emissions you bring up are more important *cough* but I also don't buy into the whole carbon warming thing.

Originally Posted by BonzoHansen (Post 736056)

You're logic is flawed. To do a comparison you have to review fuel used for a given amount of miles. You cannot say car A uses 10 gallons in 100 miles and car B uses 10 gallons in 300 miles, so since they both uses 10 gallons they use the same amount fuel. They did, but car A would have to use 3 times more fuel to go the same mileage. That is why you compare miles per gallon instead of miles per tank. Tanks are different sizes and you could simply put a bigger tank in to bump up the mileage per tank rating. You can’t redefine a mile, it is the common denominator. Now if your argument is their cheaper driving cars influences them to drive 3 times as much, there may be something to that. But now you are moving from a technological discussion to a psychological discussion. Of course we learned that $4+ per gallon sqashes that demand, but you'd need taxes to do that. Let's see the politician ready to lose his job seriously suggest that one.

Electricity is not environmentally hazard free. It can only be produced in enough quantity and consistency with oil, gas, coal and nuclear, none of which are free rides to the environment. Wind & solar are nice but they are inconsistent in production levels and output potential. It gets dark, the wind does not always blow and they actually shut down if the wind is too strong. They are very nice additions to the grid, but not replacement alternatives, not by a long shot.

Then there is battery production and waste management. Lots of nasty stuff in batteries. Who here recycles all their batteries or mercury laden fluorescent lights? And to move everything to electrical, the grid needs to be vastly updated. You are talking major infrastructure changes, which includes economic and environmental impact as well. I read an article on how CA power companies are trying to figure out how to deal with electric cars. IIRC with today’s infrastructure, their current systems could not handle it if 10% of CA drivers changed to electric cars (I actually think the # was less than 10, but I forget now).

Originally Posted by Blacdout96 (Post 736092)

So now the new question is, how will Toyota try to rally itself back into the positives?

Originally Posted by BigRocsFirebird (Post 736096)

what the hell is this bonzo... i type a small reply and then you go and make some big ass huge elaborate book that makes mine look like crap. thanks bud:lol:

Originally Posted by WildBillyT (Post 736102)

Quit the shady ******** Asian business practices and join the global economy in the right way. And that is speaking from experience. 95% of consumers have no idea.