NH_s2k_Guy

chat

Crazy_Schizo

Ok, I'll get serious on my discussion of hybrids and why I dislike them:

- Hybrids are a combination of two systems (electric and combustion). My general life experience has been that as soon as you make a device try to do two things, it ends up doing both rather poorly. Case in point, the "sport" hybrid, the CR-Z. Is it tremendously fuel efficient? Not really. Is it tremendously sporty? Not from what I've read. It is trying to do two things, and it doesn't do either well.

- Hybrids are an extra system to go wrong. You think one engine can be a lot of maintenance? Try two. Ask any boat owner with two (or more) engines.

- Battery costs. Batteries will fail at some point, and the massive battery packs used to run a hybrid ain't cheap.

- It isn't as green for the environment as you'd like to think. The costs of getting all the materials for the batters, refined, shipped, etc...they end up doing more harm to the environment than is saved by reducing fuel consumption.

- The last days of old tech are always better than the first days of new. Rather than trying to prolong the life and usability of the internal combustion engine, other options should be looked at.

Considering my short commute to work, I've honestly been considering the Nissan Leaf.

A 2

All valid and true points. Personally I think Hydrogen is the way forward. But seeing how gas-electric hybrids are being built, I can possibly see one of those in my future. Batteries not only have a financial cost but also an environmental cost.

A 2

DeTomaso Pantera redux spied in Modena

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xspv8vWZDtc&feature=player_embedded[/media]

Triple-H

Ok, glad you made that clear about the CRX, otherwise I would have had to kick you off the island

The CR-Z craze is mostly about the high fuel economy, more and more people want that kind of thing, that part I get 100%, and I realize it is not for everybody, and that's where the biggest problem lies, because Honda should have been smart enough to make a Regular and an Si

Crappy phone pic, the good one on the left is mine

Triple-H

This one is sharper




To me that is a damnn good looking ride!

Triple-H

100% agreed, and that is exactly why they needed 2 models
I have said a million times, the CR-Z should have taken a page from the CRX history book, and come to market as an EF and an Si
The EF could have been designed to really push the MPG envelope, and the Si would have been designed for real performance

Triple-H

I loved going real fast and then standing on the brakes just so I could watch the battery charge
And it's just so funny, I drove it with no thought whatever to fuel economy, just so I could watch it charge the battery which in the end saves fuel

jsenclosure

High fuel economy? It doesn't even brake 40mpg. I have friends with late model civics that get 40mpg consistantly.

This is what i don't get about it. Fuel mileage isn't high enought to justify it being slow, It's trying to be both a sporty car and a fuel efficient car and it's failing at both.

-My personal opinion, 2cents, whatever you'd like to call it

Triple-H

Having been a long time hater of the CR-Z, who has become a middle of the road admirer, let me just say, go drive one and then review your above statement
Get a 6MT, turn off the VSA, run the revs up a bit, get the clutch out, and mash that accelerator to the floor
The thing is fast as heck off the line because of the torque from the motor at virtually an idle, and that blast of fun is all because of the IMA
Where is sucks is once you get to 40, then the real power needs to come from the engine, and, well, it has none