Jim Clark Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 Remember that brainstorming is not nearly as difficult as bringing an idea to completion. I've seen far too many creative people go nowhere because they couldn't follow through. As they say, "The devil is in the details." Toyota is a pioneer because they conquered the details and successfully delivered what no other company could at the time. If your quote read "Toyota is a pioneer because they conquered the details and successfully delivered what no other company would at the time" I would agree with it 100%. GM had a 100% electric car in production. Do you really think that a hybrid would have been that big a stretch for them? They already had the batteries worked out, and this was the biggest technical challenge. GM dropped the hybrid, not because they didn't have the technical expertise, but because big oil killed it and because they were afraid that if they pushed clean cars too much there would be a big backlash against their bread-and-butter gas SUV's like their recently acquired (at the time) Hummer line. I commend Toyota for what they did, but the main driver of their success was political, not technical. Regarding 100% electric vehicles, they probably pollute more than our hybrids. I have to assume they require quite a bit of electricity to charge them. Guess where the majority of our electricity comes from. Carbon greenhouse gas emitting coal fired power plants. It wouldn't surprise me if the emissions created by the power plants needed to charge electric vehicles was more than our hybrids create. Don't get me started on the ethanol scam. Successfully bringing a 4000 lb SUV to market which gets 25+ mpg, has plenty of power, and has super ultra low emissions is quite a technical accomplishment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkatsoudas Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 Regarding 100% electric vehicles, they probably pollute more than our hybrids. I have to assume they require quite a bit of electricity to charge them. Guess where the majority of our electricity comes from. Carbon greenhouse gas emitting coal fired power plants. It wouldn't surprise me if the emissions created by the power plants needed to charge electric vehicles was more than our hybrids create. Don't get me started on the ethanol scam. You assume wrong. That was one of the big lies propagated by the oil industry to kill the electric car. Even if all electricity required to charge electric cars came from coal power, it would still be cleaner than running comparable cars on gasoline. Even the Sierra Club has said so. Don't get me started on the ethanol scam. I'm sooooooo with you on that. Don't worry, the US will finally figure out what a travesty ethanol is when demand for feed corn, and price of feed corn, goes through the roof and all food products reliant on feed corn (dairy, pork, beef) double or triple. Think $4/gal gas is bad? Wait for $8/gal milk. Successfully bringing a 4000 lb SUV to market which gets 25+ mpg, has plenty of power, and has super ultra low emissions is quite a technical accomplishment. Agreed. But I do think that same car could get 60 mpg. Why does it need a V6 ICE? Why not a turbo 3 or 4 cylinder engine? With the CVT, the engine would always be in it's sweet spot RPM so you'd have no turbo lag. Why do all 6 cylinders need to be "on" all the time? GM developed technology a decade ago that could turn off 2 or 4 cylinders in a V8 when that power wasn't needed. Why, for God's sake, do we need enough fender clearance to hide 10 small children on a car that's not meant for off-highway use? If that RX was lowered 2 inches and given a better front bumper treatment it could be waaaaay more aerodynamic (and therefore more fuel efficient). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Clark Posted January 2, 2008 Share Posted January 2, 2008 I'll take your word for it on the emissions needed to create electricity to power electric vehicles but they are not totally clean. I don't think anything is. Also, electric vehicles have drawbacks on range and power. 60 mpg from a 4000 lb SUV? And still have a "reasonable" amount of power? Now THAT would be an incredible technical accomplishment. Our cars could definitely be lower. They can't go off-road and they're even questionable in deep snow. They are not true AWD. They also have more necessary front-end openings for cooling. There are two separate cooling systems for the ICE and front electric motor, each with its own radiator. The other important side of the equation is cost. The cost of getting a RX size vehicle to even 40 mpg would be huge. If Toyota/Lexus could produce vehicles with significantly better mileage and lower emissions than they produce now, at a "reasonable" cost, they would do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RX400h Posted January 3, 2008 Author Share Posted January 3, 2008 Remember that brainstorming is not nearly as difficult as bringing an idea to completion. I've seen far too many creative people go nowhere because they couldn't follow through. As they say, "The devil is in the details." Toyota is a pioneer because they conquered the details and successfully delivered what no other company could at the time. If your quote read "Toyota is a pioneer because they conquered the details and successfully delivered what no other company would at the time" I would agree with it 100%. GM had a 100% electric car in production. Do you really think that a hybrid would have been that big a stretch for them? They already had the batteries worked out, and this was the biggest technical challenge. GM dropped the hybrid, not because they didn't have the technical expertise, but because big oil killed it and because they were afraid that if they pushed clean cars too much there would be a big backlash against their bread-and-butter gas SUV's like their recently acquired (at the time) Hummer line. I commend Toyota for what they did, but the main driver of their success was political, not technical. The all-electric vehicle that GM leased utilized lead-acid batteries. Sorry, but simply adding electric motors to that car was not going to allow it to do what the Prius and Honda 2-seater hybrids did. Toyota has many, many patents - a good reason why the new Malibu hybrids cannot compete with the Camry hybrid in mileage. By the way, the all-electric cars' battery longevity is not an easy problem to solve - run them down to a low percentage of capacity and their life suffers. Run them the way Toyota does with NiMH and you'll need far more to get sufficient range. People tend to think that Toyota never considered an all-electric car. Fact is that they have and chose the hybrid route, not because of politics, but because we are NOT ready for all-electric cars that require battery replacements every 3 years. Regarding vehicle height. You are forgetting a very important reason for making the RX400h like an SUV, regardless of off-road capability. MANY women (in particular) prefer driving up high so that they can see ahead of traffic - a definite safety feature. If you lower the RX to sedan height, it will not be attractive to this customer base. Just get a GS450h if you want sedan handling! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkatsoudas Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 The all-electric vehicle that GM leased utilized lead-acid batteries. Sorry, but simply adding electric motors to that car was not going to allow it to do what the Prius and Honda 2-seater hybrids did. Toyota has many, many patents - a good reason why the new Malibu hybrids cannot compete with the Camry hybrid in mileage. The first generation of EV-1's did use sealed lead-acid (SLA) batteries, but the 2nd generation used NiMH batteries made by Ovonic. In fact, GM liked the technology so much that they purchased Ovonic (and subequently sold it when they killed the EV-1). By the way, the all-electric cars' battery longevity is not an easy problem to solve - run them down to a low percentage of capacity and their life suffers. Run them the way Toyota does with NiMH and you'll need far more to get sufficient range. People tend to think that Toyota never considered an all-electric car. Fact is that they have and chose the hybrid route, not because of politics, but because we are NOT ready for all-electric cars that require battery replacements every 3 years. Battery longevity, as you point out, is a problem with NiMH if regularly fully discharged but, ironically, not with SLA. Even NiMH doesn't need battery replacement every 3 years, as you say, if a simple battery undervoltage circuitry is employed to prevent discharge below a certain point. This is common in any NiMH pack today. The range of the EV-1 (~120 mi) was often pointed to as a big problem when, in fact, most peoples' daily commute was well short of that. The reason that the public is not ready for an all-electric car is because people think they need 300+ mile range when, in fact, 100 miles easily accomodates 90% of the population's daily driving. The big upside was that you never had to go to the gas station- just plug the car in and let it charge overnight. Regarding vehicle height. You are forgetting a very important reason for making the RX400h like an SUV, regardless of off-road capability. MANY women (in particular) prefer driving up high so that they can see ahead of traffic - a definite safety feature. If you lower the RX to sedan height, it will not be attractive to this customer base. Just get a GS450h if you want sedan handling! I'll grant you that it's a selling feature, but a safety feature? No way. You could take 2 inches off the RX and it would still sit taller than any sedan, and be FAR less prone to rollover, to boot. Re, the GS450h, (hehehe) no thanks- I like a car that I could actually fit a suitcase in the trunk of. THAT may be the most ill-conceived hybrid I've ever seen in my life. (says Lexus engineer) "where will we put all these pesky batteries" (says Lexus engineering manager) just stuff 'em all in the trunk, nobody will notice". Even the dealer told me to walk away from the GS450h. They couldn't, with a straight face, recommend one to anyone as a practical sedan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RX400h Posted January 3, 2008 Author Share Posted January 3, 2008 Again, whether NiMH batteries or lead acid batteries are used, in order to allow the vehicle to reach highway speeds, you do need to incorporate a significant number of batteries in the vehicle in order to stay within the small range of charge that our current batteries require (to ensure long life, ie 150,000 miles). Assuming you do not agree with Toyota's battery life findings and believe that deep-discharging NiMH batteries will grant the consumer even 75,000 miles of life (6 years), do you also believe that this would be acceptable to the average buyer? I think not, considering the cost of a whole new set ($6,000+?). Despite what many people think, an all-electric vehicle is not a slam-dunk when it comes to acceptance by Americans. Height: Where do you draw the line? My wife wants to be sitting as high as the majority of the tens of thousands of SUVs on the road. She doesn't want a semi-SUV that is noticably shorter than all those MDXs, Tahoes, and such. A 2-inch shorter RX is YOUR version of how tall a vehicle should be, not that of the general public. There ARE vehicles that somewhat conform to your ideal; they are called "crossovers" - half car, half SUV. Lexus may someday produce such a vehicle but as you can see by the number of tall RXs on the road, tall is in much higher demand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkatsoudas Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 Again, whether NiMH batteries or lead acid batteries are used, in order to allow the vehicle to reach highway speeds, you do need to incorporate a significant number of batteries in the vehicle in order to stay within the small range of charge that our current batteries require (to ensure long life, ie 150,000 miles). Assuming you do not agree with Toyota's battery life findings and believe that deep-discharging NiMH batteries will grant the consumer even 75,000 miles of life (6 years), do you also believe that this would be acceptable to the average buyer? I think not, considering the cost of a whole new set ($6,000+?). Despite what many people think, an all-electric vehicle is not a slam-dunk when it comes to acceptance by Americans. Height: Where do you draw the line? My wife wants to be sitting as high as the majority of the tens of thousands of SUVs on the road. She doesn't want a semi-SUV that is noticably shorter than all those MDXs, Tahoes, and such. A 2-inch shorter RX is YOUR version of how tall a vehicle should be, not that of the general public. There ARE vehicles that somewhat conform to your ideal; they are called "crossovers" - half car, half SUV. Lexus may someday produce such a vehicle but as you can see by the number of tall RXs on the road, tall is in much higher demand. As I said, you can easily prevent deep discharge of NiMH batteries with a simple undervoltage prevention circuitry. Even my dive light has this. This is not rocket science. But, why constrain the discussion to SLA or NiMH? Several companies have already demonstrated plug-in Prius hybrids using Li Ion batteries that offer much more energy density than NiMH. Your whole argument of poor battery life, in my opinion, is dated thinking. This is simply not an issue today if managed properly. I agree that an all electric car is not a slam dunk. But neither was the Prius when it was introduced. In many parts of the country you still won't see a Prius anywhere. This is why the EV-1 was first introduced in California, and it did reasonably well there. Keep in mind that this was years before the Prius was out, gas was under $2 and there was no real public awareness of global warming yet. In today's environment, I'd bet that an all electric car would be a slam dunk in California, and reasonably successful throughout the countrly. Height- this is sort of a funny argument because it's a self-fullfilling prophecy. If everyone wants to sit higher than everyone else, where do YOU draw the line? The RX isn't taller than the MDX, Tahoe or any other SUV, so your wife can't really see over anyone. Does it then matter if she's at the same level or slighly lower? Not really. If your argument is safety, I'd counter that a non-tinted rear window that allows looking through the car in front of you and seeing the next car's brake lights would be far bigger safety advance that being in a slightly taller car. But then, we both know that wanting to be in a taller car has nothing to do with safety. BTW- Lexus has already produced a "crossover" SUV. it's called the RX. It's built on a unibody platform, has no offroad capability, is designed to handle and feel like a car... that's a crossover. Making it taller doesn't make it more of an SUV, and making it lower won't make it any less of an SUV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RX400h Posted January 3, 2008 Author Share Posted January 3, 2008 Newsflash: SUV stands for "Sport Utility Vehicle", not "Go Anywhere Rock Climber Vehicle". The majority of modern-day SUVs are nothing more than family haulers. "Crossovers" are vehicles like the Dodge Caliber are not nearly as tall as the RX400h. Yes, sometimes the line between the two is blurry, but you can't argue with the success of the RX line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOMEONE ELSE'S GOT MY NAME Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 Not sure who you're referring to as "constipated, lazy, companies". If you're talking about the big 3 US auto makers... the same ones that lobbied to change the MPG calculations... the same ones that think that ethanol powered vehicles are the wave of the future (please don't get me started on what a joke ethanol is)... then I agree with you. However, in the context of this thread I really don't think you can include MBZ or BMW in that company. BMW is at the forefront of hydrogen fuel cell development. MBZ has been, and continues to be, at the forefront of safety innovation and clean diesel. Just because they didn't jump on the hybrid bandwagon on day 1 doesn't mean they're not innovators in other areas. Besides, I believe that gas/electric hybrids are merely an interim technology solution anyway. Even if hybrids are the long-term wave of the future, to use your analogies, right now we're in turn 1 of lap 1, or about 3 steps into the marathon. Toyota definitely doesn't have an insurmountible lead in this market. I'd never dream of getting anyone started on the sillyness of ethonol. However, MB's and BMW's hydrogen (or Toyota's, GM's etc) research is just as pointless: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/15/zubrin.htm You can skip to the part about, 'The trouble w/ hydrogen Cars' half way down to get a quick point ... or go to any of hundreds of articles on the web stating the same thing. Consumer reports, road & track, etc have all aluded to the same thing. It'll only take about 5 miricles before hydrogen ever hits the road . . . they've been saying, "In only 10 more years" ever since the 80's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkatsoudas Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 Newsflash: SUV stands for "Sport Utility Vehicle", not "Go Anywhere Rock Climber Vehicle". The majority of modern-day SUVs are nothing more than family haulers. "Crossovers" are vehicles like the Dodge Caliber are not nearly as tall as the RX400h. Yes, sometimes the line between the two is blurry, but you can't argue with the success of the RX line. Newsflash- whether you like it or not, the RX is a crossover SUV (in fact, it's ironic that according to Wikipedia the RX300 coined the phrase) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossover_SUV A crossover SUV (also called CUV for Crossover Utility Vehicle) or XUV (not to be confused with GMC's Envoy XUV) is an automobile with a sport utility vehicle appearance but is built upon a more economical and fuel-efficient unibody construction. The CUV nomenclature was created by automotive marketing departments to move away from the station wagon, which has declined in popularity, and the SUV, which has been stigmatized by some people in American culture as environmentally-unfriendly, over-sized, and wasteful with fuel. The word "CUV" or "Crossover" is not a ubiquitous term and is primarily used by people in the automotive industry. The nomenclature's unpopularity may be due to the fact that some CUVs are compact- to mid-sized SUVs built with car drivetrains and suspensions (Lexus RX330, BMW X3), while most CUVs are actually station wagons or 5-door hatchbacks with truck-like characteristics such as elevated suspensions and upright seating (Volvo XC90, Ford Taurus X, Cadillac SRX). In some cases, marketing departments may sometimes blur the line between vehicle body types. It's a car in SUV's clothing, plain and simple. Making it taller is certainly one Marketing strategy, but it serves no functional purpose other than to increase it's rollover potential and worsen handling. But hey- if it helps it sell better (or provide the illusion of an "active, outdoorsy lifestyle", as the article says) it's all good, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkatsoudas Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 I'd never dream of getting anyone started on the sillyness of ethonol. However, MB's and BMW's hydrogen (or Toyota's, GM's etc) research is just as pointless:http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/15/zubrin.htm You can skip to the part about, 'The trouble w/ hydrogen Cars' half way down to get a quick point ... or go to any of hundreds of articles on the web stating the same thing. Consumer reports, road & track, etc have all aluded to the same thing. It'll only take about 5 miricles before hydrogen ever hits the road . . . they've been saying, "In only 10 more years" ever since the 80's. You know, I'm torn on the issue of hydrogen. I've heard the "5 miracles" argument before. On the one hand, I don't see anything on that list that's more daunting than, for example, putting a man on the moon. Undoubtedly it will take revolutionary engineering, but I do think it's a solvable problem. On the other hand, some people/agencies (like the CARB) are using hydrogen as an excuse to not pursue other options that are more near-term. If this were a true free market economy the situation would resolve itself but as long as the oil companies and others with financial interests in one particular technology keep meddling, the most efficient solution will not come to market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Clark Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 To me, SUV implies at least some reasonable off-road capability, that's the "sport" part. I have to agree that our RX's are more crossover than SUV. An Audi allroad (wagon) is more SUV than our RX's. With it's adjustable ride height, and arguably the best AWD system on the planet, it does have off-road capabilities. The Audi Q7, considered by many to be a crossover, is definitely more SUV than our RX's, it shares that great Quattro AWD system with other Audis. To call the RX400h AWD is almost a joke. Ever keep the Energy screen on the Nav system for a while? The rear electric motor is almost never used. Basically, only at start-up from a full stop (and then it's quickly turned off) or when when you floor it (ALL the way down). Haven't had it in slippery stuff yet but reports from people who reside in the great white north are not good, especially in deep snow. My '94 Jeep Grand Cherokee was, I believe, the first SUV built using uni-body type construction. It had a better car-like ride than other SUV's of that era that were built on pick-up truck frames. It's ride and handling are not nearly as nice as our 400h but it's a true SUV with "real" AWD, it can climb trees in low range. My wife does like being back at a higher visibility height. But she never had a problem with our Audi wagons (3). Their overall visibility was actually better, RX's have pretty bad rear quarter blind spots. Lowering the RX's by 2" would still leave a reasonably high ride/visibility height. I'm thinking of going with the Eibach spring kit that would lower it 1.2", if the ride is still good and it's not too expensive. We love the RX, it's the nicest vehicle we ever owned. But we have no misconceptions about its "sport" abilities. Its AWD system will not even come close to the Audi S6 and the Audi was very low to the ground, it just used the front of the car as a plow in the deep stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkatsoudas Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 To call the RX400h AWD is almost a joke. Ever keep the Energy screen on the Nav system for a while? The rear electric motor is almost never used. Basically, only at start-up from a full stop (and then it's quickly turned off) or when when you floor it (ALL the way down). Haven't had it in slippery stuff yet but reports from people who reside in the great white north are not good, especially in deep snow. Hehehe- Jim, it's even worse than that. The RX actually HATES engaging the rear wheels when traction is lost. It takes this as some sort of personal offense. When I first bought the car last winter I came across a spot in the road one morning where a patch of water had frozen over. I intentionally came to a stop with the front wheels on the ice patch, and put the display on the energy screen, as you said. I was very curious to see what the car would do. I stepped on the gas and, sure enough, the front wheels spun and the car immediately kicked on the rear electric motor, but the car protested this abuse rather vocally. There was a big yellow warning light flashing and alarm bells going off as if doom was imminent. To hear a supposed AWD vehicle protest a patch of ice the size of a twin matress so violently was rather comical in it's absurdity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Clark Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 I'd never dream of getting anyone started on the sillyness of ethonol. However, MB's and BMW's hydrogen (or Toyota's, GM's etc) research is just as pointless:http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/15/zubrin.htm You can skip to the part about, 'The trouble w/ hydrogen Cars' half way down to get a quick point ... or go to any of hundreds of articles on the web stating the same thing. Consumer reports, road & track, etc have all aluded to the same thing. It'll only take about 5 miricles before hydrogen ever hits the road . . . they've been saying, "In only 10 more years" ever since the 80's. You know, I'm torn on the issue of hydrogen. I've heard the "5 miracles" argument before. On the one hand, I don't see anything on that list that's more daunting than, for example, putting a man on the moon. Undoubtedly it will take revolutionary engineering, but I do think it's a solvable problem. On the other hand, some people/agencies (like the CARB) are using hydrogen as an excuse to not pursue other options that are more near-term. If this were a true free market economy the situation would resolve itself but as long as the oil companies and others with financial interests in one particular technology keep meddling, the most efficient solution will not come to market. Once again, it's all about COST! Honda is marketing a very limited number of hydrogen cars in California for lease only. It's an experiment and it's costing them HUGE $$$. I believe they're losing $300k on each vehicle. And those vehicles are actually hurting the environment as it takes more energy to produce hydrogen than IT can produce. I don't think auto makers are controlled by the oil companies but big oil certainly has a huge influence on our politicians. The laws they pass do affect the auto makers. The money we've spent on the Iraq war would certainly have been better spent on researching alternative renewable sources of energy. It seems the only true renewable sources of energy available right now are wind, solar, and hydroelectric power. But they are not cost effective yet and wind and hydroelectric can have their own negative impacts on the environment. The real problem? Exploding population levels are slowly killing the planet. Nobody is willing to make the sacrifices necessary to reverse the problem and it may already be too late. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkatsoudas Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 Once again, it's all about COST! Honda is marketing a very limited number of hydrogen cars in California for lease only. It's an experiment and it's costing them HUGE $$$. I believe they're losing $300k on each vehicle. And those vehicles are actually hurting the environment as it takes more energy to produce hydrogen than IT can produce. I don't think auto makers are controlled by the oil companies but big oil certainly has a huge influence on our politicians. The laws they pass do affect the auto makers. The money we've spent on the Iraq war would certainly have been better spent on researching alternative renewable sources of energy. It seems the only true renewable sources of energy available right now are wind, solar, and hydroelectric power. But they are not cost effective yet and wind and hydroelectric can have their own negative impacts on the environment. The real problem? Exploding population levels are slowly killing the planet. Nobody is willing to make the sacrifices necessary to reverse the problem and it may already be too late. I totally agree that it's all about cost. I heard someone say recently that you could have had an iPod in 1970. It was technically feasible at that time. The problem was that it would have cost about $1M and would have been the size of a large room. Fast forward to today. The past century has seen an ever-increasing rate of technological innovation that has made many things possible that were thought to be impossible even a few decades ago. That's why I have to laugh when I hear people say that hydrogen will never be commercially viable because it's just too expensive. Why should we have any reason to think that innovation and technological advancement will suddently stop? The real problem, in my mind, is that non-renewable resources and/or polluting resources are priced as if they are in infinite supply and have no environmental impact. If the cost of gas included a tax commensurate with it's impact to the environment and it's true cost in terms of net present value, you would see a lot of behavior change very quickly. I personally welcome $6 gas because I think that it will take something like this to finally drive large-scale public transportation infrastructure in the US like you see in Europe. (of course, my degree is in political economics of natural resources, so I may a bit biased on this :whistles: ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkatsoudas Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 Since we (OK, I :whistles: ) have totally derailed this conversation from it's original topic, I'll ask something else that's been bugging me lately. I recently looked into getting a scooter or motorcycle of some sort for my daily commute as an even more economical alternative to the RX on fair weather days. What I found was alarming (to me). Scooters capable of being ridden on the highway (like the Honda Silverwing) only get about 50 mpg and motorcycles typically get less than that, from what I've seen. Sure, there are little scooters that can get 70-80 mpg, but these aren't real commute options for me. So, if a car like the RX can get 30+ mpg on a good day, why on earth are these things only marginally more fuel efficient? They are far lighter, have a much smaller frontal area, are more aerodynamic, have lower drivetrain friction and rolling resistance... I would expect 100+ mpg out of these things easily. What am I missing? (mind you, I'm totally ignorant in motorcycles). Is it just that there's been no real push or market demand to improve fuel economy on motorcycles? I'd jump on a scooter that got 100+ mpg in a heartbeat at least 4 out of 5 workdays if it existed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NY_RX400h_Savanah Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 The bottom line is that please stop raving about MB or BMW based on Customer Reports-guess what they all say that Panasonic is the best plasma while Fujitsu is crap-reality is that it's the other way around. A little respect is not too much to ask. I think you mean something other than "raving", which more or less means "praising". And regarding plasma TVs, I spent many an hour visiting store after store and studying picture quality, back when 1080i was the best (2 years ago). Everytime I compared the Panasonic plasmas to ANY of the competition, it was not a contest at all. The Panasonic plasma was superior in every way. I'm not sure why you didn't think so, but everyone else I spoke to who was looking for a big screen said the same thing - Panasonic rules the plasma roost. In fact, their current 1080P sets are even more incredible. Competion is very good, however - not as theings were 2 years ago. As far as Consumer Reports goes. I am a long-time subscriber and can tell you that the "ratings" they publish are based directly upon consumer-completed questionaires that are sent to us, annually. A large percentage of German vehicles simply cannot be compared to Japanese vehicles when it comes to high-reliability, based upon thousands of "reports" by the very people who spend countless hours in their vehicles each day. You can try to deny this all you want, but the fact is that there is no other organization that is as thorough as CU when it comes to product information. The fact that they do not accept advertisements speaks volumes about their integrity. Diesel engines are certainly getting better, but for many, the old stinky, noisey versions from MB and Volkswagen left a very bad taste in people's mouths. It still doesn't help that diesel fuel is commonly more expensive than premium fuel. Diesel engines are also very expensive to manufacture -another issue that cannot be ignored. Did you ever compare Panasonic to Fujitsu or Runco- or even Pioneer Elite. Working in this industry I can only give you car-like comparison Panasonic is a KIA of plasma screens and Runco or Fujistu is a Ferrari. Now I understand you're extremely happy with Panasonic- without reference point about true quality what else can you say. Same goes for cars -you're in love with Lexus and can't open your mind and accept that there are other cars is some respect better in some worst-but they're out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RX400h Posted January 4, 2008 Author Share Posted January 4, 2008 I probably never compared to a Fujitsu or Runco because the stores here in San Diego don't carry them. What I can't see, I won't buy. I did look at the Pioneed Elite and although its picture was better that most others, it was just not as crisp as the Panasonic's. Besides, the Pioneers I saw had a temporary burnin of certain images. It was disturbing after seeing that the Panasonic had no such fault. Regarding other cars: What makes you think I haven't driven other vehicles? Our RX was purchased because it is as smooth or smoother than any BMW X5, Acura, or Mercedes. It at least equaled them in quietness and trounced them all in fuel economy. It really was a no-brainer, at least to my wife and me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Clark Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 I probably never compared to a Fujitsu or Runco because the stores here in San Diego don't carry them. What I can't see, I won't buy. I did look at the Pioneed Elite and although its picture was better that most others, it was just not as crisp as the Panasonic's. Besides, the Pioneers I saw had a temporary burnin of certain images. It was disturbing after seeing that the Panasonic had no such fault.Regarding other cars: What makes you think I haven't driven other vehicles? Our RX was purchased because it is as smooth or smoother than any BMW X5, Acura, or Mercedes. It at least equaled them in quietness and trounced them all in fuel economy. It really was a no-brainer, at least to my wife and me. Be careful trying to argue with "videophiles", they are more opinionated about their home theater equipment than we are about our cars. Runco and Fujitsu are not sold in big box stores. Runco has been making very high-end expensive stuff for a long time, they were known for their excellent CRT front projectors when those were pretty much the only option before advances in LCD. Plasma was not an option for me. I know some people like its picture best primarily because it delivers the best blacks but LCD and LCoS (including rear projectors) have made great strides. Also I needed at least 60" for my room (could go bigger) and 60" plasmas were out of sight. The best option I found was a 60" Sony LCD rear projector. Fantastic picture and a great value. The Sony LCoS rear projectors are probably the best value out there and their picture is great. Be careful, that burn-in you saw on the Pioneer was not temporary, any plasma can be burned, including your Panny. You must be especially careful if using the screen with a computer. Our car choice was simple, it had to be a hybrid so the wife could use the HOV lanes for commuting. I had driven a friend's MB ML AMG version (500hp) and it's a nice vehicle but the RX is more comfy and bigger. We like having a nice wagon for occasional road trips. The two options were the Highlander and 400h. A loaded Highlander Limited was only $3-4k less than the Lexus and it didn't have memory seats/mirrors/steering wheel. I AM very disappointed in what I've learned about the AWD since we purchased. We don't go off-road but I want "reasonable" AWD performance in the slippery stuff, it seems the 400h AWD is basically worthless. They probably could have gone with a more powerful single electric motor and a transfer case to get something closer to true AWD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.