The Drive-a-Toyota Act
in [Toyota]
|
From: Jeff on 4 Jul 2007 13:40 dold(a)12.usenet.us.com wrote: > In alt.autos.ford Elmo P. Shagnasty <elmop(a)nastydesigns.com> wrote: >> Ford licenses Toyota's HSD, do they not? > > not. > > There is payment on some number of patents that might be infringing, > but there is no outright re-use of anything that belongs to Toyota. > > The original Ford design work was done by Volvo, and acquired with that > company. http://waw.wardsauto.com/ar/auto_toyota_kickstarted_ford/ The Volvo company that does a lot of hybrids makes trucks and is not owned by Ford. Ford and Toyota apparently will have a long relationship on hybrids: http://www.motorauthority.com/news/industry/ford-ceo-interested-in-toyota-hybrid-partnership/
From: Bill Putney on 4 Jul 2007 20:59 Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote: > In article <5f1lt7F386o15U1(a)mid.individual.net>, > Bill Putney <bptn(a)kinez.net> wrote: > > >>>Just like potential buyers will factor in the essential certainty that >>>they will have a very expensive transmission repair on any other car. >> >>That's BS. > > > Nope. A modern automatic transmission is a VERY complex piece of > machinery that even Honda can't get right. > > The average owner, or lessee, has no idea how to take care of it and/or > no incentive to do so. Somewhere at the 100K-125K range, it will likely > need serious repair. That's the real world. In my over 35 years of driving and car ownership, I have never had a single automatic transmission repair (other than 2 $20 speed sensors on late model Chryslers) - and that's at least 7 cars with automatic transmissions, and I don't think I've ever gotten rid of one with less than 170k miles on it. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
From: Bill Putney on 4 Jul 2007 21:01 Jeff wrote: > Bill Putney wrote: > >> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote: >> >>> In article <5f1c31F3ald6iU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >>> Bill Putney <bptn(a)kinez.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> And your hit on resale will be very big because potential buyers >>>> (the conscious ones anyway) will factor in the essential certainty >>>> that they will need to replace the batteries shortly down the road. >>> >>> >>> >>> Just like potential buyers will factor in the essential certainty >>> that they will have a very expensive transmission repair on any other >>> car. >> >> >> That's BS. There is a *small* chance that there will be a major >> tranny problem on a given used car - yes, it is a risk, just as there >> is a risk that you'll walk outside and get run over by a truck, but >> nowhere near a certainty. Yet the batteries have a very understood >> *finite* life. You're really reaching with that argument. > > > If it is so well understood, why don't you give us some references about > the life of a battery pack? > > Transmissions, engines, people - all have finite life times, too. > > Jeff > >> Bill Putney >> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my >> address with the letter 'x') You ever deal with computer UPS battery packs in a large company? Battery life is *much* more finite than automatic transmissions - very narrow bell curve. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
From: Bill Putney on 4 Jul 2007 21:10 dold(a)12.usenet.us.com wrote: > In alt.autos.ford Bill Putney <bptn(a)kinez.net> wrote: > >>You can subtract the $787.50 from the savings because *somenone* (the >>taxapyer) pays for that. Only if yuou ar a liberal do you ignore such >>costs. > > > Only if there were no hybrids. I would like to thank you for paying your > portion of my rebate, but the source of it doesn't affect the fit in my > pocket... I don't know whether to take issue with that particular statement ("...the source of it doesn't affect the fit in my pocket...") or not, as I don't understand its meaning. If you can explain its meaning I will either agree or disagree. *My* point was that the price to you would have been higher had I not paid part of its direct cost, so please factor in the amount that everyone else involuntarily contributed to your car for any real apples and apples comparison. I'm not sure what you could say that could make that not true, though maybe there is something I have not considered buried in your statement that I don't understand the meaning of. > I think of it along the same lines as the development cost for > Velcro, also funded by the taxpayer. Irrelavent to this discussion. We're talking about total cost of ownership of two different vehicls. Let's compare like for like to keep the compraison honest. >>Also I question your depreciatrion point, especially if the battery pak >>has not been replaced before you put it on the used market. The used car >>market will be sure to (and should) factor that in. > > > The used car market doesn't seem to be down on the hybrids. The battery > packs are not a factor yet, and they might never be. Given the > conservative state of charge that is maintained, they might never go bad. > In 11 states they have a 10 year warranty. Eventually, there should be an > aftermarket supply. It's only D-cell batteries. In the case of the Honda, > they aren't even high capacity, a total of $863 to replace them all. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
From: Jeff on 4 Jul 2007 21:35
Bill Putney wrote: > Jeff wrote: > >> Bill Putney wrote: >> >>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote: >>> >>>> In article <5f1c31F3ald6iU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >>>> Bill Putney <bptn(a)kinez.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> And your hit on resale will be very big because potential buyers >>>>> (the conscious ones anyway) will factor in the essential certainty >>>>> that they will need to replace the batteries shortly down the road. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Just like potential buyers will factor in the essential certainty >>>> that they will have a very expensive transmission repair on any >>>> other car. >>> >>> >>> That's BS. There is a *small* chance that there will be a major >>> tranny problem on a given used car - yes, it is a risk, just as there >>> is a risk that you'll walk outside and get run over by a truck, but >>> nowhere near a certainty. Yet the batteries have a very understood >>> *finite* life. You're really reaching with that argument. >> >> >> If it is so well understood, why don't you give us some references >> about the life of a battery pack? >> >> Transmissions, engines, people - all have finite life times, too. >> >> Jeff >> >>> Bill Putney >>> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my >>> address with the letter 'x') > > You ever deal with computer UPS battery packs in a large company? > Battery life is *much* more finite than automatic transmissions - very > narrow bell curve. The technology for most UPS's is lead acid battery. The technology for hybrid cars is nickel hydride. You are comparing Apples and Oranges. Jeff > Bill Putney > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my > address with the letter 'x') |