Prius as a ski car?

Hawkshot99 said:

This is not entirely true. My mother has a Nissan Quest. It is a FWD, and as far as I can tell 1 wheel drive..... When the computer senses that the wheels are spinning at different speeds, even the slightest amount, it kills power till the are moving at the same speed I guess.
I have gotten it stuck in my driveway in 1" of snow. It did have the stock tires, but they were brand new. I had to turn off the traction control to move it up the driveway. Now I know that was just in the driveway, but I have driven it a little on the roads with a bit of snow and it is scary....Even with snow tires I would not want to drive this thing with any snow.

Click to expand...

You might still see world of difference with snows; I'll actually add to the statement, and say that the discussion is not complete until you specify the width of snow tire being used as well. My old Cougar had an open front diff and similar traction control to the Quest, was a little bit more biased towards the front but had less overall weight on the front wheels. With 185 width snows, though, it handled much better than my Subaru with 225 width snows (my Subaru will compete with any truck at not getting stuck, though.)

All cars need snow tires. The tires that come with suv's generally stink in the snow. Batteries fail because of heat more than the cold. That is why some batteries have hot weather models sold in the south. People have what is called "suv overconfidence". They think four wheel drive can do anything. The tow truck man by Hunter Mountain told me that he pulls more suv's out of the ditch because the driver's hit the brakes because they are going too fast and they slide into the ditch and are stuck because snow under the belly pan has the wheels off of the ground. Hitting the brakes in a 4000 lb. four wheel drive vehicle going downhill on slick roads is like trying to control a tobaggon. So, it's the driver not the car. I never get stuck, even though my cars are rear drive. I hate front wheel drive because of under steer and torque steer. And they are harder and more expensive to fix than rear drive. Ed.

Get a diesel. Shorter payoff period, much better resale value, more dependable, and more choices.

ctenidae said:

Get a diesel. Shorter payoff period, much better resale value, more dependable, and more choices.

Click to expand...

Subaru does have a new boxer diesel that will be out in the next year or two . . .

ctenidae said:

Get a diesel. Shorter payoff period, much better resale value, more dependable, and more choices.

Click to expand...

I'd normally agree with this, but unfortunately the cost difference in diesel fuel (due to taxes?) more than makes up for any increase in fuel efficiency.

wa-loaf said:

Subaru does have a new boxer diesel that will be out in the next year or two . . .

Click to expand...

I'm afraid that is in European market and we have to wait a few more years here. Diesel is just not that big here comparing to Europe.

http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/daily-news/080310-120212/

hiroto said:

I'm afraid that is in European market and we have to wait a few more years here. Diesel is just not that big here comparing to Europe.

http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/daily-news/080310-120212/

Click to expand...

I'm aware of that, that's why I wasn't specific about when. I did get some marketing stuff from Subaru talking about it and they seem to think it will be available in the 2010 models in the US. Take marketing stuff with a grain of salt of course.

In 10 years or so, I hope to have something like this at home:



and drive some thing like this:

hammer said:

I'd normally agree with this, but unfortunately the cost difference in diesel fuel (due to taxes?) more than makes up for any increase in fuel efficiency.

Click to expand...

The math seems to work out in favor of diesels, actually, even with higher diesel costs:

"Plus, because diesels are a more mature technology being produced in greater volumes, they come at a lower price premium compared with hybrids and their advanced batteries, transmissions, and electronics. For consumers, this adds up to a quicker payback. Take the 2007 Camry Hybrid vs. the gas-powered model. Edmunds.com found that the hybrid Camry carried a price premium of $2,000 to $3,800. With gas at $3 per gallon, the amount of time it would take a buyer to recoup the higher cost—through lower gas consumption—varied from three-and-a-half years to more than eight, depending on the model and the miles driven each year.

By comparison, Edmunds.com estimates that Mercedes' E320 Bluetec diesel, which goes for about $1,400 more than the similarly powerful gas-fired E350, will pay for itself in less than 24 months. Over five years, the diesel costs about $2,500 less to own than its gas-powered twin. "

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2008/db20080321_748642_page_2.htm

Apple to oranges, sort of, sure, but it makes sense to me that the lower premium on diesels will be faster to pay off than the higher one on hybrids. You also have to factor in the total ownership costs- with a hybrid, you will have to either pay to have the batteries replaced at some point, or take a haircut on the resale value. Diesel's really don't have that problem.

When teh diesel hybrids come out, then I'll be excited.

hiroto said:

I'm afraid that is in European market and we have to wait a few more years here. Diesel is just not that big here comparing to Europe.

http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/daily-news/080310-120212/

Click to expand...

I'm going to the National Subaru Dealer meeting here in a few weeks so I can report more specifics then. For now the info we have is that Subies diesel has launched in Japan this year, and has been planned for the US market in 2010.

ctenidae said:

The math seems to work out in favor of diesels, actually, even with higher diesel costs:

"Plus, because diesels are a more mature technology being produced in greater volumes, they come at a lower price premium compared with hybrids and their advanced batteries, transmissions, and electronics. For consumers, this adds up to a quicker payback. Take the 2007 Camry Hybrid vs. the gas-powered model. Edmunds.com found that the hybrid Camry carried a price premium of $2,000 to $3,800. With gas at $3 per gallon, the amount of time it would take a buyer to recoup the higher cost—through lower gas consumption—varied from three-and-a-half years to more than eight, depending on the model and the miles driven each year.

By comparison, Edmunds.com estimates that Mercedes' E320 Bluetec diesel, which goes for about $1,400 more than the similarly powerful gas-fired E350, will pay for itself in less than 24 months. Over five years, the diesel costs about $2,500 less to own than its gas-powered twin. "

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/mar2008/db20080321_748642_page_2.htm

Apple to oranges, sort of, sure, but it makes sense to me that the lower premium on diesels will be faster to pay off than the higher one on hybrids. You also have to factor in the total ownership costs- with a hybrid, you will have to either pay to have the batteries replaced at some point, or take a haircut on the resale value. Diesel's really don't have that problem.

When teh diesel hybrids come out, then I'll be excited.

Click to expand...

Diesel hybrids are on their way, with M-B leading; I think '09 or '10 model year. I'm just waiting for diesel-steam hybrid semis; there are massive gains there to be had in reducing demand for diesel.

I'm guessing the Edmunds comparo didn't factor in the recent hike in diesel prices (or was written before the hike.) Up until the last few months (I think, I don't regularly keep tabs on diesel prices,) diesel and regular gasoline were pretty close in price. Diesel engines, when compared to their similarly powerful gasoline alternatives in the same car, can typically expect around 30-40% mileage, about half from the higher density of diesel and half from higher efficiency. When diesel is $4/gallon and gas is $3/gallon in VT (guessing at gas, I know 93 octane is $3.30-3.40,) that eats up most of the better mileage benefit.